Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Skype Blocks Customers Using OS-X 10.5.x and Earlier

samzenpus posted about a month and a half ago | from the not-for-you dept.

Communications 267

lurker412 writes Yesterday, and without previous warning, all Mac users running Leopard or earlier versions of OS-X have been locked out of Skype. Those customers are given instructions to update, but following them does not solve the problem. The Skype Community Forum is currently swamped with complaints. A company representative active on the forum said "Unfortunately we don't currently have a build that OS X Leopard (10.5) users could use" but did not answer the question whether they intend to provide one or not.

cancel ×

267 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Microsoft (5, Interesting)

WillKemp (1338605) | about a month and a half ago | (#47618845)

Who owns skype now?

Re:Microsoft (1, Troll)

CaptainDork (3678879) | about a month and a half ago | (#47618969)

China?

Re:Microsoft (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619385)

Hey, If you run old, secure versions of the software, how can Microsoft do it's part helping the NSA preserve our precious freedoms?

Re:Microsoft (1)

currently_awake (1248758) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619441)

The Skype servers already forward everything to the NSA, why would the OS you run make a difference? Now blocking older versions of the Skype software might cause problems for them, but that's not the story.

Re:Microsoft (2)

WillKemp (1338605) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619567)

Skype's peer to peer - not server based.

Re:Microsoft (2)

lkernan (561783) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619617)

Skype's peer to peer - not server based.

NSA prefers to call it peer to peer via detour....

Re:Microsoft (4, Funny)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619683)

peer to peer
noun to verb...

Re:Microsoft (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619681)

Skype is only partially peer to peer now.

Originally, the skype network used 'super nodes' to route connections when both parties were behind NAT (without the port forwarded) and could not open a direct connection to each other. Microsoft replaced these super nodes with dedicated servers when they bought skype, in order to lift the bandwidth constraints and increase the call quality for these routed connections.

However, On command (of the NSA or other LEAs), you'll find all of your connections routed via a microsoft server for the purpose of wire tapping.

Re:Microsoft (4, Insightful)

puto (533470) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619029)

Who owns skype now?

Let met know when Apple allows other Os's can use Imessage. That is when they get it fixed.

Re:Microsoft (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619045)

Because you can fix it, right? You're just another blow hard slashtard. You don't have the power to do shit.

Re:Microsoft (-1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619075)

Right here:
http://cnedelcu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]

Re:Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619213)

All that does is let you connect your iphone to your windows computer. Which requires the iphone be jailbroken as well.

Re:Microsoft (1)

vux984 (928602) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619371)

From the link:

1) it works together with your iOS device, which means you need to have it with you -- kind of defeating the purpose
2) it requires your iOS device to be jailbroken -- which seemingly voids your warranty
3) it is a paid application that can be found on Cydia for $2.50

Yeah... that seems like a good solution.

I mean, if anything, its actually worse than this one to get get skype on 10.5 now:

http://gizmodo.com/you-can-now... [gizmodo.com]

Or hey, they can install Virtual Box, Windows 7, and then install skype. Really... I don't know what they are complaining about. -facepalm-

Re:Microsoft (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619115)

The real problem is going to be those Skype users with long-term subscription plans. They may have to invest in VMWare Fusion, which allows infidel operating systems, including any version of Windows, to be run in "sandboxes" on OS X. You can then install a Windows version of Skype on the sandboxed OS.

Re:Microsoft (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619535)

You can then install a Windows version of Skype on the sandboxed OS.

No you cannot, 10.5 is the last OS level that can be loaded on PPC machines these are likely all non-Intel machines.

Re:Microsoft (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619775)

Yes, Fusion has to run on an Intel Mac. Shoulda mentioned that.

Re:Microsoft (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619679)

These are likely PPC machines. However Microsoft Office's PPC version from that time came with Connectix's Virtual PC a fairly nice virtualization solution that actually included a licensed version of XP.

Re:Microsoft (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619639)

Seriously... Why would we go all out "Microsoft is evil" on this one? I mean, 10.5 is 6 years old at this point, there's been 5 major version updates since it came out, 2 of which have been completely free. Any computer who's maximum version is 10.5 is at least a decade old at this point. Frankly, I don't in any way blame MS for not supporting people on decade old machines.

They're all evil. Really evil. (2, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619793)

Because we're really, really tired of software that uselessly, needlessly, requires the "latest and greatest" operating system for no good reason at all, that's why.

If devs need a feature in a new OS -- for instance, let's say you produce something that works with Mavericks (10.9) new multiple screen features, and that's its purpose in life... ok, then the user needs Mavericks and it's perfectly reasonable for you to say "gotta have it, period."

But, say, if you have something as vanilla as an image processing application, with no real need for anything other than memory allocation and file dialogs, and lets say you add, oh, I don't know, a new RAW file format to the application, then please don't tie that capability to the latest OS. Like Apple did. That's just fracking stupid and really... straight up evil. Sure, it can be a system feature, but for the sake of all that's good and has holes in it, what the FUCK does it need the latest OS for? Can a library not maintain a simple bloody entry point? Can an image loader not be coded wholly without calling OS esoterica? Of COURSE it can. I've written HUNDREDS of them under three different major OS's without EVER having to tie even ONE of them to an OS level. So WTF do I have to change my OS in order to get my Canon camera's images to load into Aperture, you pinheaded dipshits?

While I'm at it, Apple and MIcrosoft, stop leaving broken OS's in your wake. When you sell an OS, and it doesn't work the way it was supposed to, you should fix it. Yes, even ten years later. You said it would work, you took the customer's money on that basis, and if it fucking well doesn't work the way you said it would, you need to step up to the plate and make sure it gets fixed. For instance, my Mac mini, at v10.6 can't print UTF-8 via the standard printing system from the console. I need this to print Chinese. Why can't it do this? Because there was a compiler bug in the compiler Apple used to make OSX for the mini. Said compiler bug has long since been fixed. There's nothing wrong with the actual OS code, so ALL it would take is a recompile and an update. WHICH APPLE REFUSED TO DO. No, you don't suddenly get out of saying it could print if it can't print. What you get is a fucking pie in the face and you lose a customer because you can't fucking be trusted to sell shit that does what you say it does.

You want to release a new OS? Fine. Great, even. But FIXING BUGS IN THE NEW OS DOES NOT FIX BUGS IN THE OLD OS!!!!!!

And no, everyone canNOT upgrade to the new OS. Stability is a thing people actually need. Re-testing everything can be a huge job. HUGE.

How about this: Don't release a new OS until... ...IT BLOODY WELL WORKS by which I mean you have NO MORE BUG REPORTS WHATSOEVER for, say, a couple months. From anyone. And all previously reported bugs are fixed.

Now THERE is a radical fucking idea. With a process like that, maybe my Mini could fucking well print like it's supposed to. /rant

Yeah, Microsoft's just as bad (and linux is no slouch at leaving busted shit all over the place either although I have to note they didn't directly take anyone's money and make promises, implied or otherwise, in the process), but I've been under Apple's nasty little thumb for a while now, so, you get Apple rants. My Microsoft rants are really old now.

argh.

And hey, developers... what's the deal with no true peer to peer video comm app without third party dependencies? Ask the OS what the WAN IP is, email the bloody thing to your contact, contact enters same on other end, make connection. Would work fine for a very, very large number of people. Surely the video mavens out there can manage this? Video's not magic, it's just a bloody stream of packets like everything else.

And hey, while I'm at it... no, never mind. Never mind. Blood pressure. Need my pills.

Re:They're all evil. Really evil. (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619923)

There are so many holes in your rant that I can't address them all without writing an essay. I'll just address a few of them.

How about this: Don't release a new OS until... ...IT BLOODY WELL WORKS by which I mean you have NO MORE BUG REPORTS WHATSOEVER for, say, a couple months. From anyone. And all previously reported bugs are fixed.

You'd never get a new OS release under that mandate. It's impossible to make something as complex as a consumer oriented OS without any bugs at all. And sometimes previously reported bugs can't be fixed without a redesign, which would require a new release.

And hey, developers... what's the deal with no true peer to peer video comm app without third party dependencies? Ask the OS what the WAN IP is, email the bloody thing to your contact, contact enters same on other end, make connection. Would work fine for a very, very large number of people. Surely the video mavens out there can manage this? Video's not magic, it's just a bloody stream of packets like everything else.

NAT, firewalls and other reasons render the approach of simply passing the WAN IP out-of-band infeasible. This will not work for a majority of people. For someone who claims to have written a lot of code in the past, I'm surprised you're not aware of this.

Re:They're all evil. Really evil. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47620009)

> It's impossible to make something as complex as a consumer oriented OS without any bugs at all.
It certainly is, particularly when what you really do is release the same old OS with a few API changes, but you massively ramp up the amount of badly-written, badly-designed components completely outside the purview of an OS that ship with it.

The version number is fairly arbitrary. The Windows control panel / advanced / edit environment variables dialog looks pretty much the same to me.

Re:They're all evil. Really evil. (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about a month and a half ago | (#47620011)

tldr: "I paid for something once so I expect updates forever. (tbh I pirated it)."

and linux aswell (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47618853)

I couldnt connect to skype yesterday from my ubuntu box. Way to go microsucks...

Re:and linux aswell (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47618923)

lol, i can connect fine from my linux box. maybe ur just too noob to do lol! get 1337

Re:and linux aswell (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47618965)

Do you know for sure that this is a problem caused by Skype itself, and not by Ubuntu? What was it that made you blame Skype?

I'm not saying it isn't a problem caused by Skype, of course, but when it comes to Ubuntu, especially new versions, I'm always suspicious that Ubuntu is somehow to blame. Ubuntu's quality has, in my opinion, really gone downhill since Unity became the default shell.

Linux distros in general used to be about robustness, but hipsters and the distros they're most involved with have moved away from that ideal rather significantly. They want to shovel crap out as fast as they can, even if it is total crap, and even if it does cause third-party software to malfunction.

Re:and linux aswell (5, Informative)

Tailhook (98486) | about a month and a half ago | (#47618983)

You have to upgrade to 4.3.0.37 on Linux to obtain connections. They've cut off earlier versions.

This is the sort simple minded behavior that seriously limits the value of Skype. I received no warning. Suddenly Skype stops working and my subscriber access is cut off. I find this out just as an important phone conference is getting underway.

When it works (which aside from this is all the time) Skype is absolutely great, even on Linux. $30-ish a year for unlimited call termination in North America and caller id that shows my regular cell phone, text messages (again with correct ID) — it's wonderful. But interfering with service by cutting off anything older than the most recent clients is just ridiculous.

Re:and linux aswell (4, Informative)

amiga3D (567632) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619071)

I absolutely love it. Any time that MS goes off like this and proves that my low opinion of them is valid make me happy. Good for MS, they're still the same company we always knew they were!

Re:and linux aswell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619231)

I think what people are missing is that these people are probably running PowerPC still, Apple doesn't support it with any of their products anymore. It's just another architecture to test it on, one that uses a different Endian than pretty much every other processor out there (customer market).

Re:and linux aswell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619875)

We're talking about Linux now, little boy. Do try to keep up.

Re:and linux aswell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619935)

I think what you're missing is that you're replying to a chain of messages that describe usage on Linux, not PowerPC Apple devices.

Re:and linux aswell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619123)

You have to upgrade to 4.3.0.37 on Linux to obtain connections. They've cut off earlier versions.

Older versions do work ( sorta, sometimes, ... ) . If you're getting random error messages just rm -rf .Skype and try again. Works with 2.2.0.25 on linux . Haven't been able to connect with 4.3.0.37 yet though ...

Re:and linux aswell (1)

andydread (758754) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619187)

There was a very recent update in the Ubuntu software center.

Re:and linux aswell (2)

Skarjak (3492305) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619325)

Your post makes me sad. I have been adding --ignore skype to my package manager update commands since version 4.3 requires you to have pulseaudio. I game on my machine and pulseaudio causes issues in multiple games, so I'm not about to install that. Especially since pulseaudio is such a pain when it comes to starting on its own. I'll stick with ALSA. I guess that means I'm going to have to uninstall skype. Will use the tablet until I can convince people to use another solution... So basically, damn you Microsoft for trying to force me to use pulseaudio! ALSA was doing a perfect job, not sure why they dropped support.

Re:and linux aswell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47620017)

Pulse Audio still sucks a decade later? I loathe that package to this day for wasting so many hours of my time. One of the reasons I switched to an OS X laptop; reached my limit fiddling with things that should just work (i.e., graphics and sound) after installing either a new distribution or on a new device. I love Linux, but only for servers these days.

Re:and linux aswell (1)

David Jao (2759) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619491)

Uh, what? I've been using Skype 4.0.0.8 on Linux (CentOS 6) for years. It still works. Nothing's been cut off.

Re:and linux aswell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619055)

same here for me. No amount of trying again fixes it.

Even tried opening up my developer VM's and then installing skype into what are essentially vanilla linux para-virts. They failed too.

No idea why. But I just get the "Can't connect" crap. I write C++, I'm no fool. I straced it and found it connects just fine sends some binary crap, then the other side closes and I get the message indicated above.

What a joke!

Re:and linux aswell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619359)

> not by Ubuntu

Just because the Ubuntu fanbois are too stupid to comprehend why you need traceroute or DNS to work doesn't mean they're as stupid as the fucking morons that the piece of shit company named Micro$hit hires. You're unfairly insulting those idiots. Seriously, their kind can't comprehend the purpose of /etc/resolv.conf, but that doesn't mean they're as stupid as the Bill Gates asskissers.

For comparison (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47618877)

This is roughly the equivalent of blocking Windows Vista. Vista was released in 2007 (January) as was Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard 2007 (October)

Things are different in the Mac world. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47618905)

Things are very different in the Mac world. Many Mac users buy for the long term. And by "long term", we're talking well over a decade. Buying a $2000 or more Mac isn't like buying a $400 Windows PC or a $150 Chromebook. Macs aren't seen as disposable computers that'll fall apart and be thrown out after only a year or two. They're built to last, the people who buy them expect them to last, and there's no reason why software that already runs on them shouldn't continue to run on them for years to come. Six or seven years is a very long time in the land of Windows, I will give you that. But six or seven years is half of the expected usable lifespan of a typical Mac.

Re:Things are different in the Mac world. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47618953)

Things are very different in the Mac world. Many Mac users buy for the long term. And by "long term", we're talking well over a decade. Buying a $2000 or more Mac isn't like buying a $400 Windows PC or a $150 Chromebook. Macs aren't seen as disposable computers that'll fall apart and be thrown out after only a year or two. They're built to last, the people who buy them expect them to last, and there's no reason why software that already runs on them shouldn't continue to run on them for years to come. Six or seven years is a very long time in the land of Windows, I will give you that. But six or seven years is half of the expected usable lifespan of a typical Mac.

Wow, see I the OP would never have known that. I own a still working LCII as well as a Bronze Keyboard PB

7 years for an OS is 7 years.

I never even intimated they were disposable. Sigh AC above me got his knickers in a twist and ranted about nothing I said. Welcome to /.

Re:Things are different in the Mac world. (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619083)

It might be the case that the mac hardware upgrade cycle is that much longer(though given how much of Apple's market is laptops, which take more of a beating, and how long killing XP by attrition is taking, that isn't certain: your basic wintel desktop is cheap and nasty but also fairly durable); but the OS support situation has been markedly faster paced and more unforgiving than on the PC side for quite some time now.

Your Core 2 Duo imac 5,1 or 6,1 (halfway through its 'expected usable lifespan') is currently unsupported on 10.9, as are even newer minis, airs, pros, and xserves.

Re:Things are different in the Mac world. (2)

speedlaw (878924) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619827)

I have two core 2 duo macs on Snow Leopard. I recently bought one an SSD and the other a fresh 1 tb HDD. They both work perfectly, do what I need, and with fresh drives, the 2006 and 2009 machines are good for another 5 years....on a per year cost, very reasonable. Last longer than any PC machines I ever had save a Toshiba laptop.

Re:For comparison (2)

nurb432 (527695) | about a month and a half ago | (#47618915)

No its worse, as there is that we could have PPC users here.. It wasn't until snow leopard that you could guarantee x86. The only upgrade path for them requires new expensive hardware too. People running visa, for the most part, just needed to grab a copy of win7 for a few bucks ( or free ).

Re:For comparison (3, Interesting)

OzPeter (195038) | about a month and a half ago | (#47618963)

This is roughly the equivalent of blocking Windows Vista. Vista was released in 2007 (January) as was Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard 2007 (October)

And my desktop Mac is stuck on Snow Leopard because Apple decided that my hardware can't run any OS-X later than that, regardless of the CPU being capable of doing it.

Re:For comparison (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619019)

Buy a new one.

Re:For comparison (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619365)

GTFO back to crapple.com, Mactard.

Re:For comparison (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619067)

no, it's totally different. windows vista is a supported product until april 2017, while osx 10.5 has been UNSUPPORTED by apple since june of 2011....

google, btw, dropped osx 10.5 in chrome way back around version 21, and Mozilla dumped it for firefox with version 16 being the last to support it.

Re:For comparison (1, Insightful)

iggymanz (596061) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619245)

No, there is no Windows LIfestyle that requires constant expensive support as the Apple Lifestyle does. Buy a new Mac and quit your whining, you pansies

Not without warning. (5, Informative)

Alan Shutko (5101) | about a month and a half ago | (#47618903)

Skype announced that they would be discontinuing support for older versions of the client back in June.

http://9to5mac.com/2014/06/20/... [9to5mac.com]

Re:Not without warning. (4, Insightful)

Frobnicator (565869) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619315)

Yes, the posted on their skype.com blog that old versions would be discontinued in the ambiguous future date. It applied to all platforms. A few tech news sites picked up on it, but nothing major.

A post on their company blog is vastly different from notifying customers (especially corporate customers) that their paid service is going to become inaccessible.

People pay for the service, and shutting out older clients should have much more notification.

A proper response would be to sending out an email to ALL active accounts and their billing addresses notifying them of all the versions that were being discontinued due to the change. This would allow businesses (where software is sometimes tightly controlled) adequate notice to update all the machines and conference rooms. It would also allow users (who are now stranded) an opportunity to report that there are no viable upgrade paths, and a chance to use the balance of their accounts.

Instead it has become a PR nightmare.

Re:Not without warning. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619743)

I got an e-mail informing that I was using an old version of Skype and it will no longer be able to connect. I'm not a corporate user, not even paying customer.

Re:Not without warning. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619749)

Corporate customers who do not pay for the service are called consumers. Corporate customers who pay for Microsoft VoIP service are called Lync customers.

Consumer customers are who you are talking about, and those consumers are running on a now unsupported version of Mac OS.

Re:Not without warning. (3, Funny)

Thagg (9904) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619975)

"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

Sorry but why is this news? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47618929)

Apple does not support their own 2 year old OSes, I have to upgrade my Mac to a more often than not crappier OS just to get things like Xcode running again and sometimes I even have to buy a new Mac because the old one is arbitrarily locked out from a software upgrade.
So why should Skype's developers care about an ancient version of OS X? Oh, I know, because they are Microsoft, and we love to bash them here!

Re:Sorry but why is this news? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619027)

This! I have a perfectly fine Core 2 Duo MacBook and I can't run the new XCode/iOS SDK or upgrade OS X to anything past Lion, why? Because Apple won't upgrade to a 64-bit boot loader. And before you say blah blah Intel graphics blah blah, I'm *SURE* Intel would provide new drivers if Apple wanted them to. /rant

Re:Sorry but why is this news? (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619433)

Mavericks and Yosemite will run on it.

Re:Sorry but why is this news? (2)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619709)

So, your model is from 2007, right? All of the 2009 and later ones support Mavericks, and the 2008 ones could use a 64-bit boot loader. 7, nearly 8, years is a good run for a laptop, particular one aimed at non-professionals.

Even so, yeah, compared to most Macs, you kinda got screwed, but that was sorta to be expected, given that they were going through the Intel and 64-bit transitions back-to-back. I more or less kept a death grip on my ancient PowerBook when all of that stuff started, upgraded to a last-model used PowerBook as the transition was well underway, and then finally bought a new Mac again after they were using the Intel i-series, since I was confident that I wouldn't see as many arbitrary cut-offs at that point. And I really haven't. It's been good.

Re:Sorry but why is this news? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619043)

Apple does not support their own 2 year old OSes, I have to upgrade my Mac to a more often than not crappier OS just to get things like Xcode running again and sometimes I even have to buy a new Mac because the old one is arbitrarily locked out from a software upgrade.

So why should Skype's developers care about an ancient version of OS X? Oh, I know, because they are Microsoft, and we love to bash them here!

I call bullshit on your lies. Any Mac on the list below (or later) runs Mountain Lion, Mavericks and (soon) Yosemite. If you are running something like the 2007 Mac mini (which has support deprecated) then you will have to upgrade to run Mountain Lion or later. Almost all Macs produced in the last 7 years runs current software - Xserve which is no longer produced is an obvious exception.

Supported hardware:

iMac (Mid 2007 or newer)
MacBook (Late 2008 Aluminum, or Early 2009 or newer)
MacBook Air (Late 2008 or newer)
MacBook Pro (Mid/Late 2007 or newer)
Mac mini (Early 2009 or newer)
Mac Pro (Early 2008 or newer)
Xserve (Early 2009)

And each recent version of OS X has been far better than Snow Leopard and free as well.

Re:Sorry but why is this news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619113)

The black macbooks of 2008 cant run the latest, maybe what he has. and i have one of those. i use at a media player for an apogee DAC remotely. point being anything from 2008 is SLOW just fucking upgrade

Re:Sorry but why is this news? (2)

amiga3D (567632) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619117)

I'm running Mavericks on a Late 2008 Macbook 13" Unibody and I have to say it's not significantly better than Snow Leopard. I remeber when I upgraded my iBook G4 to Tiger it ran much better than it had ever before. When I went to Leopard it actually ran slightly slower until I optimized the OS for it. I later obtained the 2008 Macbook and when I upgraded it to Snow Leopard it ran like a scalded dog. I'd say it was at least a third again faster than Leopard. Upgrade to Lion seemed sluggish at first but by the 3rd update it ran about the same as SL. Mountain Lion seemed much better but Mavericks seemed to slow down the UI. As far as all the Bells and Whistles they've added I can't say they matter that much to me. As far as I'm concerned Snow Leopard seemed to have everything I needed. I just upgraded because if you don't keep on the latest OS you start to miss out on security updates.

Re:Sorry but why is this news? (2)

Moridineas (213502) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619449)

I totally agree. I'm typing this on a Macbook Pro 3,1 (mid-2007, Core 2 Duo 2.4ghz. Upgraded to 6gb ram, installed an SSD, still runs great) running Snow Leopard. I'll upgrade when it dies and not before.

At work I'm running a Mac Pro 1,1, upgraded with two SSDs and 14gb ram, new Nvidia graphics card. I had upgraded it to Lion--wish I had left it on Snow Leopard. Still runs great, however.

Re:Sorry but why is this news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619769)

And each of these could run Skype.

Re:Sorry but why is this news? (2)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619967)

Apple does not support their own 2 year old OSes, I have to upgrade my Mac to a more often than not crappier OS just to get things like Xcode running again and sometimes I even have to buy a new Mac because the old one is arbitrarily locked out from a software upgrade.

So why should Skype's developers care about an ancient version of OS X? Oh, I know, because they are Microsoft, and we love to bash them here!

I call bullshit on your lies. Any Mac on the list below (or later) runs Mountain Lion, Mavericks and (soon) Yosemite. If you are running something like the 2007 Mac mini (which has support deprecated) then you will have to upgrade to run Mountain Lion or later. Almost all Macs produced in the last 7 years runs current software - Xserve which is no longer produced is an obvious exception.

Supported hardware:

iMac (Mid 2007 or newer) MacBook (Late 2008 Aluminum, or Early 2009 or newer) MacBook Air (Late 2008 or newer) MacBook Pro (Mid/Late 2007 or newer) Mac mini (Early 2009 or newer) Mac Pro (Early 2008 or newer) Xserve (Early 2009)

And each recent version of OS X has been far better than Snow Leopard and free as well.

You've asserted that Apple support hardware going back a few years. This has absolutely nothing to do with the OS version itself being unsupported, as the post you attempted to discredit referred to. If Apple doesn't support OS X 10.5, why should Microsoft?

Re:Sorry but why is this news? (1)

mysidia (191772) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619173)

Apple does not support their own 2 year old OSes, I have to upgrade my Mac to a more often than not crappier OS just to get things like Xcode running again

They won't however switch iCloud off access on you, so you can no longer get to your pictures, contacts, or calendar, just because your software version is a few years behind.

Re:Sorry but why is this news? (1)

Animats (122034) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619201)

They won't however switch iCloud off access on you, so you can no longer get to your pictures, contacts, or calendar, just because your software version is a few years behind.

Unless they committed to that contractually, they might.

Its hardware characteristics ... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619493)

Apple does not support their own 2 year old OSes, ...

Two days ago I booted up my 2008 MacBook that can not run newer versions of Mac OS X. It offered me various patches. Old versions of Mac OS X are supported.

... I have to upgrade my Mac to a more often than not crappier OS just to get things like Xcode running again ...

Xcode is a special case because it is a developer tool. There is an assumption that developers have the latest OS for testing purposes. Somewhat fair for Mac developers, less so for iOS developers.

... and sometimes I even have to buy a new Mac because the old one is arbitrarily locked out from a software upgrade.

Its not quite arbitrary. My 2008 Mac Book does not have a complete set of 64-bit drivers. The video chipset is an older Intel model that is a little slow. Its a little more than just the boot loader.

When Apple draws a line for OS support it tends to be based on hardware characteristics, not arbitrarily based upon age.

Proprietary power is always anti-user. (0)

jbn-o (555068) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619659)

It's news because so many people are never taught to think of software freedom [gnu.org] . Instead sites like this one shill for Microsoft, Apple, and a weaker "open source" message [gnu.org] that was designed to draw attention away from ethical examination of the issue. Cutting off service and not providing programs for various systems are just two of the things proprietors with the power they wield over users. Software freedom would mean letting users maintain older OSes as much as they want to, backport programs they found valuable, and run builds of modern programs as much as desired.

You're quite right to point out that Apple is no friend on these grounds. But this shouldn't be looked at in terms of business; the effect on the user is far more important. Proprietors are the same in how they treat people because the heart of any nonfree software is unethical power over someone else's use of a computer. Richard Stallman reminds us that Apple uses this same leverage to pressure users into malicious "upgrades" [stallman.org] :

Using the lever of "You have a choice, but unless you say yes, your old activities will stop working" is something that Apple has done before, with malicious "upgrades". Apple ostensibly doesn't force people to accept the new nasty thing; it just punishes them if they don't.

Nobody should be obliged to work on developing programs and nobody should have the power to prevent users from developing the software.

Re:Proprietary power is always anti-user. (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619927)

Not everyone agrees with Stallman's theory that he should get to dictate what license developers use, but then you knew that when you dropped that bit of trollbait.

IMO, freedom means you can choose not to use Skype, or Windows, or OSX, or anything else, and since Skype is both free and available with alternatives, its really no skin off anyones back whether you use it or some XMPP based program. Honestly, you're probably better off on XMPP in any case.

xp 64bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47618957)

they also blocked windows xp 64bit...

Re:xp 64bit (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a month and a half ago | (#47618971)

I'm willing to bet there's a way around the installer..

Re:xp 64bit (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619105)

I'm willing to bet there's a way around the installer..

It's usually modestly painful; but unless the vendor is really determined to fuck with you('Eh, I'm just going to embed my broken legacy installer in an MSI custom action table and pretend that I've actually tried; because effort sucks...' and/or 'DRM, messing with customers and not with pirates', most commonly) Orca [microsoft.com] can usually manage it.

Re:xp 64bit (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619301)

universal extractor works wonders for a lot of these, though the last version does have some outdated versions of the extractors. Many of them can be updated manually.

My Windows Skype just booted me during a call! (5, Interesting)

Dr. Spork (142693) | about a month and a half ago | (#47618973)

I was using the last pre-MS version of the client, which had the "ring all speakers" option. I have several sound devices in my computer, and when my headphones are plugged in, they on their own don't ring loud enough to hear an incoming call. Luckily my HDMI monitor has speakers that don't get any use, except that Skype could make them ring with the "ring all speakers" option. They were loud enough to hear calls. That was until about an hour ago.

My client just stopped working, booted me off the network, and after messing with it for a while, I finally got the message that my Skype version is too old, and that I either get the new crippled client, or I can't Skype at all.

Many people have petitioned to have the "ring all speakers" re-implemented. It worked great. But Microsoft's answer has been: Fuck you, we will never do that. Stop pleading, we don't care. It didn't bother me too much until today. I just thought I'd stick with version 5.10.116 forever. Oh well. So thanks, Skype, for making my life shittier today. Boy am I happy I pre-paid a year of unlimited Skype Out!

Re:My Windows Skype just booted me during a call! (2)

ian_po (234542) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619257)

Many people have petitioned to have the "ring all speakers" re-implemented.

There is a feature in some versions of MacOS X that allow you to create a logical Multi-Output Device for audio playback. The documentation says: "If you have several stereo output devices, you can have audio play through all of them by creating a multi-output device..." You can create a Multi-Output Device in Audio MIDI Setup.app if the feature exists in your OS. Then you could try setting the new device as the sound effects output in: System Preferences:Sound:Sound Effects:Play sound effects through:. This all presupposes that the Skype app uses the sound effects device for it's alerts and not the regular System Preferences:Sound:Output device. If skype alerts used the regular output and you have regular output set to a Multi-Output, it might be annoying if every speaker and line out is blaring your voice chats in surround sound.

Moral of the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619031)

Don't use Skype.
Switch to Trillian, it support skype accounts so it will still work.

Re:Moral of the story (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619135)

Trillian does VOIP?

Re: Moral of the story (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619635)

Trillian only supports Skype through Skype's API, which requires you to have Skype installed and running. Its not a solution.

If you're a developer please help contribute to http://tox.im

Skype disappointments (2)

alantus (882150) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619063)

Skype has been a continues stream of disappointments over the last few years.

First they started with this policy of taking away your credits if you haven't used them in a few years. They are still kind enough to let you "reactivate" them. This is like a bank taking your savings because you haven't used them in a while, but allowing you to get them back by dropping by. Its immoral and should be illegal.

Recently they also blocked access from the linux skype client 4.2.0.11 without any warning whatsoever, suddenly you just can't connect. And after updating to the latest version (4.3.0.37), it crashes every time. Turns out you have to do some changes to the sqlite database that holds your history (couldn't they do that automatically?).

Unfortunately opensource IM isn't much better. With so many usability issues, slow development (thinking about pidgin and gajim), and now Google turning their back on openness by disabling XMPP federation, the landscape of opensource IM looks gloomy.

Re:Skype disappointments (1)

Ksevio (865461) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619089)

My bank changed me a fee for not using my account in a couple years. It had no money in it, so it was then overdrawn by $10 which they charged another fee for. I called them up and they removed it saying it was "just go get people's attention"

Re:Skype disappointments (1)

norite (552330) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619121)

It's been going to shit ever since around the time it was taken over by microsoft

Re: Skype disappointments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619819)

I discovered Tox this week and though I'd love someone to do an actual security audit of it, the fact that it actually works and requires zero configuration makes it interesting to watch.

headline needs more Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619079)

Idiot Skype Blocks Customers Using OS-X 10.5.x and Earlier
Skype Blocks Idiot Customers Using OS-X 10.5.x and Earlier
Skype Blocks Customers Using Idiot OS-X 10.5.x and Earlier

Come on, which is it? The headline needs to tell me, the reader, what my bias should be.

Boo hoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619131)

Who gives a shit if some company doesn't support an OS that is (a) 5 versions behind the current one, (b) seven years old, and (c) has been obsolete for five years

"Swamped" BS (1)

dottrap (1897528) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619141)

48 replies to "DON'T FORCE ME TO UPGRADE!...PLEASE!", where the majority are people trying to help the few that are complaining, does not constitute "swamped".

In contrast there are 471 replies to "I show up as Online when I'm not"

Good to keep in mind when using Skype (2)

sasparillascott (1267058) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619161)

Microsoft gave the NSA pre-encryption access to all communication streams via Skype (through the rewrite they did after purchasing Skype). They've never said that access was removed.

http://www.theguardian.com/wor... [theguardian.com]

It's good to keep it in mind when using Skype (or choosing to continue using Skype) that all messages, pictures, conversations and videos are probably recorded by the NSA for future use. Bummer for the Leopard users on the convenience side of things.

So thankful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619287)

All hail Microsoft. They laid off thousands of employees but the ones who make these great decisions were spared.

Glad nothing has changed.

Sure... (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619293)

Let me upgrade my dual 2.5 G5 to Snow...

no build? (1)

xushi (740195) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619311)

"Unfortunately we don't currently have a build that OS X Leopard (10.5) users could use"

Except for the build we just blocked...

Not to worry (4, Insightful)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619323)

Microsoft will somehow find a way to destroy or abandon Skype like they did Zune, Nokia and other products...

Do you blame them? (1)

Ilsundal (3288) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619353)

C'mon. Most people are doing this. WHY?! Because Snow Leopard (10.6.x) is the first release of OSX that removes the PPC aspect of it. What software developer, in 2014 wishes to provide legacy support for an architecture that Apple abandoned 5+ years ago? No new Macs are being developed with PPC. Let's move with the times already.

Re:Do you blame them? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619397)

If they were smart about it, they'd just run the build scripts twice, once with each toolchain.. Surely the process can be automated like the multiplatform OSS projects do, making the overhead cost virtually nil.

Re:Do you blame them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619719)

If they were smart about it, they'd just run the build scripts twice, once with each toolchain.. Surely the process can be automated like the multiplatform OSS projects do, making the overhead cost virtually nil.

Surely, they're not smart enough.

Are people really still using Skype after Snowden? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619463)

We literally were informed that the NSA was the reason for the various parties purchasing Skype one right after the other. Then they redesigned it in order to enable NSA spying (or at least make it easier)! They totally rewrote core pieces that forces all traffic through a central point. It's the most illogical thing ever devised except where it concerns wiretapping.

Not to mention this is another crappy Microsoft product now. It's designed to frustrate you to no end and guarantees anti-user 'features' like digital restrictions, intentional bugs (called 'features'), and more.

Basically, there was no need to do this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619513)

It is just a corporation trying to force older version out of the market place, as they can't control these old versions as they would like.

Most likely a long term solution that will involve always paying for the service.

"The Skype Community Forum is currently swamped" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619583)

So, situation normal basically?

Down Hill Climb For OS X (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619647)

Since the introduction of Mac OS X 10.3, security is tossed out the window in order to appease the U.S.A. government (mostly White House directed and NSA affected).

The dumbing down of Mac OS X 10.3 to current and beyond is the removal of BSD architectures and channelize the kernel so that NSA has full access.

NSA full access is necessary by Obama Secret Executive Order. This particular order give the "President" extortion capabilities of users of Mac OS X particularly 10.7 and beyond.

Why does Obama need to extort citizens of the U.S.A. ? Money !

Easy (*) alternative? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619651)

Hangouts?

(*) By easy I mean I don't need to compile it on Linux, it will be already in my distro "software center"/repository. Also, and very important, Windows-only people will have a way to download it and install it.

Re:Easy (*) alternative? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619781)

FYI, hangouts doesn't support federation anymore. There were many threads about this.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>