[ivraatiems]

That makes sense, except:

1) It's up to the user to decide whether a machine is usable for their needs or not, not Apple.

2) Locking users in at an older version and then refusing to support that version even just 3 years after it's come out is just too short a time window.

3) Offering no way for users who need an old version to get it except illegally is a non-starter for any purpose, security or not, again, because 3 years old is just not old enough to so completely phase it out.

While I agree that lack of usability is a concern, it seems to me that between lack of upgrade-ability, short OS version lifespans, and early phaseouts of old versions, Apple is intentionally forcing users to consistently upgrade once every 3-4 years at most. Fine business model, terrible for the end user, and a real detriment to Apple for me personally when the competition doesn't behave that way to that extent.

[iSnow]

>It's up to the user to decide whether a machine is usable for their needs or not, not Apple.

Well yes, but it is also a business decision. Further supporting an old machine with a changing toolchain means additional costs for development, testing and troubleshooting. Those are costs that Apple has to bear.

I won't contest your point that 3-4 years is too early, just saying that there's more to supporting old hardware than just including the same drivers as in the last release.

[ivraatiems]

You're absolutely right, but at the same time, if something WILL work but may not work optimally (or may not be supported for business reasons), I think it's more appropriate to say "hey, this is not recommended and if you do it you're on your own" than "you may not do this, no matter how well you know the risks." Apple chooses the latter path.