"Relatively little"..? Well, for the wealthiest computer company, they could do anything if they wanted.
But they have to draw a line somewhere. Creating a new build of Snow Leopard for newer hardware would mean a separate team working on a forked branch of OS X from the "current" version. For what benefit? A few extra copies of Snow Leopard sold?
Rosetta is a seven-year-old temporary fix.
The removal of optical drives obviously reduces the production cost of the Mac, but that's not the only reason. Should we still have floppy drives? If you want a DVD drive (and I do), then you can buy any USB drive, not just Apple's one. But Apple makes decisions about whether everyone needs that bit of hardware, based on cost effectiveness, selling feature, and necessity.
Windows does indeed have better backwards compatibility (though it too has drawn lines in the sand) -- and it has handicapped its ability to make progress by doing so.
I've used plenty of old Macs long passed their sell-by date. They don't become obsolete because Apple released a new OS or new hardware. Keep using your old kit, running old software: that's fine. But don't expect new hardware to run old software. Always be prepared to move your data.
Thanks for some VG points. But probably best to agree to disagree on some issues.
IMO, it's debatable how many extra copies of Snow Leopard updated for newer Macs might have sold. Certainly there are many threads indicating that the number of users who relied on some form of Rosetta support is significant. That's over-looking, presumably, an even bigger number who don't usually make their views known on public forums.
Frankly, I've never understood the floppy drive example as a reason for eliminating optical drives from desktop computers. Floppies were always extremely limited. The extra data opticals hold is huge & their use extends well beyond what the limited floppy ever managed to achieve. BTW, I too needed an external optical drive so, FWIW, I bought a cheaper Samsung.
I think Apple makes decisions primarily based not on customers "needs", but on increasing profits. They know that the vast majority of users are effectively so locked in via their considerable investment in OS X, that they'll accept almost anything Apple does.
Apple's focus now appears to be mostly on their mobile devices & gradually integrating OS X with iOS. IMO, the "think different" philosophy went out the window years ago, probably with the switch to Intel.
I agree Macs have VG longevity, with inevitable exceptions. My iBook is still going well after 7 years. But my 2008 iMac lasted under 3 years. Regretfully, I never bought AC. Otherwise, I'd still be on Snow Leopard.
I still do most of my serious work in Mac OS X for VG reason, not least all the valuable time it saves me over the long-term. That's likely to remain the case for years to come.
