PDA

View Full Version : OS X Mountain Lion Officially Drops Support for Some Older 64-Bit Macs




Pages : [1] 2 3

MacRumors
Jul 11, 2012, 09:33 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/11/os-x-mountain-lion-officially-drops-suport-for-some-older-64-bit-macs/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/07/apple_64_bit_shield.jpg

With Apple having seeded the golden master build (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/09/apple-seeds-golden-master-of-os-x-mountain-lion-to-developers/) of OS X Mountain Lion to developers earlier this week, the company has locked in which Macs will support the forthcoming version of the operating system. While the machine requirements have been known for some time (http://www.apple.com/osx/how-to-upgrade/), the seeding of the final public release is a good time to remind users which machines will support Mountain Lion.Your Mac must be one of the following models:

- iMac (Mid 2007 or newer)
- MacBook (Late 2008 Aluminum, or Early 2009 or newer)
- MacBook Pro (Mid/Late 2007 or newer)
- MacBook Air (Late 2008 or newer)
- Mac mini (Early 2009 or newer)
- Mac Pro (Early 2008 or newer)
- Xserve (Early 2009)Ars Technica has more (http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/07/confirmed-mountain-lion-sends-some-64-bit-macs-gently-into-that-good-night/) on Apple's decision, including discussion of why Apple has dropped support for some early 64-bit Macs that do support OS X Lion.Apple declined to tell us the reasoning behind leaving some of these models out of potential Mountain Lion upgrades, but we suspected it was related to an updated graphics architecture that was designed to improve OS X's graphics subsystem going forward. Our own Andrew Cunningham suspected the issue was related to graphics drivers, since the GPUs not supported under Mountain Lion had drivers that were written before 64-bit support was common.

Information included with the first Mountain Lion GM now corroborates the connection to 32-bit graphics drivers as the culprit. While Mountain Lion is compatible with any Mac capable of running a 64-bit kernel, the kernel no longer supports loading 32-bit kernel extensions (KEXTs).The report notes that some of the GPUs used in early 64-bit Macs were deprecated before 64-bit KEXTs were in common usage, and thus they were never upgraded from their original 32-bit KEXTs. With the affected machines now being a number of years old, Apple apparently decided that it was not worth investing the resources to upgrade those drivers to 64-bit in order to support OS X Mountain Lion.

Article Link: OS X Mountain Lion Officially Drops Support for Some Older 64-Bit Macs (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/11/os-x-mountain-lion-officially-drops-suport-for-some-older-64-bit-macs/)



hollerz
Jul 11, 2012, 09:36 AM
Looks like Mountain Lion is the end of the road for my Mid 2007 iMac! Hopefully some nice new ones released in time for 10.9 :D

bobobenobi
Jul 11, 2012, 09:36 AM
The ARS report seems to miss that EFI64 is required for Mountain Lion. While a Mac might have a CPU capable of 64-bit, it still might be running EFI32 and therefore won't be supported. No EFI64 means no 64-bit kernel which means no Mountain Lion.

alent1234
Jul 11, 2012, 09:36 AM
what about my Powerbook? that was 64bit, i should be able to run it on that

applesith
Jul 11, 2012, 09:38 AM
Not too unreasonable.

mdntcallr
Jul 11, 2012, 09:38 AM
Whoah, bad news for me using a 3.0 2x dual core mac pro tower maybe.

Kinda pisses me off my mac pro may not get new osx, especially when there isn't a proper new mac pro. Apple ought not release osx that won't work on semi recent models. Pretty bad for customers. Could be an reason to upgrade... To a windows workstation

bedifferent
Jul 11, 2012, 09:38 AM
With the affected machines now being a number of years old, Apple apparently decided that it was not worth investing the resources to upgrade those drivers to 64-bit in order to support OS X Mountain Lion.

How much effort does it take to upgrade a kext/driver? I would guess less effort than working on "Game Center".

leman
Jul 11, 2012, 09:38 AM
They dropped all models which do not support at least OpenGL 3.2 core profile. I think this is the main story here. Personally, I welcome this decision.

O and A
Jul 11, 2012, 09:40 AM
I have 3 - 2007 mac pros at work. Not happy. Especialy as an iOS developer where apple will surely force me to run the latest OS X to run the latest version of xcode.

fishmoose
Jul 11, 2012, 09:41 AM
Good thing I upgraded from my early 2008 MacBook (plastic) to an early 15" MBP 2011 last summer. Don't want to miss out on Mountain Lion.

hobo.hopkins
Jul 11, 2012, 09:41 AM
People can't legitimately expect to receive the newest updates on machines that are 3+ years old.

Blakeasd
Jul 11, 2012, 09:42 AM
Barely made the cut on a unibody Late 2009, white MacBook :confused:

Schtumple
Jul 11, 2012, 09:42 AM
How much effort does it take to upgrade a kext/driver? I would guess less effort than working on "Game Center".

This is very true.

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 09:43 AM
The ARS report seems to miss that EFI64 is required for Mountain Lion. While a Mac might have a CPU capable of 64-bit, it still might be running EFI32 and therefore won't be supported. No EFI64 means no 64-bit kernel which means no Mountain Lion.

First Unibody Macbooks released in 2008 had EFI32 only and yet can still run Mountain Lion.

Radio
Jul 11, 2012, 09:44 AM
very fair.

this is why im on the verge of jumping ship entirely to apple.

my notebook is a sony vaio and support has been weak.

have they invented two button mouses yet in the apple world? :p

Baytriple
Jul 11, 2012, 09:44 AM
The ARS report seems to miss that EFI64 is required for Mountain Lion. While a Mac might have a CPU capable of 64-bit, it still might be running EFI32 and therefore won't be supported. No EFI64 means no 64-bit kernel which means no Mountain Lion.


I am running my Mac Pro 2,1 on Mountain Lion DP4. I'll be upgrading it when it is paid for.

You CAN run it on a Mac Pro 2,1 and earlier.

It took me a little time but really it is quite simple once you know what you are doing. You can PM me if you need any help.

Here is how you do it on a Mac Pro

http://www.jabbawok.net/?p=47

G51989
Jul 11, 2012, 09:44 AM
" macs last/supported longer than windozers lolz " whoops.

Sarcasam aside, its pretty typical of Apple to stop supporting computers pretty quickly. It helps force users to upgrade. Business model.

Hopefully 10.7 will be supported for awhile so older machine users can get more use out of their machines

Carniphage
Jul 11, 2012, 09:45 AM
The members on this forum thread seem to be making some headway in getting ML to run on older Macs - turning Macintoshes into Hackintoshes.

http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,1123.0.html

I haven't tried it, but someone should.

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 09:45 AM
How much effort does it take to upgrade a kext/driver? I would guess less effort than working on "Game Center".

Working on the low levels required for hardware access in a driver is where 32bit to 64 bit porting requires the most effort as often you're dealing with fixed width registries and can't simply "recompile" code into a 64 bit binary, you have to adjust types.

fishmoose
Jul 11, 2012, 09:45 AM
very fair.

this is why im on the verge of jumping ship entirely to apple.

my notebook is a sony vaio and support has been weak.

have they invented two button mouses yet in the apple world? :p

No. But you still don't have much of a reason to right click on a Mac ;) So it's all good.

Schtumple
Jul 11, 2012, 09:46 AM
People can't legitimately expect to receive the newest updates on machines that are 3+ years old.

I'm pretty certain a few years ago people used to say "5+ years", by 2015 are people going to be saying "People can't legitimately expect to receive the newest updates on machines that are the last generation."

supremedesigner
Jul 11, 2012, 09:46 AM
People can't legitimately expect to receive the newest updates on machines that are 3+ years old.

From what I read, looks like a machine that is 5+ years old can still run ML. Interesting.

jonnysods
Jul 11, 2012, 09:46 AM
How much effort does it take to upgrade a kext/driver? I would guess less effort than working on "Game Center".

Agreed!

bobobenobi
Jul 11, 2012, 09:46 AM
First Unibody Macbooks released in 2008 had EFI32 only and yet can still run Mountain Lion.

In that case, I guess it's boo ****** hoo for the unsupported. It's not like unsupported hardware will stop working when ML is released.

Navdakilla
Jul 11, 2012, 09:46 AM
Not a big deal. They are dropping support for computers 4-5 years old.
I would love to see my old single core windows xp computer handle windows 8.

Edit: Guess my old computer could run it afterall. My bad

easy4lif
Jul 11, 2012, 09:47 AM
I guess it gives my Mac a little life left. I'm still going to upgrade in mid 2013

Doombringer
Jul 11, 2012, 09:47 AM
People can't legitimately expect to receive the newest updates on machines that are 3+ years old.

Normally I'd agree, but I recently installed Win7 on a 4 year old Lenovo X60, and she hums. I'm wondering how Win8 would run...

mono1980
Jul 11, 2012, 09:47 AM
Sorry, but this seems a bit harsh to me. It seems nuts to me that you could have a computer you bought in 2008 and have it not work with the latest OS. Anything less than 5 years is too much.

ncianca
Jul 11, 2012, 09:48 AM
very fair.

this is why im on the verge of jumping ship entirely to apple.

my notebook is a sony vaio and support has been weak.

have they invented two button mouses yet in the apple world? :p

In fact they got rid of the only one they still had.

SeattleMoose
Jul 11, 2012, 09:48 AM
Planned obsolescence drives HW sales. And if you just state the truth there will be @#$% to pay. When I invest in a computing device I want it to be able to stay current for a MINIMUM of 5 years.

Clearly Apple has a different "minimum" in mind for most of its computing devices.:eek:

And since the trend is away from DIY upgrades/part replacements...we are even more at the mercy of the computer industry. If they ever get to one year disposable devices, hopefully we will be able to trade them in for a sizable down payment to get the latest and greatest.

roadbloc
Jul 11, 2012, 09:48 AM
I dislike how early Apple drop support for Macs.

ChazUK
Jul 11, 2012, 09:49 AM
Not a big deal. They are dropping support for computers 4-5 years old.
I would love to see my old single core windows xp computer handle windows 8.

Does it meet these specs?


Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster
RAM: 1 gigabyte (GB) (32-bit) or 2 GB (64-bit)
Hard disk space: 16 GB (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)
Graphics card: Microsoft DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM driver

G51989
Jul 11, 2012, 09:49 AM
People can't legitimately expect to receive the newest updates on machines that are 3+ years old.

Some people can, I call them Windows/linux users. As long as you have a decently speced machine ( fast single core, early dual core, at least 2gb of ram and a 6k series or better gpu. ), there's no reason a 7 year old machine can't run windows 7. And hell, windows xp is still patched and supported 10 years later.

The only real reason most of these machines can't run 10.8 is because apple says so.

Mad Mac Maniac
Jul 11, 2012, 09:51 AM
Your Mac must be one of the following models:

- iMac (Mid 2007 or newer)
- MacBook (Late 2008 Aluminum or newer)
- MacBook Pro (Mid/Late 2007 or newer)
- Mac Pro (Early 2008 or newer)


Really??? So the Mac Pro is given the same treatment as the Generic "Macbook" line? And is given worse support than the iMac and MBP? I feel sorry for Mac Pro buyers... Apple really hates you. I'm pretty sure the Mac Pro has only been refreshed once since it's "Early 2008 or newer"

Edit: ok twice. And no, I don't count that "update" last month...

edenwaith
Jul 11, 2012, 09:52 AM
have they invented two button mouses yet in the apple world? :p

Apple decided that one button was already one too many, so they've gone to the no-button mouse, instead.

Next up: the keyless keyboard

----------

what about my Powerbook? that was 64bit, i should be able to run it on that

You need to have a PowerBook G5 to run Mountain Lion, sorry.

jmggs
Jul 11, 2012, 09:52 AM
People can't legitimately expect to receive the newest updates on machines that are 3+ years old.

Planed obsolescence :mad:
That why like Linux a lot. I have a Pentium 4 Server that runs like hell the last version of Linux and rocks! :D

A 3+ years old computer is not so old to run updated software. Windows 7 can run pretty good in 6 years old or more PC.

That's why i think Apple don't care about environment. They want force people to buy and buy new gear trashing away very capable gear.

This starts to make remember a time that my mobile phone broken and i go assistance and the guy said that phone it's old...that phone was released 6 months ago!!!!

Mr_Ed
Jul 11, 2012, 09:53 AM
Apple decided that one button was already one too many, so they've gone to the no-button mouse, instead.

Next up: the keyless keyboard

Isn't that where Siri is headed? :p

blow45
Jul 11, 2012, 09:54 AM
Apple apparently decided that it was not worth investing the resources to upgrade those drivers to 64-bit in order to support OS X Mountain Lion
How much resources does one have to invest to update a bunch of drivers? :rolleyes:

What's particularly irritating about this is that lion wasn't a good os, ml is supposed to offer fixes and enhancements (a would say it's a service pack, but some will disagree).

Apple had us update to lion on our older macs, suffer them slowing down, being less capable, less responsive and more buggy, and now a year later when they release what's supposed to be a better os, that some say brings things up to par with snow leopard they are withholding this from us.

I had been using mobileme, I was paying dearly for very mediocre (by SJ's admission) service. Apple moved to the free icloud and I felt compelled to upgrade mostly because I wanted mm functionality that I couldn't have in sl.

Now after a year suffering through lion, apple tells me to eff off, because they don't think they can spare the "resources" to support my computer....

People can't legitimately expect to receive the newest updates on machines that are 3+ years old.

Is this guy for real? Windows 8 will run on machines that are 7+ years old....

bearda
Jul 11, 2012, 09:54 AM
what about my Powerbook? that was 64bit, i should be able to run it on that

Only if they shipped the G5 Powerbook last week and I missed it. G4s were 32-bit only.

Diode
Jul 11, 2012, 09:55 AM
My mid 2007 iMac barely makes the list. Guess I'll have to upgrade to the next one when 10.9 rolls out next year :D

Sasparilla
Jul 11, 2012, 09:55 AM
Whoah, bad news for me using a 3.0 2x dual core mac pro tower maybe.

Kinda pisses me off my mac pro may not get new osx, especially when there isn't a proper new mac pro. Apple ought not release osx that won't work on semi recent models. Pretty bad for customers. Could be an reason to upgrade... To a windows workstation

Well, if you're pondering Windows, just save yourself the money for a new machine (guessing your Mac Pro runs just fine at this point) and install Windows 7 on your Mac Pro and you'll get security updates through 2020.

SleeplessChaos
Jul 11, 2012, 09:57 AM
On the plus side, there will probably be decently significant price drops on quite a few good macs that can still run lion and snow leopard.

Definitely nothing like the old Power PC prices for the time being, but the perceived value of these older macs is bound to go down considering that they'll be left out of every major OS update from here on out.

Schizoid
Jul 11, 2012, 09:58 AM
Bugger, I was going to run ML Server on one of my early Intel Xserves... would be a great web/wiki server... some nice features coming up in ML...

alas this machine, is now stuck in the OS X black hole...

dynamojoe
Jul 11, 2012, 09:58 AM
I have an aluminum macbook ('08). Looks like this might be the last new OS for it. Considering it's four years old in a few months, I can't complain too much. I have a little more time to sell this unit to finance an upgrade.

clukas
Jul 11, 2012, 09:59 AM
I'm pretty certain a few years ago people used to say "5+ years", by 2015 are people going to be saying "People can't legitimately expect to receive the newest updates on machines that are the last generation."

I agree, when I buy a pc I usually go full out and expect it to last around 5 years (3-4 on a laptop depending on battery). 3 years is short for modern day standards especially if you buy top of the range and bump ram.

hirshnoc
Jul 11, 2012, 09:59 AM
How about,

"We want those who purchased a Macintosh in early 2007 or before to purchase another one."

Pretty simple reasoning...

russofris
Jul 11, 2012, 10:00 AM
People can't legitimately expect to receive the newest updates on machines that are 3+ years old.

Longevity (when compared with a Windows PC) is one of the reasons many of us purchase a Mac. While I hate assigning arbitrary numbers to something as intangible as OS Support, 3 seems low.

That said, I hope they maintain Lion for another year or two as they did with PPC/10.5.

F

hayesk
Jul 11, 2012, 10:00 AM
Whoah, bad news for me using a 3.0 2x dual core mac pro tower maybe.

Kinda pisses me off my mac pro may not get new osx, especially when there isn't a proper new mac pro. Apple ought not release osx that won't work on semi recent models. Pretty bad for customers. Could be an reason to upgrade... To a windows workstation

And then what? If you are on a Mac, then you must prefer the platform. So in a year, when Apple releases actually new Mac Pros, are you going to switch back, or remain on Windows out of spite?

The question that you really must ask yourself is "what is in Mountain Lion that I need to have before next year? Does Windows provide that feature in Mountain Lion that I absolute need?"

And I'm not being a fanboy here - switching platforms for a temporary inconvenience is pretty stupid no matter which platform you prefer.

foodog
Jul 11, 2012, 10:01 AM
No. But you still don't have much of a reason to right click on a Mac ;) So it's all good.

All Apple mice have right and left click... have been for sometime

Itpirate
Jul 11, 2012, 10:02 AM
That stinks! I can upgrade my 08 iMac, but not my 2007 Mac Pro? My Mac Pro can run circles around my iMac.:(

powers74
Jul 11, 2012, 10:02 AM
Looks like Mountain Lion is the end of the road for my Mid 2007 iMac! Hopefully some nice new ones released in time for 10.9 :D

Probably for my early '09 MacPro too.

Mad Mac Maniac
Jul 11, 2012, 10:03 AM
People can't legitimately expect to receive the newest updates on machines that are 3+ years old.

You're kidding right? I don't understand how this is anything but a joke... Windows 8 will be supported on PC's that are a decade old. 3 years is nothing for a $1,000-$3,000 computer.

I understand Apple pushes hardware sales where Microsoft pushes software sales but still....

I think 5 years is a good length of time for compatibility for a Mac. All Mac's released 2007 and later.

And yes... I have a late 2007 Macbook ;)

blow45
Jul 11, 2012, 10:03 AM
Really??? So the Mac Pro is given the same treatment as the Generic "Macbook" line? And is given worse support than the iMac and MBP? I feel sorry for Mac Pro buyers... Apple really hates you. I'm pretty sure the Mac Pro has only been refreshed once since it's "Early 2008 or newer"

Edit: ok twice. And no, I don't count that "update" last month...

Apple doesn't respect their pro users, period. If they did they wouldn't have been issuing an "update" with 2 year old hardware and no usb3 and/or thunderbolt in 2012.

Winni
Jul 11, 2012, 10:03 AM
From what I read, looks like a machine that is 5+ years old can still run ML. Interesting.

Mountain Lion GM runs like crap on my two year old 27" iMac i5 with 8GB RAM. Windows 8 --FLIES-- on Dell notebooks that are several years older than my iMac. My Mac Pro 1,1 could neither run Lion nor the 64-Bit kernel of Snow Leopard, but 64-Bit Windows ran on it just perfectly. THAT is interesting, because it says a lot about how lousy Apple supports hardware that has barely reached its third year.

hayesk
Jul 11, 2012, 10:04 AM
Planed obsolescence :mad:
That's why i think Apple don't care about environment. They want force people to buy and buy new gear trashing away very capable gear.

Except that on average, Mac owners keep their computers longer than PC users. Only geeks like us have to have the latest and greatest OS. My wife, who is a programmer by trade, still runs 10.6 on her MacBook. Why? Because it still does what she needs it to do. It didn't suddenly stop working when Lion was released.

Amazing Iceman
Jul 11, 2012, 10:04 AM
Wow! I barely made it!!! :eek:
Time to start saving for a new iMac

rworne
Jul 11, 2012, 10:04 AM
The ARS report seems to miss that EFI64 is required for Mountain Lion. While a Mac might have a CPU capable of 64-bit, it still might be running EFI32 and therefore won't be supported. No EFI64 means no 64-bit kernel which means no Mountain Lion.

Yup, that's my concern.

I have an iMac here that was purchased in Nov 2007 (MB322LL/A: definitely mid-2007 Core2duo Extreme model) that reports back EFI32 and I know it does not boot a 64-bit kernel.

We also have a MB325LL/A, with is an early 2008 model that does support EFI64.

Ah, think I found the answer here:
http://www.everymac.com/mac-answers/snow-leopard-mac-os-x-faq/mac-os-x-snow-leopard-64-bit-macs-64-bit-efi-boot-in-64-bit-mode.html

The 64-bit boot capability is locked out, but it is there.

Winni
Jul 11, 2012, 10:04 AM
That stinks! I can upgrade my 08 iMac, but not my 2007 Mac Pro? My Mac Pro can run circles around my iMac.:(

Put Windows or Linux on it. You'll be better off.

russofris
Jul 11, 2012, 10:04 AM
How much effort does it take to upgrade a kext/driver? I would guess less effort than working on "Game Center".

At a minimum, it would take recompilation. At a maximum, it would take nearly a complete rewrite. To quantify this for you, recomp would take hours. Rewrite would take a year.

F

Sasparilla
Jul 11, 2012, 10:05 AM
On the plus side, there will probably be decently significant price drops on quite a few good macs that can still run lion and snow leopard.

Definitely nothing like the old Power PC prices for the time being, but the perceived value of these older macs is bound to go down considering that they'll be left out of every major OS update from here on out.

Very true, but the security updates from Apple (seemingly becoming more important over the last year or two) will stop for Snow Leopard at the end of this month (Mountain Lion release, Apple only supports the 2 most recent releases) even though Lion was only out for a year.

Security updates for those stuck on Lion (myself included with a Mac Pro quad core) will presumably end next year (as it seems Apple is now doing yearly OS releases like they do for iOS) - security updates for 2 years and out.

chaosbunny
Jul 11, 2012, 10:05 AM
I doubt it's a major problem to continue to use ones computer without facebook, twitter and icloud buttons everywhere.

SpiderDude
Jul 11, 2012, 10:06 AM
People can't legitimately expect to receive the newest updates on machines that are 3+ years old.

I'm sorry. One of the main arguments to defend apple's high entry price is the durability of the computers...

My late 2008 aluminum macbook, when pumped up with 4 gigs of ram and a SSD is supposed to run for 3 more years.
Not for gaming of course, but for office and internet browsing there's no reason for it not to.

And I don't care for technical reasons. Common sense demands it happens.


Mac'on.

EricBlue
Jul 11, 2012, 10:07 AM
I really dislikes this! My black macbook runs like a charm on Snow leopard. But since XCode 4.2 I cant upgrade xcode anymore. And now they are gonna require me to buy a new computer, to be able to use XCode.

It´s like 1200 Euro for a new Mac, which I is a lot of money for me. :(

How difficult can it be to develop new drivers.

jmggs
Jul 11, 2012, 10:08 AM
Except that on average, Mac owners keep their computers longer than PC users. Only geeks like us have to have the latest and greatest OS. My wife, who is a programmer by trade, still runs 10.6 on her MacBook. Why? Because it still does what she needs it to do. It didn't suddenly stop working when Lion was released.

In some way you are correct. But i see more and more people going like nuts buying the last ipad and iphone. Because the one they have don't support this and that...

parapup
Jul 11, 2012, 10:08 AM
Working on the low levels required for hardware access in a driver is where 32bit to 64 bit porting requires the most effort as often you're dealing with fixed width registries and can't simply "recompile" code into a 64 bit binary, you have to adjust types.

I gotta disagree - it is effort but for well adjusted kernel developers working on a sanely designed OS - it is not that big of a deal. (Unless of course Apple's GPU vendors are refusing to help - but I don't see why that should be an issue.) This is either issue with Apple's priorities (Game center higher than people's perfectly good old Macs) or implementation (so bloated down with glitter those old GPUs bog down fast).

throttlemeister
Jul 11, 2012, 10:09 AM
Not a big deal. They are dropping support for computers 4-5 years old.
I would love to see my old single core windows xp computer handle windows 8.

No problem. My dad's happy as a clam running W7 on his Northwood P4 2.8 single core and 2GB of memory, and it does run just fine - for what he uses his computer for (internet and office stuff). It'll run W8 just as well. A hand-me-down system (from me) built in 2002.

One of these days I'll upgrade him to the C2Q I still have sitting at home, unused since I got my Mac in 2009.

WannaGoMac
Jul 11, 2012, 10:10 AM
People can't legitimately expect to receive the newest updates on machines that are 3+ years old.

You must be kidding.

mdelvecchio
Jul 11, 2012, 10:10 AM
No. But you still don't have much of a reason to right click on a Mac ;) So it's all good.

what are you talking about? mac's have supported multiple-button mice for ages. apple's Mighty Mouse and Magic Mouse have offered two buttons for years.

TimTheEnchanter
Jul 11, 2012, 10:11 AM
You're kidding right?.... 3 years is nothing for a $1,000-$3,000 computer....
5 years is a good length of time for compatibility for a Mac.
And yes... I have a late 2007 Macbook ;)

100% agree and I have new Macs.

SpiderDude
Jul 11, 2012, 10:12 AM
That stinks! I can upgrade my 08 iMac, but not my 2007 Mac Pro? My Mac Pro can run circles around my iMac.:(

I love OSX. But I'm really getting fed up with this flimsy "feels-like" of Apple.

It's just like not putting siri on iPad 2.

People already throw money at Apple, the only reason why we don't renew our Apple gear more frequently is because some of us are not made of money.

Mac'on

KdParker
Jul 11, 2012, 10:13 AM
People can't legitimately expect to receive the newest updates on machines that are 3+ years old.

Maybe 5 years, but I would say yes they should receive updates for year 3 - 4.

bedifferent
Jul 11, 2012, 10:13 AM
At a minimum, it would take recompilation. At a maximum, it would take nearly a complete rewrite. To quantify this for you, recomp would take hours. Rewrite would take a year.

F

So worst case, a complete rewrite for a kext in order to support hardware that can run 10.8 would be required. Wasn't 10.8 a complete re-write of Lion, as 10.6 was for 10.5?

Apple could have easily implemented support for certain systems that still technically meet the necessary requirements. Instead, iOS features seemed to be the focus for engineers and Apple can sell more hardware for those who need 10.8 support. Sorry, but this is simply a business strategy by a company that pushes a 3 year turn over rate for their systems (OS X and AppleCare support are evidence to this point).

UPDATE: Thank you MacRumors for FINALLY removing the negative voting system! :D

Flitzy
Jul 11, 2012, 10:13 AM
very fair.

this is why im on the verge of jumping ship entirely to apple.

my notebook is a sony vaio and support has been weak.

have they invented two button mouses yet in the apple world? :p

I've had a magic mouse for two years and could use two buttons.

In fact, Lion has an option in System Preferences to use the secondary button.

Is there any page which tells what your Mac is? It's hard to tell from the years - is there any place that converts models to year ranges?

mdelvecchio
Jul 11, 2012, 10:14 AM
I'm sorry. One of the main arguments to defend apple's high entry price is the durability of the computers...

and your argument continues to stand -- not being able to run the latest & greatest OS X doesnt in anyway de-value the usefulness of your version. it's every bit as functional as the day you bought it, probably more.

just stop comparing it to whats new *today*.

TDPHunter
Jul 11, 2012, 10:14 AM
I think this is just a case of the sweet spot. Apple Supports computers for 5 years and then they get labeled Vintage (aka Unsupported/Obsolete). This is just that rare case when some hardware was 32-bit when it should of been 64-bit. Anytime I look at buying a computer I always look at the internals and see what the life span of the technology is or if I may have a problem in the future. When everything was moving to 64-bit I wouldn't of bought a Mac that had hardware that only supported 32-bit drivers. Unfortunately, because of Marketing and things like that.. your average consumer wouldn't be thinking about this.

Moonjumper
Jul 11, 2012, 10:16 AM
My late 2006 iMac is plenty fast enough for iOS app development, but sometime in the next year I won't have access to the latest Xcode, so will be frozen out.

They must have a better reason than graphics drivers.

parapup
Jul 11, 2012, 10:16 AM
... running W7 on his Northwood P4 2.8 single core and 2GB of memory, and it does run just fine - for what he uses his computer for (internet and office stuff). It'll run W8 just as well. A hand-me-down system (from me) built in 2002.


Great part is that W7 will continue to run until what - 2020 - complete with security updates and driver updates if they happen. With the reduced upgrade pricing on W8, Microsoft clearly seems to be offering the better deal since W7.

And all the bull crap about "legacy resulting in instability" is just that -crap! W7 is stable as a rock.

deputy_doofy
Jul 11, 2012, 10:18 AM
I'm torn on Apple's thought process.

A) I can appreciate the fact that they will push forward technology, which will prematurely obsolete hardware.
B) I can understand customers being upset that fairly powerful hardware a few years later will be left behind for (seemingly) no reason.

That said, ML is not an absolute necessity (for now). My older (2006) MBP still runs 10.6 like a champ. No plans to move beyond that. My 2010 runs Lion nicely and I suspect will run ML nicely as well.

Not in the market for a new Mac, nor do I yet have the money. Maybe 2014 or 2015...

Mad-B-One
Jul 11, 2012, 10:18 AM
I have 3 - 2007 mac pros at work. Not happy. Especialy as an iOS developer where apple will surely force me to run the latest OS X to run the latest version of xcode.

My suggestion: Sell them at Craig's List quickly and buy some used ones that are supported (I mean used, so it doesn't break your bank) - before Mountainlion is out of its cage.

blackhand1001
Jul 11, 2012, 10:18 AM
Not a big deal. They are dropping support for computers 4-5 years old.
I would love to see my old single core windows xp computer handle windows 8.

There are tons of of machines close to 10 years old now that will run windows 7 and windows 8. Windows 8 is actually less resource intensive than windows 7. Windows 7 runs great on these machines as well.

jabbawok
Jul 11, 2012, 10:18 AM
I am running my Mac Pro 2,1 on Mountain Lion DP4. I'll be upgrading it when it is paid for.

You CAN run it on a Mac Pro 2,1 and earlier.

It took me a little time but really it is quite simple once you know what you are doing. You can PM me if you need any help.

Here is how you do it on a Mac Pro

http://www.jabbawok.net/?p=47

Yup Providing you dump that old 7300GT, its all cool.

AcesHigh87
Jul 11, 2012, 10:19 AM
Well, I guess my Early 2008 Macbook (That still runs Lion with no issue at all) won't be getting ML. I'll still put it on my iMac but it's kinda annoying that I'm sure it would run fine and won't be getting supported anyway. Might downgrade it to SL in order to play old games I guess, since it won't be supported for new OS' anyway.

KdParker
Jul 11, 2012, 10:19 AM
:DDoes it meet these specs?

Once you loose the ipad2...what rumors site will you follow :D

jv2
Jul 11, 2012, 10:19 AM
Well, this is ok by me as I'm lucky enough to have a new rMBP except when it comes to VPN. It's beautiful, but absolutely can't boot (and work) in 32bit mode. Of course I've only got a 32bit Cisco VPN client, so I can't use that. There is a 64bit Cisco VPN client, but Cisco wants people to PAY for that client... ugh

Apple's internal "Cisco VPN" works for 40 minutes then stops working. So that means every 40 minutes I've got to reconnect to the vpn.. ugh.

So, I hope apple has REALLY FIXED the "Cisco VPN" to work properly in ML, otherwise I can't use a brand new state of the art laptop with a Cisco VPN... (I even tried Shimo, but that doesn't work properly either).... ugh

Anyone else in this boat? Suggestions?

Itpirate
Jul 11, 2012, 10:19 AM
I find it odd that an 07 iMac is supported, but an 07 Mac Pro is not:confused:

unlinked
Jul 11, 2012, 10:20 AM
People can't legitimately expect to receive the newest updates on machines that are 3+ years old.

I thought the iOSification of OS X was bad but it aint nothing compared to the Androdification.

KdParker
Jul 11, 2012, 10:21 AM
So worst case, a complete rewrite for a kext in order to support hardware that can run 10.8 would be required. Wasn't 10.8 a complete re-write of Lion, as 10.6 was for 10.5?

Apple could have easily implemented support for certain systems that still technically meet the necessary requirements. Instead, iOS features seemed to be the focus for engineers and Apple can sell more hardware for those who need 10.8 support. Sorry, but this is simply a business strategy by a company that pushes a 3 year turn over rate for their systems (OS X and AppleCare support are evidence to this point).

UPDATE: Thank you MacRumors for FINALLY removing the negative voting system! :D

Oh it is still there...just have to vote up first then down...

I guess I was wrong...can't vote my own comment down...

Guess you really need to disagree to vote it down.

jabbawok
Jul 11, 2012, 10:22 AM
First Unibody Macbooks released in 2008 had EFI32 only and yet can still run Mountain Lion.

My Stepdad has one and it Has EFI64 and will boot 64 K+E
Correction, It's a later Pro he has.

madmin
Jul 11, 2012, 10:23 AM
I think this is just a case of the sweet spot. Apple Supports computers for 5 years and then they get labeled Vintage (aka Unsupported/Obsolete). This is just that rare case when some hardware was 32-bit when it should of been 64-bit. Anytime I look at buying a computer I always look at the internals and see what the life span of the technology is or if I may have a problem in the future. When everything was moving to 64-bit I wouldn't of bought a Mac that had hardware that only supported 32-bit drivers. Unfortunately, because of Marketing and things like that.. your average consumer wouldn't be thinking about this.

Agreed, although that being the case Apple should keep supporting and providing security updates for Snow Leopard for at least another year or two to compensate.

G51989
Jul 11, 2012, 10:23 AM
My late 2006 iMac is plenty fast enough for iOS app development, but sometime in the next year I won't have access to the latest Xcode, so will be frozen out.

They must have a better reason than graphics drivers.

Yes, its called stop updating and supporting 10.6 and make you buy a new mac.

robvas
Jul 11, 2012, 10:23 AM
I find it odd that an 07 iMac is supported, but an 07 Mac Pro is not:confused:

Completely different graphics chips.

I wonder if it'd really be that big of a deal to re-write and test those graphics drivers, if it's the fact that even if they did, the performance wouldn't bee good enough.

Say they contract out 5 drivers for $100,000 each. 250,000 people would have to upgrade at $20/each to break even. You know, Apple can't spare $500,000 ;)

Maybe it costs $250,000 to contract out a graphics driver I don't know.

frosty001
Jul 11, 2012, 10:26 AM
Anyone think there will be a future hack to get AirDisplay to work on a mid 2009 MBP? The machine is ML compatible for some reason you don't get the AirDisplay feature. Was quite looking forward to that one too.

domness
Jul 11, 2012, 10:27 AM
This is pretty annoying! I'm just waiting for my MacBook Pro to get discarded now. Although, I was thinking about upgrade to a new one when my pay cheque comes through.

Sasparilla
Jul 11, 2012, 10:28 AM
I've got a Mac Pro 1,1 (dual Core 2 Duo processors) and runs very well, so this is a bummer - a year from now this very capable system won't be able to get new security updates for the OS (as Lion will fall out of the two release security support line).

I can see what Apple is saying here with not wanting to write new drivers for graphics (although just for that let us buy a supported card and drop it in)...

I'd like Apple to give me security updates on Snow Leopard (which ends this month because Lion was only out for a year) or Lion and future OS releases for about the same amount of time they used to do that before their move to yearly OS releases with Mountain Lion (which drastically reduced the time of that security update support is available for new OS's).

C.G.B. Spender
Jul 11, 2012, 10:28 AM
Not too unreasonable.

Quite good in my book too. My 2007 iMac came with Tiger 10.4.10 then i got Leopard, Snow Leopard, Lion and now Mountain Lion. No too shabby i think.

CylonGlitch
Jul 11, 2012, 10:28 AM
I'm not 100% convinced my old MBP will work, it looks like it should work, but I won't know. Even if it DOES work, I'm sure it will be the end of the line for it. Time to upgrade. Now to convince the wife of that. :D

SpyderBite
Jul 11, 2012, 10:29 AM
I love it. You can't swing a cat around here without hitting somebody who swears they'll never give up Snow Leopard. Now people are up in arms because their second hand eBay specials won't load ML. XD

Embio
Jul 11, 2012, 10:30 AM
it isn't true that any Mac capable of running a 64bit kernel is being dropped. The Early 2008 XServe is also being dropped... which is a huge pain for us.

us being my employer ;-)

jmggs
Jul 11, 2012, 10:30 AM
I think this is just a case of the sweet spot. Apple Supports computers for 5 years and then they get labeled Vintage (aka Unsupported/Obsolete). This is just that rare case when some hardware was 32-bit when it should of been 64-bit. Anytime I look at buying a computer I always look at the internals and see what the life span of the technology is or if I may have a problem in the future. When everything was moving to 64-bit I wouldn't of bought a Mac that had hardware that only supported 32-bit drivers. Unfortunately, because of Marketing and things like that.. your average consumer wouldn't be thinking about this.

That's the problem of my Mac Pro 1.1 they lie to me saying that is 64bit (but EFI is 32bit) I have sell it and bought a PC Workstation!

unlinked
Jul 11, 2012, 10:31 AM
It's pretty annoying, but good things will come from the move. It gives Apple the time and resources to develop only for machines that run 64 bit, thus not having to cater for an old set of machines that can only run 32 bit.

Did I fall asleep and wake up in a universe where Apple are short of resources?
Also isn't this thread called "OS X Mountain Lion Officially Drops Support for Some Older 64-Bit Macs"? I assume the machines in question can run 64bit just fine.

Snowshiro
Jul 11, 2012, 10:32 AM
Whoah, bad news for me using a 3.0 2x dual core mac pro tower maybe.

Kinda pisses me off my mac pro may not get new osx, especially when there isn't a proper new mac pro. Apple ought not release osx that won't work on semi recent models. Pretty bad for customers. Could be an reason to upgrade... To a windows workstation

Any belief that Apple could care less about Mac Pro owners ended long ago. This is about as surprising as the sun coming up tomorrow.

Mr. Zarniwoop
Jul 11, 2012, 10:32 AM
We learned during the Developer Preview process that there are four limitations that stop an older Intel Mac from working with OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion:


64-bit CPU required: If you have an Intel Core Solo or Core Duo processor, it won't work. Some models can swap to a 64-bit Intel Core 2 Duo but may require an Apple-unsupported firmware upgrade.
EFI64 required: If you have an original 32-bit EFI Intel Mac, even if with a 64-bit CPU, it won't boot the 64-bit kernel. This is disappointing as many can run the kernel, just didn't have a way to boot it. Many such Mac owners use "Hackintosh" PC bootloaders, such as Chameleon, to boot these Apple-unsupported Macs into Lion with 64-bit kernels and the same approach works with Mountain Lion.
"Modern" graphics card required: If you have a legacy graphics card (such as an Nvidia 7xxx) it won't work. (Legacy ATI X1xxx could work with at least the Developer Preview versions, but with significant issues. Not sure of final build.) If you have a Mac Pro with PCIe slots, you can upgrade to a newer card, even if it's unsupported by Apple.
Supported machine identifier required: If you have a Mac not on Apple's supported list, the installer won't run as it checks the machine identifier (i.e. MacPro2,1) before letting you install. There are lots of ways around this, the simplest being adding your Mac identifier to the list.

The best step-by-step guide so far on getting around some of these items is on Jabbawok's Blog: How I installed Mac OS 10.8 on my MacPro 1,1 (http://www.jabbawok.net/?p=47)

KPOM
Jul 11, 2012, 10:33 AM
Great part is that W7 will continue to run until what - 2020 - complete with security updates and driver updates if they happen. With the reduced upgrade pricing on W8, Microsoft clearly seems to be offering the better deal since W7.

And all the bull crap about "legacy resulting in instability" is just that -crap! W7 is stable as a rock.

Windows 64-bit versions dropped support for 16-bit programs and all 32-bit drivers. Microsoft did the same thing as Apple (which partly led to the Vista debacle), so even they recognized that there is a limit to legacy support.

Arguably OS X's transition to 64-bit was smoother since they allowed 32-bit drivers to run on the first 64-bit versions, while Microsoft just dropped support altogether and forced OEMs to write 64-bit drivers for everything they wanted certified to run on Windows 7.

Sasparilla
Jul 11, 2012, 10:34 AM
Agreed, although that being the case Apple should keep supporting and providing security updates for Snow Leopard for at least another year or two to compensate.

I agree, Apple should provide the security updates for a given OS for the same amount of time as before...otherwise short of updating the OS you'll have 2 year old (and newer) machines falling out of being able to obtain security updates.

I have a feeling this is an unintended consequence of moving to the iOS release cycle that needs to be addressed.

8281
Jul 11, 2012, 10:35 AM
People can't legitimately expect to receive the newest updates on machines that are 3+ years old.

So you've bought into planned obsolescence lock, stock, and barrel? Customers have a legitimate expectation that a $1000+ machine will function and be supported for longer than three years, especially professionals who may be spending $2000+ on a machine (and who probably consider their computer to be an investment, not just a Facebook machine).

I understand most people will not upgrade their machine or even attempt to troubleshoot a problem with their computer, but I don't understand why people have bought into this idea that electronics are disposable and need to be updated annually. You are just throwing money out the window. Sorry for the rant...:rolleyes:

goosnarrggh
Jul 11, 2012, 10:35 AM
Except that on average, Mac owners keep their computers longer than PC users. Only geeks like us have to have the latest and greatest OS. My wife, who is a programmer by trade, still runs 10.6 on her MacBook. Why? Because it still does what she needs it to do. It didn't suddenly stop working when Lion was released.

But it will suddenly stop receiving security updates when Mountain Lion is released. I suggest she should stop performing any casual web browsing using that machine.

Rocketman
Jul 11, 2012, 10:36 AM
I often complain about specific deprecations of features or compatibility, but this is not one of those times. The ones I complain about are the arbitrary ones where Apple could simply tick a box in a compiler or feature list and offer it. Intentional crippling.

This is not that. This is to move into a new memory space model in anticipation of a converged silicon space in the "near future". 3 years?

Rocketman

JackLeBoul
Jul 11, 2012, 10:37 AM
In reality, very few models can take complete advantage of ML.

You can buy a new 12 core MacPro and it can not use Airplay, arguably the coolest feature in ML.

One can argue why Apple is doing this, but you need to be clear with your readers what features of ML they can and can not use.

ericinboston
Jul 11, 2012, 10:38 AM
Most of this "dropped support" is for Macs from 2008 and newer...machines barely 4 years old...and machines that could have been purchased late in their release (for example a "late 2008" model that was purchased in mid or late 2009...and yes, for the exact same price as when it was released in late 2008).

For a company who builds the OS and the hardware, this is unacceptable...and a major reason why Apple just doesn't live in the business space.

proboscisjoe
Jul 11, 2012, 10:38 AM
Does the lack of support for 32-bit KEXTs on Mountain Lion's 64-bit kernel imply that all 32-bit applications will no longer be compatible?! No more Quicksilver, smcFanControl, Little Snitch, iFreeMem, etc... :( I hope 3rd party developers step up their game if this is the case!

charlituna
Jul 11, 2012, 10:39 AM
How much effort does it take to upgrade a kext/driver? I would guess less effort than working on "Game Center".
I'm guessing you aren't a hardware or software engineer of any level or you would know how false your guess is

Mr. Zarniwoop
Jul 11, 2012, 10:39 AM
Does the lack of support for 32-bit KEXTs on Mountain Lion's 64-bit kernel imply that all 32-bit applications will no longer be compatible?! No more Quicksilver, smcFanControl, Little Snitch, iFreeMem, etc... :( I hope 3rd party developers step up their game if this is the case!
No. 64-kernel runs 32-bit apps. KEXTs are part of the kernel, and have to be 64-bit in ML since DP2.

bedifferent
Jul 11, 2012, 10:40 AM
I'm guessing you aren't a hardware or software engineer of any level or you would know how false your guess is

Actually, I am, and no, it's not. :)

aardwolf
Jul 11, 2012, 10:40 AM
Really??? So the Mac Pro is given the same treatment as the Generic "Macbook" line? And is given worse support than the iMac and MBP? I feel sorry for Mac Pro buyers... Apple really hates you. I'm pretty sure the Mac Pro has only been refreshed once since it's "Early 2008 or newer"

Edit: ok twice. And no, I don't count that "update" last month...

The 2007 Mac Pro had a 32-bit EFI... so it can't run the 64-bit kernel.

milo
Jul 11, 2012, 10:41 AM
Bugger, I was going to run ML Server on one of my early Intel Xserves...

You might be able to, check out the links in this thread where the hackintosh guys made it work with early mac pro.

Gemütlichkeit
Jul 11, 2012, 10:41 AM
people using the listed macs will happily upgrade

people who don't will happily still run Snow Leopard or Lion.

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 10:42 AM
How much resources does one have to invest to update a bunch of drivers? :rolleyes:

Graphics driver ? Plenty. Those are complex beasts. I remember following John Carmack and co. while they wrote a X11/Linux driver for Matrox G200 cards back in the pre-DRI days. They went at it for months, with full specification in hand.

charlituna
Jul 11, 2012, 10:44 AM
. Anything less than 5 years is too much.

Not really. Growth of tech has been exponentially exploding over the past five years. Theres been as much growth as the 20 years before that period. That kind of difference is a royal pain in the ass to try to support. Apple is making the choice not to waste resources on machines that will only give crappy results.

Those that want to threaten to go to Windows should just shut up and do it. Apple will still do just fine off their toys

milo
Jul 11, 2012, 10:45 AM
The 2007 Mac Pro had a 32-bit EFI... so it can't run the 64-bit kernel.

Looks like it can...you just need to use the hack to boot without using the EFI.

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 10:46 AM
I gotta disagree - it is effort but for well adjusted kernel developers working on a sanely designed OS - it is not that big of a deal.

And your experience with C, type sizes and how it all maps unto hardware registries with fixed size is ... ? :rolleyes:

For userspace applications using sanctionned APIs and not doing any voodoo hacks to get some performance increases, definately the effort is mostly choosing "64 bit" as a target and hitting compile. Drivers are very very different beasts.

Krazy Bill
Jul 11, 2012, 10:46 AM
And people wonder why the OSX platform hasn't quite "caught on".

wizard
Jul 11, 2012, 10:46 AM
People can't legitimately expect to receive the newest updates on machines that are 3+ years old.

Three year old is in many cases very usable hardware.

Elijahg
Jul 11, 2012, 10:48 AM
The ARS report seems to miss that EFI64 is required for Mountain Lion. While a Mac might have a CPU capable of 64-bit, it still might be running EFI32 and therefore won't be supported. No EFI64 means no 64-bit kernel which means no Mountain Lion.

Actually, people seem to think EFI32 is capable of booting a 64 bit kernel. Linux can do it. It's just Apple is being its usual stubborn self; artificially limiting support for machines to try to get people to buy new ones. What's wrong with including a 32 bit kernel with ML? Back in the Classic OS era, machines such as the SE/30 and 6100/60 had 7 years of OS updates. Now we're down to just 4, on an OS that's much more capable of supporting a wide array of hardware.

They dropped all models which do not support at least OpenGL 3.2 core profile. I think this is the main story here. Personally, I welcome this decision.

So why aren't Mac Pros with upgraded GPUs that fully support 3.2 able to run ML? Why is this a welcome decision for you? Does it somehow improve your life?

People can't legitimately expect to receive the newest updates on machines that are 3+ years old.

Why not? As I stated above, in the Classic OS times, you could update machines for 7 years after the purchase date. Even in the PPC OS X era, the machines were supported for longer. Support was dropped for the G3 CPU was because it simply didn't have the features (namely AltiVec) to run the latest OS. The Intel architecture is largely the same between the unsupported and supported models.

First Unibody Macbooks released in 2008 had EFI32 only and yet can still run Mountain Lion.

The first Unibody MacBooks have 64 bit EFI.

Working on the low levels required for hardware access in a driver is where 32bit to 64 bit porting requires the most effort as often you're dealing with fixed width registries and can't simply "recompile" code into a 64 bit binary, you have to adjust types.

That's true, but Apple's ported pretty much all the drivers for the unsupported Macs to 64 bit anyway, as the hardware between the last EFI32 Macs and first EFI64 is almost the same.

There's no reason why Apple can't compile the kernel in 32 bit for the EFI32 Macs, other than the greed to get people buy new Macs. Only thing is, there aren't really enough features in ML to make people upgrade, people'll just stick with SL or Lion as Microsoft experienced with Vista/7, a large proportion stayed on XP.

cms2
Jul 11, 2012, 10:49 AM
My MBP is supported... barely! But Lion has bogged this thing down considerably (or maybe it's just getting old?). I'm considering upgrading to an Air, but keeping this one around just for internet/office applications. I wonder if going back to Tiger (it screamed when running Tiger, but seems to have slowed with each update) would be wise...

In any case, AirDisplay isn't supported on my MBP, and that's the feature I'm most excited about.

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 10:50 AM
Wasn't 10.8 a complete re-write of Lion, as 10.6 was for 10.5?

There is no complete rewrite. 10.8 evolved out of the same code base as 10.0, same as 10.6. There are large parts of the system that don't need to be rewritten every iteration.

parapup
Jul 11, 2012, 10:50 AM
Windows 64-bit versions dropped support for 16-bit programs and all 32-bit drivers. Microsoft did the same thing as Apple (which partly led to the Vista debacle), so even they recognized that there is a limit to legacy support.

Arguably OS X's transition to 64-bit was smoother since they allowed 32-bit drivers to run on the first 64-bit versions, while Microsoft just dropped support altogether and forced OEMs to write 64-bit drivers for everything they wanted certified to run on Windows 7.

That's a totally ways off comparison - When 64-bit Windows dropped 16 bit support, Microsoft was still selling 32-bit Windows. Most importantly very few were still running 16-bit code at the time - even when compared to how many people still run 2007 Mac Pros.

Microsoft making vendors write 64-bit drivers was a good thing - didn't hurt me as a consumer. Microsoft's 64-bit transition was arguably the best - people buying Windows 7 machines today don't even notice it for the most part.

But that's completely besides the point - 64bit is behind us. We are talking supporting older 64-bit capable hardware here.

G4DP
Jul 11, 2012, 10:52 AM
I wonder if some First Gen MacPro users will file a law suit against Apple. They marketed those machines a fully 64Bit. Not once when being advertised did they tell anyone that it was really a 32Bit machine.

Is no-one at Apple capable of writing an EFI update for the first MacPro?

The obsolescence is a joke, my old G4 worked from 9.0.2 through to 10.4.8. So it ran the latest for 8 years. Are Apple really saying they are not capable of doing that anymore? Is 4 years the best this company can now do for computer hardware support?

Apple really know how to p**s off the Mac Pro community at the moment.

benwiggy
Jul 11, 2012, 10:52 AM
My Mac IIsi wouldn't run OS 8.5, because it wasn't a PPC.
My PowerMac 7200 wouldn't run OS X, because it wasn't a G3.
My G3 iBook wouldn't run Leopard, because it wasn't a G4 867MHz.
My 2006 iMac won't run Mountain Lion, because it has a 32-bit EFI/kernal, crummy graphics, whatever.

Nothing new here. This is the march of progress.

This isn't Apple "forcing" anyone to buy new (unless you feel compelled by the latest shiney).

All those machines kept on working. They didn't disappear in a puff of smoke when each new OS was released. Many of them did useful valuable work for many years after they stopped being the latest thing.

The move to Intel and the transition to 64-bit has certainly caused some early cut-offs. Hopefully, hardware should have a bit more stability for the next few years. (Till OS X moves to ARM, of course....!)

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 10:52 AM
Well, this is ok by me as I'm lucky enough to have a new rMBP except when it comes to VPN. It's beautiful, but absolutely can't boot (and work) in 32bit mode. Of course I've only got a 32bit Cisco VPN client, so I can't use that. There is a 64bit Cisco VPN client, but Cisco wants people to PAY for that client... ugh

Ask your IT departement to download it using their SMARTnet contract.

Big-TDI-Guy
Jul 11, 2012, 10:53 AM
Brutal, so this is the road ahead for Apple.
From tools to toys,
durable to dispensable,
creation to consumption,
collectible to common,
focused to forgotten
and passioned to greed.

milo
Jul 11, 2012, 10:56 AM
Is no-one at Apple capable of writing an EFI update for the first MacPro?

And along the same lines, when they shipped a machine with 64 bit CPU, why didn't they make the EFI 64 bit in the first place?


My Mac IIsi wouldn't run OS 8.5, because it wasn't a PPC.
My PowerMac 7200 wouldn't run OS X, because it wasn't a G3.
My G3 iBook wouldn't run Leopard, because it wasn't a G4 867MHz.
My 2006 iMac won't run Mountain Lion, because it has a 32-bit EFI/kernal, crummy graphics, whatever.

First, what was the timeline on each of those?

And second, those are all either major shifts in technology, or chips being too slow, neither of which is the case this time around. Nobody expects technology to be supported forever, the issue is it's being dumped too soon and it's forced obsolescence as opposed to the hardware actually being unable to run the OS.

nelmat
Jul 11, 2012, 10:56 AM
very fair.

this is why im on the verge of jumping ship entirely to apple.

my notebook is a sony vaio and support has been weak.

have they invented two button mouses yet in the apple world? :p

No, there is no need for a two button mouse, they are the first computer manufacturer to offer a touch sensitive mouse or (even better) a track pad as standard, which is far superior to a mouse restricted to two buttons and bunged up track wheel filling with dirt. :P

Piggie
Jul 11, 2012, 10:56 AM
Not a big deal. They are dropping support for computers 4-5 years old.
I would love to see my old single core windows xp computer handle windows 8.

I'd think a top of the line 3 to 4 year old PC/Laptop should be able to handle Windows 8 pretty well thank you.

Michaelhuisman
Jul 11, 2012, 10:56 AM
People can't legitimately expect to receive the newest updates on machines that are 3+ years old.

sure you can, the alternative (wintel) usually does this, and... the usual length of depreciating a pc/laptop/workstation/tablet/smartphone is 3 years. Since it's possible to buy one at the end of a product update cycle, it would make sense to support machines for 3 years plus one update cycle loop...

otherwise...

business decision makers will be acutely aware that supplier (Apple) end-of-lifed products that were "still on the books" - which is *deadly* in the corporate world.

parapup
Jul 11, 2012, 10:57 AM
And your experience with C, type sizes and how it all maps unto hardware registries with fixed size is ... ? :rolleyes:

For userspace applications using sanctionned APIs and not doing any voodoo hacks to get some performance increases, definately the effort is mostly choosing "64 bit" as a target and hitting compile. Drivers are very very different beasts.

I gotta wonder about your experience actually. Having done real driver porting for Linux for years I somehow doubt you understand modern OSes and the facilities they provide to make endianness, and 32-bit/64-bit issue mostly a matter of writing good code that is 64-bit clean - take a look at this (www.intel.com/design/itanium/hardware/itanium_training.pdf) for example.

As such all well written code should not be a that big of an effort to port to 64-bit. Apple themselves have done it for some time now since the 64-bit kernel was available.

bedifferent
Jul 11, 2012, 10:57 AM
There is no complete rewrite. 10.8 evolved out of the same code base as 10.0, same as 10.6. There are large parts of the system that don't need to be rewritten every iteration.

Ok, I'll give you that, yet with a simple hack M.L. can run on "unsupported systems". Thus, someone who doesn't have to know coding can get 10.8 to run on a system that Apple claims is not supported due to hardware limitations.

As for writing kexts, it doesn't require a complete system rewrite. Also, "Snow Leopard" was indeed rewritten; it was a ground up overhaul of Leopard, and began the drop of PPC systems. Again, it seems engineering was more concerned about iCloud and iOS implementation than making an OS that is solid with reasonable support for 3-5 year old systems in order to push more hardware sales. They sell the hardware with the OS, it's a choice they made, it is not impossible for them to do. :)

Michaelhuisman
Jul 11, 2012, 10:58 AM
That's a totally ways off comparison - When 64-bit Windows dropped 16 bit support, Microsoft was still selling 32-bit Windows. Most importantly very few were still running 16-bit code at the time - even when compared to how many people still run 2007 Mac Pros.

Microsoft making vendors write 64-bit drivers was a good thing - didn't hurt me as a consumer. Microsoft's 64-bit transition was arguably the best - people buying Windows 7 machines today don't even notice it for the most part.

But that's completely besides the point - 64bit is behind us. We are talking supporting older 64-bit capable hardware here.

exactly.

steveOooo
Jul 11, 2012, 10:59 AM
Planned obsolescence drives HW sales. And if you just state the truth there will be @#$% to pay. When I invest in a computing device I want it to be able to stay current for a MINIMUM of 5 years.

Clearly Apple has a different "minimum" in mind for most of its computing devices.:eek:

And since the trend is away from DIY upgrades/part replacements...we are even more at the mercy of the computer industry. If they ever get to one year disposable devices, hopefully we will be able to trade them in for a sizable down payment to get the latest and greatest.

Reminds me a little of football / soccer replica shirts in the uk - they change every 2 years, they would like it every year but the fa ruled against it.

Maybe they'll drop AppleCare down to 2 years.

WordMasterRice
Jul 11, 2012, 11:00 AM
and your argument continues to stand -- not being able to run the latest & greatest OS X doesnt in anyway de-value the usefulness of your version. it's every bit as functional as the day you bought it, probably more.

just stop comparing it to whats new *today*.

Do you develop anything? Only about 2 months after Lion was released it was required to even run Xcode.

star-affinity
Jul 11, 2012, 11:02 AM
That stinks! I can upgrade my 08 iMac, but not my 2007 Mac Pro? My Mac Pro can run circles around my iMac.:(

The processors are 64 bit on the Mac Pro, so I guess the problem is about the graphics card drivers. If you get a newer graphics card it might work (if I understand correctly). Time will tell I guess.

LordVic
Jul 11, 2012, 11:03 AM
Not a big deal. They are dropping support for computers 4-5 years old.
I would love to see my old single core windows xp computer handle windows 8.

Windows 8, and even 7 run pretty darn well on older hardware.

I have ran Win7 on hardware as old as Northwood Pentium 4's. My brother still runs a Pentium 4 based dual core system. With enough RAM, CPU and GPU, it actually is a pretty reliable machine and suprisingly quick.

I've been testing Win8 on a very early single core Atom CPU (1.66ghz N455). its not super fast, but runs.

I Understand OSx migrating away from the older hardware platforms. But the complete cut off that they do on occasion sometimes seems heavy handed instead of just including legacy support.

CodeBreaker
Jul 11, 2012, 11:03 AM
While my computer is in the supported models list, this puts me back from buying another Mac. And I totally feel that Mac OS X these days is just gloss and drop shadows.

I have a Hackintosh on 10.6 and I just realised that it is what does the real work for me. My MacBook just sits on my lap. My next computer will be a Hackintosh with SL.

surma884
Jul 11, 2012, 11:04 AM
Not sure why people are pissed. It's not like your Mac will stop working when ML is released. Apple isn't forcing you to upgrade. You can keep running SL or Lion as long as you want.

As for Apple not re-writing the drivers to support the older Macs, I'm all for them. I'm a developer myself and it requires a lot of time to maintain 32bit and 64bit builds. I'm surprised Windows still supports 32bit. Hopefully with Windows 9 they drop it. Supporting multiple platforms and old hardware makes the OS bloated and more prone to bugs.

milo
Jul 11, 2012, 11:05 AM
The processors are 64 bit on the Mac Pro, so I guess the problem is about the graphics card drivers. If you get a newer graphics card it might work (if I understand correctly). Time will tell I guess.

It's both. The video card can be replaced, and the EFI won't let it run but that can be worked around hackintosh style. Since people have it working, it's just flat out stupid that Apple won't support it directly with the right video card.

jlnr
Jul 11, 2012, 11:05 AM
Nothing new here. This is the march of progress.
[…]
All those machines kept on working. They didn't disappear in a puff of smoke when each new OS was released.

This is a terrible comparison. Hardware has reached a plateau, this is not comparable at all to the Intel transition. Add RAM and an SSD to these obsolete computers and they may outperform others which made the cut.

Computers don't disappear in a puff of smoke once security updates stop, but from a professional POV they're dead.

lilo777
Jul 11, 2012, 11:08 AM
disposable Mac Pros: glued hard drives/SSDs, motherboard fused with the case. Computers are not supposed to be used for more than 3 years anyways.

Uabcar
Jul 11, 2012, 11:08 AM
Late 2009 mini here -@2.26 C2D. This will likely be the last OSX upgrade for me. Prob. about right though - as I was just thinking that I need to begin planning for my next upgrade.

I really want to hold off until the Retina display capable machines become available via the std vs the premium models. Hoping this in within the next 12 mths.

roadbloc
Jul 11, 2012, 11:08 AM
Not a big deal. They are dropping support for computers 4-5 years old.
I would love to see my old single core windows xp computer handle windows 8.

Windows is supported for much longer than OS X is. Unless you buy a new Mac, you can find yourself without support and being unable to run newer applications very fast. With Windows, even if the newest OS doesn't support your hardware, your current version of Windows will probably be supported for years to come.

XP is still just about in support (but not for much longer). Your old single core computer will be in support longer than any Mac will be. And I think it is a massive shame. I wish Apple supported their OSs like Microsoft does.

nilk
Jul 11, 2012, 11:09 AM
As a 2006 Mac Pro 1,1 owner (that I bought in 2007) I am disappointed, but not surprised as I saw it coming. This machine is completely capable of running Mountain Lion, way more capable than my early 2008 MBP that is supported in ML. They could have updated the EFI32 firmware to EFI64 if they wanted to, but it's typical of Apple to not do that sort of thing. It's theoretically possible for someone to hack the Mac Pro 1,1 to use EFI64 firmware, but apparently it's too difficult (failed attempts may mean a bricked machine)...

I'll probably be using the software hack that is available to get ML to run if it works well enough. My Mac Pro will basically be a hackintosh. I'm holding out until there is a major Mac Pro update to replace it, or maybe wait for a Haswell rMBP and go the laptop-only route.

faroZ06
Jul 11, 2012, 11:10 AM
How much effort does it take to upgrade a kext/driver? I would guess less effort than working on "Game Center".

They could probably add support for older Macs if they tried, but they don't want to try. 5 years IS pretty old though, and the OS is only $30.

GekkePrutser
Jul 11, 2012, 11:10 AM
My old plastic MacBook is also out of luck (and the generation that came after it, the Santa Rosa kind with X3100 graphics is even unsupported).

However, I wonder how true the statement is about not being able to run 32-bit kexts. Some people have had success running Mountain Lion on old systems, like here (http://osxdaily.com/2012/02/18/install-os-x-mountain-lion-developer-preview-on-old-unsupported-macs/) by simply installing the old kernel extensions. (Edit: This actually seems to originate from a thread on MacRumors here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=14341245))

If those are 32-bit then it must, after all, support 32-bit ones. They say there that the HW acceleration is even working.

I might give it a try but not until I have a replacement for my MacBook first. I don't want to risk an update breaking a machine I use for programming (I just hope Xcode will be supported on Lion until the 13" retina macbook pro comes out ;) ).

I totally understand Apple dropping older systems and I don't hate them for it, though I do think it's often mostly marketing rather than technical reasons. And if some clever tricks manage to get around that then great.

Edit: I've just been reading through this thread and I see in this post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=15227747&postcount=112) it being said that DP2 did require 64-bit kexts where DP1 did not. It may well be that the article I quited is about DP1 as it's way back from February (Not sure when what came out as I'm not on the Mac developer program). So in this case it may well be technical and not marketing.

But anyway, there's no compelling features in Mountain Lion that I absolutely need to have on my portable (it's my least used machine anyway). In fact there are very few new features in it that I'll use at all.

Lion will be just fine as long as it's still supported with security updates.

Flood123
Jul 11, 2012, 11:10 AM
I wonder if some First Gen MacPro users will file a law suit against Apple. They marketed those machines a fully 64Bit. Not once when being advertised did they tell anyone that it was really a 32Bit machine.

Is no-one at Apple capable of writing an EFI update for the first MacPro?

The obsolescence is a joke, my old G4 worked from 9.0.2 through to 10.4.8. So it ran the latest for 8 years. Are Apple really saying they are not capable of doing that anymore? Is 4 years the best this company can now do for computer hardware support?

Apple really know how to p**s off the Mac Pro community at the moment.
That is actually a really really good point. I am one of those people that owns a 1,1 mac pro. I am slightly miffed for sure. This tower is gonna be a windows machine for browser testing purposes if i can't update this puppy. I just have to get myself another machine to support my normal workflow.

faroZ06
Jul 11, 2012, 11:10 AM
Not sure why people are ****. It's not like your Mac will stop working when ML is released. Apple isn't forcing you to upgrade. You can keep running SL or Lion as long as you want.


I'm actually forced to stay at Snow Leopard because they got rid of Rosetta for no @#$%ing reason!

apolloa
Jul 11, 2012, 11:12 AM
Hmm, whilst this doesn't affect me if I want to upgrade, I don't find it comfortable that Apple has effectively stamped a time line for their computers as being 4 to 5 years!

But I guess they have always done this?

Even so, if you spend 3 grand on that nice Retina MB Pro, are Apple stating they won't offer it's support for the the latest OSX in 4 or 5 years time?

Nanasaki
Jul 11, 2012, 11:12 AM
Not too unreasonable.

You know why Vista failed? Because people are pissed out seeing their older machines weren't compatible with Vista and **** load of driver didn't work with it. Windows people hate seeing their ancient machines won't run latest Windows. However, Microsoft see this. So that Windows 8 would run on those machines. I have Windows 8 loaded on 6 years old laptop, and it does runs fine. I think what Apple should do is instead drop support to older machines all together, it just shoud make those functinaolity not work on those machine p. Like what they did on iOS.

People can't legitimately expect to receive the newest updates on machines that are 3+ years old.

You must be kidding. Windows 8 would work with wide ranges of machines, including 3+ machines. I hate to see my ony 4 years old Macbook can't run 10.8.

milo
Jul 11, 2012, 11:12 AM
As a 2006 Mac Pro 1,1 owner...

It's possible to make that machine run ML with a hack. No question Apple should just support those machines.

http://www.jabbawok.net/?p=47

barjam
Jul 11, 2012, 11:13 AM
People can't legitimately expect to receive the newest updates on machines that are 3+ years old.

Windows 7 will run well on old hardware and my understanding is that windows 8 will do even better. I slapped a cheap microcenter SSD into my 6 year old dell laptop and it does very well for most tasks. I wouldn't use it as a primary machine and it doesn't game but for most people it would be more than enough computer.

It doesn't bother me that apple ends support early though.

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 11:13 AM
I gotta wonder about your experience actually. Having done real driver porting for Linux for years I somehow doubt you understand modern OSes and the facilities they provide to make endianness, and 32-bit/64-bit issue mostly a matter of writing good code that is 64-bit clean - take a look at this (www.intel.com/design/itanium/hardware/itanium_training.pdf) for example.

As such all well written code should not be a that big of an effort to port to 64-bit. Apple themselves have done it for some time now since the 64-bit kernel was available.

Looking through hardware specific C files for the nouveau driver, seems to me they need to use plenty of help functions and specific 32bit types to make sure the driver doesn't break on architectures that aren't 32 bit :

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git;a=blob;f=drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nv40_fb.c;h=7fbcb334c096cd19179588dccfc975ae26e5d8e1;hb=bd0a521e88aa7a06ae7aabaed7ae196ed4ad867a

Of course, Linux has been working on 64 bit platforms since the 90s and the SPARC/MIPS/Alpha ports.

Ok, I'll give you that, yet with a simple hack M.L. can run on "unsupported systems". Thus, someone who doesn't have to know coding can get 10.8 to run on a system that Apple claims is not supported due to hardware limitations.

M.L. on "unsupported systems" seem to be running off a generic VESA Frame buffer driver that very much destroys any performance provided by Quartz Extreme, or at least it did last time I checked out the thread on Macrumors about it.

There are just no graphics driver to provide hardware assistance to graphics. The reason Apple doesn't want to support ML on older Macs.

As for writing kexts, it doesn't require a complete system rewrite.

Of course not, otherwise they wouldn't be Kernel Extensions.

Also, "Snow Leopard" was indeed rewritten; it was a ground up overhaul of Leopard, and began the drop of PPC systems.

Source ? Why would they need to rewrite things like say POSIX support ? The VFS layer ? HFS support ? I don't think you understand how big an operating system is if you feel "rewritting from the ground up" is even an option.

lilo777
Jul 11, 2012, 11:14 AM
Windows 8 is coming and they probably will be able to install it.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 11, 2012, 11:15 AM
Windows is supported for much longer than OS X is. Unless you buy a new Mac, you can find yourself without support and being unable to run newer applications very fast. With Windows, even if the newest OS doesn't support your hardware, your current version of Windows will probably be supported for years to come.

XP is still just about in support (but not for much longer). Your old single core computer will be in support longer than any Mac will be. And I think it is a massive shame. I wish Apple supported their OSs like Microsoft does.

Bingo.

XP SP3 brought in all a way for all the new API for windows 7 to be handled in some way. Does that mean they work as they are in 7 no but at the same token they are handled in some way so the program still will OMG work. Just the new features might be put into a dead in area that does nothing so the program still works.

On OSX side they do not do that. You are just SOL and if some program needs those API for something to look pretty nope no go. It harder on devs since if they want a wider range of targets they have to support the older stuff which means no go on newer API or have to put in your own work arounds.

Apple is creating a fragmentation mess in its OS and not handling it. MS handles its fragmentation just fine so developers do not have to deal with it. Let the OS handle it like it should.

It is crap like this why Apple is a consumer grade company only.

MasterHowl
Jul 11, 2012, 11:15 AM
Oh dear... I saved up ages and bought my a mid-2009 MBP exactly three years ago. Looks like mine might be one of the next to go... not good considering I bought it to last me at least 5 or 6 years.

I understand my MBP won't just suddenly stop working, but is having the latest OS too much to ask? No.

Feeling pretty anxious now!

Sasparilla
Jul 11, 2012, 11:16 AM
people using the listed macs will happily upgrade

people who don't will happily still run Snow Leopard or Lion.

Although its important to note that Snow Leopard looses new security updates in a few weeks - Lion has until next year's OS release. This is a big change (the short amount of time for OS security updates) and needs to be fixed, IMHO..

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 11:16 AM
Microsoft making vendors write 64-bit drivers was a good thing - didn't hurt me as a consumer.

Actually, what hurt consumers is that Microsoft switched to WDDM and WDF instead of their old driver model, making older NT drivers not able to function properly.

Detektiv-Pinky
Jul 11, 2012, 11:16 AM
Not sure why people are pissed. It's not like your Mac will stop working when ML is released. Apple isn't forcing you to upgrade. You can keep running SL or Lion as long as you want.

<snip>


...but you better take the machine of the network - otherwise you will become the target in the next OSX exploit - running an OS that does not get serviced anymore.

That's what really annoys me.

AidenShaw
Jul 11, 2012, 11:17 AM
When everything was moving to 64-bit I wouldn't of bought a Mac that had hardware that only supported 32-bit drivers.

The fact that x64 versions of Windows and Linux will run on those Apples proves that the hardware does support 64-bit drivers.

It's Apple's decision not to support 64-bit, not a hardware limitation - proven by the folks using Hackintosh tricks to run ML on systems that Apple won't support.


Windows 64-bit versions dropped support for 16-bit programs and all 32-bit drivers.

Windows 7 x64 also supports "XP mode", which can run 16-bit programs in a 32-bit virtual machine.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 11, 2012, 11:17 AM
Not sure why people are pissed. It's not like your Mac will stop working when ML is released. Apple isn't forcing you to upgrade. You can keep running SL or Lion as long as you want.

As for Apple not re-writing the drivers to support the older Macs, I'm all for them. I'm a developer myself and it requires a lot of time to maintain 32bit and 64bit builds. I'm surprised Windows still supports 32bit. Hopefully with Windows 9 they drop it. Supporting multiple platforms and old hardware makes the OS bloated and more prone to bugs.

No but Apple stops providing a lot of software support and devs to only work on the newest OS. Apple does BS software obsolete and creates a fragmenation cluster ****.

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 11:18 AM
I'm actually forced to stay at Snow Leopard because they got rid of Rosetta for no @#$%ing reason!

They got rid of Rosetta because it was forcing them to build, maintain and ship PPC versions of every framework library file. That's your reason.

driceman
Jul 11, 2012, 11:19 AM
very fair.

this is why im on the verge of jumping ship entirely to apple.

my notebook is a sony vaio and support has been weak.

have they invented two button mouses yet in the apple world? :p

Good call! I had a Toshiba Satellite and have had a much better user experience with OS X (although to be fair, the Satellite was running Vista). :P

As for your two-button mouse problem: as someone else said, you don't really need to right click on a Mac. And if you really feel the need to, if you click down with two fingers at once that equates to a right click on a Windows PC.

dacreativeguy
Jul 11, 2012, 11:21 AM
How much effort does it take to upgrade a kext/driver? I would guess less effort than working on "Game Center".

But where do you draw the line? This is exactly why Apple has succeeded with their 'closed' ecosystem. There is massive amounts of effort to test an OS on every configuration out there. By limiting the hardware, Apple can release new versions as quickly as they do. Look at how long it takes Microsoft to release a new OS. There are infinite numbers of hardware configs out there.

driceman
Jul 11, 2012, 11:24 AM
Also, I understand people's complaints. It sucks that 5-year-old computers aren't supported by Mountain Lion, although it's not all that unreasonable for the most part.

I'm not so sure that means the current MacBooks won't support the latest OS in five years, though-we don't know how much the technology will change and what will support what. I'm sure in five years our current computers will look like dinosaurs, but the fact iOS 6 supports the 3GS (a pretty dated phone, as smartphones go) shows me that there's no definitive cutoff.

miniroll32
Jul 11, 2012, 11:26 AM
The only 'technical' reason why ML isn't supported by machines more than 5 years old is simply to encourage people to upgrade their hardware.

They've been doing the same with iOS for years, yet every time a new version comes out, jail breakers have proved that they work fine on older devices.

SpiderDude
Jul 11, 2012, 11:28 AM
and your argument continues to stand -- not being able to run the latest & greatest OS X doesnt in anyway de-value the usefulness of your version. it's every bit as functional as the day you bought it, probably more.

just stop comparing it to whats new *today*.

Nope. Someone here complained they can't use the latest version of Xcode if they're not running the latest version of the OS.

Also, suppose you have a 2007 5 grand mac pro.
And you use it to write software to osX.
How are you going to test it?
Buy another mac just for that. Why? The $ 5000 were not enough already?


Mac'on

thelaw986
Jul 11, 2012, 11:31 AM
Looks like I'll be sticking with 10.6 on my mid-2007 Macbook...

Laird Knox
Jul 11, 2012, 11:32 AM
have they invented two button mouses yet in the apple world? :p

The have done so much more (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BnLbv6QYcA)!

dazzer21
Jul 11, 2012, 11:33 AM
So it won't work on my 300MHz G3 tower then? Bummer!

ankehuber
Jul 11, 2012, 11:34 AM
Let's just hope they release a shiny new iMac on the same day of the ML launch for us to upgrade to.

bedifferent
Jul 11, 2012, 11:35 AM
But where do you draw the line? This is exactly why Apple has succeeded with their 'closed' ecosystem. There is massive amounts of effort to test an OS on every configuration out there. By limiting the hardware, Apple can release new versions as quickly as they do. Look at how long it takes Microsoft to release a new OS. There are infinite numbers of hardware configs out there.

Oh I agree, but this isn't about every system. This is about systems that can run M.L. and do with a simple tweak, and these systems are not more than 4-5 years in age, some 3. As many have stated, Apple has supported systems for as long as 7-8 years in age, but that changed with Tiger then Snow Leopard. Now it seems 3 years is the end for support which is an issue for developers who need the latest OS for Xcode.

Further, how does one justify the issue with Apple selling Mac Pro 1,1 models as full 64-bit, yet no EFI64 written for them? Adding further insult to the professionals who spend thousands on systems only for Apple to drop support 3 years later. That's inexcusable and adding support for those systems doesn't impair technological advancements, in fact it would seem to do just the opposite.

A few years ago I worked for a company that had eMac's which Apple stopped supporting with the release of Leopard in 2006. It wasn't because the system was too old, Apple placed a cutoff point for the processor speed. I simply tweaked the install plist, loaded it on an eMac and the system FLEW, was much faster than Tiger, using "LeopardAssist". In the end, this is about selling more hardware and making more billions for people that make a living off these system they spend much more on than a comparable Windows unit.

mrbyu
Jul 11, 2012, 11:37 AM
Except that on average, Mac owners keep their computers longer than PC users. Only geeks like us have to have the latest and greatest OS. My wife, who is a programmer by trade, still runs 10.6 on her MacBook. Why? Because it still does what she needs it to do. It didn't suddenly stop working when Lion was released.

You got the point, Sir.

I have a friend who still runs Tiger (!!!) on his early 2007 white MacBook. With a RAM upgrade he could also use Lion, but it simply wasn't that urgent for him.

Anyway, Lion was always pure joy to use (at least for me, I've never experienced speed problems on my 2011 MBA 13'). I couldn't live anymore without the full screen mode and the new multitouch gestures, they are simply so intuitive that the moves are in my fingers. And Mac App Store and iCloud brought OS X into the real digital era. If we can believe in the tester's experiences, Mountain Lion is going to take this whole package to a sophisticated, stabilized level.

So I'm really looking forward to it, because it seems to be a bloody good, long-term OS.

ironman159
Jul 11, 2012, 11:39 AM
First Unibody Macbooks released in 2008 had EFI32 only and yet can still run Mountain Lion.

As far as my unibody Macbook released in late 2008, it has an EFI64.

apolloa
Jul 11, 2012, 11:40 AM
The only 'technical' reason why ML isn't supported by machines more than 5 years old is simply to encourage people to upgrade their hardware.

They've been doing the same with iOS for years, yet every time a new version comes out, jail breakers have proved that they work fine on older devices.

Although people upgrade their phones more often, I still see plenty of 3 and 3G iPhones around, but yes you can keep it going with jail breaks after Apple drops it's support.

Although its important to note that Snow Leopard looses new security updates in a few weeks - Lion has until next year's OS release. This is a big change (the short amount of time for OS security updates) and needs to be fixed, IMHO..

I didn't think of this! So basically Apple will just leave everyone who upgraded OSX last year when the new one comes out in terms of support and essential security updates, which, as far as I'm concerned it is responsible for for a LONG time?

rockland
Jul 11, 2012, 11:42 AM
Translation: We need your money more than you do. Keep buying our products or we'll brick them one by one.

BornAgainMac
Jul 11, 2012, 11:43 AM
I still find it hard to believe people with old machines would rush out and download ML in the first year. It isn't in their DNA to be an early adopter. Tiger/Leopard/Snow Leopard will be fine for those folks anyways.

vmachiel
Jul 11, 2012, 11:43 AM
Yeah, it's not that big of a deal.

mdriftmeyer
Jul 11, 2012, 11:45 AM
I have 3 - 2007 mac pros at work. Not happy. Especialy as an iOS developer where apple will surely force me to run the latest OS X to run the latest version of xcode.

The odds are you can afford to upgrade.

dona83
Jul 11, 2012, 11:45 AM
My 2006.5 iMac will serve the rest of its life happily running Lion, I'm not going to complain. Sure it's not going to gain some of the cool new things in Mountain Lion but it's not losing anything either. At six years old, it's EOL from a support perspective even for me. Even if it did bug me, so what? I can sell the machine for $300 and move up to a Mid-2007 iMac for cheap, but I threw in a 1TB HD so it could serve as an iTunes media server, and besides, I can upgrade my MBP to ML. :D

Tech198
Jul 11, 2012, 11:46 AM
This may be of use :-

http://www.everymac.com/mac-answers/snow-leopard-mac-os-x-faq/mac-os-x-snow-leopard-64-bit-macs-64-bit-efi-boot-in-64-bit-mode.html

But we already knew this right ??

Every company has to abanon something at some point..... Microsoft does the same thing, except they care about "backward compatability", so it just takes a tad longer for them to...... eg... take Windows 95 for example.

k2k koos
Jul 11, 2012, 11:46 AM
Except that on average, Mac owners keep their computers longer than PC users. Only geeks like us have to have the latest and greatest OS. My wife, who is a programmer by trade, still runs 10.6 on her MacBook. Why? Because it still does what she needs it to do. It didn't suddenly stop working when Lion was released.

Good point, in fact, my nearly 9 year old ALu Powerbook G4, running OSX 10.4 Tiger, is pretty much still doing what I need it to do. I can surf the net, I can receive&send e-mails, I can store my pictures, listen to music, make music using Logic Pro, write letters, spreadsheets etc. Pretty much all every day stuff, (perhaps with the exception of Logic Pro that not everyone would use), and the thing still works ok. I say ok as the backlight of the display is slowly dying and it takes a little while to get up to 'full' brightness, and I can even post on this forum, that ought to count for something!
Oh, and still no viruses or malware on my machine (thanks to the fact that those who write that stuff can't be bothered to target the powerpc architecture I guess...) . :-)

parapup
Jul 11, 2012, 11:48 AM
Actually, what hurt consumers is that Microsoft switched to WDDM and WDF instead of their old driver model, making older NT drivers not able to function properly.

The way things work in Microsoft land - not many people upgrade their OSes directly - they get the OS upgrade when they buy a new machine and then they run it for a long time - supported with updates.

OEMs selling Vista based machines did make sure to have a WDDM driver and as such few people were burnt for considerable amount of time due to not having WDDM capable driver. (Part of it was also that people hated Vista and wanted to stay on XP until Win 7 came out.)

JayLenochiniMac
Jul 11, 2012, 11:49 AM
If Apple is going to start bricking machines based on year/models, customers who normally go top of the line in order to extend the life of their machines will be less likely to do this. There's a wide range of performance difference even within the same year machine.

scionfriar
Jul 11, 2012, 11:49 AM
I could live with Lion on my Mac Pro 1.1 if they'd at least give us decent iCloud document integration like they should have in the first place. To make that a ML only feature is pretty weak.

bedifferent
Jul 11, 2012, 11:49 AM
I still find it hard to believe people with old machines would rush out and download ML in the first year. It isn't in their DNA to be an early adopter. Tiger/Leopard/Snow Leopard will be fine for those folks anyways.

How about developers that need the current OS X for Xcode/development whose systems can run M.L. and do run it with a simple tweak? Three year old systems with 64-bit support run Windows 7 and 8 preview in full 64-bit perfectly, yet cannot (according to Apple) run M.L. and thus will not be able to use their perfectly good systems for development.

This is the issue many are taking.

mabaker
Jul 11, 2012, 11:50 AM
They dropped all models which do not support at least OpenGL 3.2 core profile. I think this is the main story here. Personally, I welcome this decision.

You welcome a decision of Apple being plain too lazy to update the Firmware of their most expensive computer (Mac Pro)?

BTW. people on the forum got ML running on a Macbook from 2007 with GMA950 running perfectly.

This is planned obsolescence.

mgsolidsnak3
Jul 11, 2012, 11:51 AM
Funny thing is that my core2duo 64bit macbook will be able to run just fine Windows 8 but not its own proprietary OS :apple:

Reason077
Jul 11, 2012, 11:51 AM
Mountain Lion GM runs like crap on my two year old 27" iMac i5 with 8GB RAM.

Uhh really? It runs great on my Early 2008 iMac with 4GB RAM. Very snappy. And even pretty good on my Late 2010 Air with 2GB.

Admittedly the iMac ran like crap until I dropped an SSD into it, but that was true with any recent version of OS X.

I think OS X is really built with SSDs in mind these days, they make a huge difference.

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 11:52 AM
The way things work in Microsoft land - not many people upgrade their OSes directly - they get the OS upgrade when they buy a new machine and then they run it for a long time - supported with updates.

OEMs selling Vista based machines did make sure to have a WDDM driver and as such few people were burnt for considerable amount of time due to not having WDDM capable driver. (Part of it was also that people hated Vista and wanted to stay on XP until Win 7 came out.)

You're forgetting all the external USB/other peripherals though, like printers, scanners, webcams, etc... ;)

doctor-don
Jul 11, 2012, 11:52 AM
Whoah, bad news for me using a 3.0 2x dual core mac pro tower maybe.

Kinda pisses me off my mac pro may not get new osx, especially when there isn't a proper new mac pro. Apple ought not release osx that won't work on semi recent models. Pretty bad for customers. Could be an reason to upgrade... To a windows workstation

Mine (early 2008) says
Model Name: Mac Pro
Model Identifier: MacPro3,1
Processor Name: Quad-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed: 2.8 GHz
Number Of Processors: 2

It's listed as EFI64 although it also says the default mode is 32-bit in Mac OS X (client), 64-bit in Mac OS X Server.

Is that different than what you are describing?

How is the mode determined / changed (32-bit <-> 64-bit)?

Daalseth
Jul 11, 2012, 11:55 AM
My brand new MBP will get the upgrade for free. Cool.
My Late 2008 MB could get it BUT I am leaving it on Snow Leopard because that's where I run Rosetta software. I have an old FileMaker I need once a year but it's not worth buying an upgrade. I have an ancient MS OfficeX that still runs fine, under Rosetta. Not going to give any more to MS for a new one with that abomination called the ribbon.

Thunderhawks
Jul 11, 2012, 11:55 AM
Originally Posted by hayesk
Except that on average, Mac owners keep their computers longer than PC users. Only geeks like us have to have the latest and greatest OS. My wife, who is a programmer by trade, still runs 10.6 on her MacBook. Why? Because it still does what she needs it to do. It didn't suddenly stop working when Lion was released.[/B]

My experience is that every time I bought a new Mac, the Mac processing was faster at doing what I needed done. It was always waiting for me to do the next thing!

As I did more and got faster to adjust to the new power things reversed. I then tweaked were I could (memory, hard drive , accelerator boards etc.)
Now I am waiting sometimes for the Mac to be done.

That is the point when I want a new machine with the latest speed processors etc. which would then come with the latest OS.

That cycle has happened to me since 1984 and lasts about 4 years, more if I can tolerate it or a new "latest" machine is eminent to be released.

I intentionally skipped Lion so far, as all of what I am doing is fine and working and I like snow leopard.

Some companies do not update their software and I still run old stuff.

Of all of my Macs (20 plus) since 1984 only THREE had issues (fixed myself), all others I could still run today.

Summary, if you want the latest upgrade get it, but admit to yourself that you don't really need it.

As posted : If all your stuff works you'll survive without ML just fine.

Sacird
Jul 11, 2012, 11:56 AM
1. MS would NEVER EVER try to push people to upgrade to their new OS if they were in more of a position to. The Legacy support is the kindness of their hearts of course.

2. The XBOX 360 may have stagnated consoles, going to be 7 years old soon, but that stagnation is good for teh legacy. And that POWA is untapped still and we dont need new consoles.

3. MS is the greatest company that ever lived, and do things just for the consumer and only the consumer in mind.

4. Google is second best and Android is updated and supported on older devices all the time.

I love having their "stuff" on my chin. :p

Thumbs down imminent. Would you dare thumbs down MS macrumors? Would you dare. ? O they got rid of thumbs down. *sad face*

Moonjumper
Jul 11, 2012, 11:56 AM
I love it. You can't swing a cat around here without hitting somebody who swears they'll never give up Snow Leopard. Now people are up in arms because their second hand eBay specials won't load ML. XD

You talk as if all people have the same opinion. You will learn differently from spending time on these forums. :)

Some people won't give up Snow Leopard. Different people want or need the latest OS. Personally, I much prefer Snow Leopard, but I will need the latest OS at some point for Xcode support.

I have had my iMac since new, so not an eBay special, and still love it. I need quite a few more people to buy my games before I can afford a new Mac. Hopefully the 2 on the way will sell better than my current game.

dpcontardi
Jul 11, 2012, 11:56 AM
Apple decided that one button was already one too many, so they've gone to the no-button mouse, instead.

Next up: the keyless keyboard

Not quite, but how about... the :apple:Mactini (http://youtu.be/noe3kR8KqJc)?

KPOM
Jul 11, 2012, 11:59 AM
That's a totally ways off comparison - When 64-bit Windows dropped 16 bit support, Microsoft was still selling 32-bit Windows. Most importantly very few were still running 16-bit code at the time - even when compared to how many people still run 2007 Mac Pros.

They still are selling 32-bit Windows. My point is that they did need to break compatibility in order to make the transition. Plus, there were a lot of angry owners of legacy peripherals whose 32-bit drivers didn't work on 64-bit Vista, which helped keep 64-bit adoption rates down. Microsoft wised up with Windows 7 and required vendors to write 64-bit drivers in order to be certified as compatible with any version of Windows 7 (even the 32-bit version). Apple took a different approach, combining a 32-bit kernel with a 64-bit application layer, allowing 32-bit drivers to continue to work with Snow Leopard and Lion.


Microsoft making vendors write 64-bit drivers was a good thing - didn't hurt me as a consumer. Microsoft's 64-bit transition was arguably the best - people buying Windows 7 machines today don't even notice it for the most part.


The key point is people buying Windows 7 machines today. People buying new Macs today don't notice it, either. However, people upgrading from 32-bit to 64-bit Windows certainly notice it, as Windows 64-bit requires a clean installation (i.e. it won't migrate your old programs and settings). Heck, you can't even "upgrade" from Windows 7 32-bit to Windows 7 64-bit.

We can debate whether Microsoft's clean break or Apple's gradual approach was better, but in general, Apple got people to 64-bit application support sooner than Microsoft did, because they took a gradual approach.64-bit Windows has been around since XP. However, it wasn't until Windows 7 that 64-bit versions of Windows outsold 32-bit versions, and mostly because new PCs were sold equipped with 64-bit versions.

On the Windows side, most people get new operating systems when they get new computers. While the potential upgrade population is bigger (and wider, since Windows 7 and Windows 8 are compatible with older PCs), generally people stick with what is preinstalled.

nilk
Jul 11, 2012, 11:59 AM
Not sure why people are pissed. It's not like your Mac will stop working when ML is released. Apple isn't forcing you to upgrade. You can keep running SL or Lion as long as you want.

As for Apple not re-writing the drivers to support the older Macs, I'm all for them. I'm a developer myself and it requires a lot of time to maintain 32bit and 64bit builds. I'm surprised Windows still supports 32bit. Hopefully with Windows 9 they drop it. Supporting multiple platforms and old hardware makes the OS bloated and more prone to bugs.

I'm a developer too, and I think the Mac Pro situation is different. The Mac Pro 1,1 / 2,1, while it has EFI32, is an otherwise 64-bit capable machine and officially runs a 64-bit userland while still using a 32-bit kernel. It can boot a 64-bit kernel even, and while Apple doesn't officially support that, people have managed to make it happen:

http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,1123.0.html

Also, Apple could have provided a firmware update for the Mac Pro 1,1 / 2,1 to provide EFI64 if that was even the real issue.

This isn't about 32-bit vs 64-bit, this is about planned obsolescence of completely capable hardware. I'm not upset about it, because this is typical Apple procedure, and I saw it coming, but I do think it is a shame that such capable hardware is losing support. This is especially a shame for those with a 8-core 3.0 which still outperforms some of the 2012 Macs that just came out. All you really need to do to make these machines current is put in a more recent video card (which may be unofficially supported, but still works, like the ATI 5770) and use an SSD for your system partition, and you've got a very powerful, fast machine.

Now you might say that Apple shouldn't have to expend the resources to support old machines and that one of the benefits of their focus on newer hardware is that things are more stable and reliable, etc. But the Mac Pro has had such little variation that I don't see what the big deal in supporting the 1,1 / 2,1 is. And they have enough cash in the bank to fund this. It'd be nice if they could throw their Mac Pro users a bone here.

Ah well, this is just one of the things you have to accept as a purchaser of a Mac Pro, that it's going to lose support way before the hardware becomes irrelevant. At least we can install Linux or Windows on these powerful machines and still have them be useful for the next 10 years. Or keep hacking newer OS X updates to make it work, essentially making it a hackintosh.

BeyondtheTech
Jul 11, 2012, 11:59 AM
Considering that all my Macs run Lion, two of them being 2007 iMacs, I say it was a great run for those machines when Mountain Lion becomes their last OS we'll see on it. Five years and running beautifully (knock on wood), my kids are having a blast, and most of the games they've gotten on disc in the Apple Store (sadly lost PowerPC support back when I upgraded to Lion) and the Mac App Store work swimmingly.

I haven't even upgraded them to a full 4GB or SSDs yet, so I gather I can still get 1-2 years more of good use of them before I have to retire them, so I say those iMacs were definitely worth their investments.

milo
Jul 11, 2012, 12:00 PM
I could live with Lion on my Mac Pro 1.1...

http://www.jabbawok.net/?p=47

parapup
Jul 11, 2012, 12:00 PM
You're forgetting all the external USB/other peripherals though, like printers, scanners, webcams, etc... ;)

Yep that was personally a pain - my USB Serial dongle didn't work with Vista - look how soon I forgot about it by switching to Linux which had a driver right out of box for the same dongle :)

sarcnelson
Jul 11, 2012, 12:03 PM
I am not sure whether my laptop (MacBook Pro, 17", early 2009, 2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor) will support OS X Mountain Lion.

According to this Apple support page, (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3696) my laptop is 64-bit (I have an Intel Core 2 Duo). From what I've read, Mountain Lion will not run on 64-bit systems, which means I would be out of luck. However, most other sites (including Apple's own Mountain Lion upgrade info page (http://www.apple.com/osx/how-to-upgrade/)) I've read says that Mountain Lion will indeed work on an early-2009 MacBook Pro.

So I'm wondering...what's the official answer? I'm pretty sure I have a 64-bit processor, which I think makes Mountain Lion un-usabe, but according to other sites my early-2009 model will run Mountain Lion. Any advice? Thank you!

RipeRetina
Jul 11, 2012, 12:04 PM
Pretty sure its a yes, but my 2008 aluminum macbook is good for go for mountain lion correct?

LordVic
Jul 11, 2012, 12:04 PM
Just going over some details in my head. Correct me if I'm wrong (likely am).

New Revisions of OSx typically drop hardware support for machines 3-5 years old.

Apple only offers patches, hotfixes and support towards the current OS release and 1 prior release (Lion and SL now).

Once ML comes out, Snow Leopard goes into EOL and stops receiving any patches or security updates.

So if you're on hardware that supports SL, but cannot run Lion / ML. you have no choice but to replace the hardrware itself to keep up to date, When in reality the hardware itself is more than capable of running your average daily task of today.

if you don't replace your hardware, the most you will get is 1 more year of support if you can get Lion installed.

Effectively Apple has railroaded the users base into planned obsolescence of 2-3 years before they are basically trapped running unsupported OS.

If this isn't done asa pure money making scheme, than I'm a monkey's uncle

To put this in perspective:

OSx Snow Leapord and Windows 7 came out approximately the same time.
Windows 7 will continue to get support until 2020 according to microsoft.
Snow leopard with the release of Mountain Lion will no longer receive any support.

parapup
Jul 11, 2012, 12:06 PM
They still are selling 32-bit Windows. My point is that they did need to break compatibility in order to make the transition.

The common ground for comparison if there is one with the Microsoft vs Apple 64-bit transition debate is that breaking 16-bit compatibility which few cared about and was fixed by using XP Mode is different than breaking compatibility with not-so-old perfectly capable 64-bit hardware.

If Microsoft said Windows 8 will not work with 64-bit machines prior to 2008 (which Win 7 worked great with) then you would have a point.

Boston007
Jul 11, 2012, 12:06 PM
Mine (early 2008) says
Model Name: Mac Pro
Model Identifier: MacPro3,1
Processor Name: Quad-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed: 2.8 GHz
Number Of Processors: 2

It's listed as EFI64 although it also says the default mode is 32-bit in Mac OS X (client), 64-bit in Mac OS X Server.

Is that different than what you are describing?

How is the mode determined / changed (32-bit <-> 64-bit)?

I have the same computer

You can enable the EFI64 through the command line with a script. I found it online awhile ago. Do a search you should be able to find it. Sadly I am at work so I can't pinpoint it for you had I been home.

Sasparilla
Jul 11, 2012, 12:09 PM
Although people.......
I didn't think of this! So basically Apple will just leave everyone who upgraded OSX last year when the new one comes out in terms of support and essential security updates, which, as far as I'm concerned it is responsible for for a LONG time?

Yes, this is a big problem actually - they're going from security update support for their OS X releases of 4 or 5 years to 2 years and for someone who has one of these machines - they have to update to Lion and then only have a year before they loose security updates (Snow Leopard looses security updates in a few weeks).

Apple should change their security update policy to reflect the time they supported previously (4-6 years depending on the release) - with a yearly OS release cycle, 2 years is not enough for security support.

To put it in perspective, Snow Leopard looses new security updates in a couple of weeks, Windows 7 was released at about the same time and will get security updates to 2020.

mabhatter
Jul 11, 2012, 12:11 PM
Maybe 5 years, but I would say yes they should receive updates for year 3 - 4.

The main issue of comparison is not if Microsoft supports something but if your OEM does.

So how many of you are getting support from DELL for your hardware? When you take an upgraded Mac in for service, they support the latest OS. With Dell, they support what it was SHIPPED WITH and no more. Sure IMICROSOFT will tell you crazy 10-year-old specs are OK... How many OEMs will SUPPORT, under warranty, an upgrade to Win 8 for items ON THE SHELF right now? Regardless if Microsoft gives you a free coupon or not.

krithikb007
Jul 11, 2012, 12:12 PM
ah ! my Macbook Mid 2007 gone :(
Hope apple will support XCode for lion for atleast a year.
Also waiting for some work around like this one
http://osxdaily.com/2012/02/18/install-os-x-mountain-lion-developer-preview-on-old-unsupported-macs/

KPOM
Jul 11, 2012, 12:12 PM
The common ground for comparison if there is one with the Microsoft vs Apple 64-bit transition debate is that breaking 16-bit compatibility which few cared about and was fixed by using XP Mode is different than breaking compatibility with not-so-old perfectly capable 64-bit hardware.

If Microsoft said Windows 8 will not work with 64-bit machines prior to 2008 (which Win 7 worked great with) then you would have a point.

No, the common ground is that Vista 64-bit broke compatibility with a lot of legacy peripherals whose manufacturers didn't exist anymore (and thus weren't around to write 64-bit drivers), or who couldn't be bothered to update their 32-bit drivers. XP Mode doesn't always work with those devices either, since the host OS has trouble recognizing them.

Granted, Microsoft is a lot better at supporting legacy devices and systems than Apple. They always have been. And it is disappointing Apple couldn't release a firmware update or 64-bit drivers. However, that may be the price to pay for $20 operating system upgrades. Now that Microsoft is going down the route of $40 upgrades, as well as making their own PCs, it will be interesting to see if they start making similar moves with Windows 9, particularly if Surface is a success and they start moving people over to Metro.

Hastings101
Jul 11, 2012, 12:12 PM
That's unfortunate, especially for the Mac Pro owners. The original model is still pretty decent compared to the newest.

Also, Macrumors what did you do to my downvote button :mad:? I can't unleash anonymous justice on posts I disagree with now

Sasparilla
Jul 11, 2012, 12:14 PM
Just going over some details in my head. Correct me if I'm wrong (likely am).

New Revisions of OSx typically drop hardware support for machines 3-5 years old.

Apple only offers patches, hotfixes and support towards the current OS release and 1 prior release (Lion and SL now).

Once ML comes out, Snow Leopard goes into EOL and stops receiving any patches or security updates.

So if you're on hardware that supports SL, but cannot run Lion / ML. you have no choice but to replace the hardrware itself to keep up to date, When in reality the hardware itself is more than capable of running your average daily task of today.

if you don't replace your hardware, the most you will get is 1 more year of support if you can get Lion installed.

Effectively Apple has railroaded the users base into planned obsolescence of 2-3 years before they are basically trapped running unsupported OS.

If this isn't done asa pure money making scheme, than I'm a monkey's uncle

Well put, although I'm guessing this is an unintended consequence of moving to a yearly iOS release cycle for OS X as opposed to a money making scheme and can be fixed (if Apple figures out the problem here). Users have to stay with the latest release or loose security in 2 years or less.

The other choice these users have (beside selling the hardware now on eBay before it looses all its value) is holding their nose's and loading Windows on it and getting security updates much, much longer (v 7 goes to 2020).

Sacird
Jul 11, 2012, 12:14 PM
To put it in perspective, Snow Leopard looses new security updates in a couple of weeks, Windows 7 was released at about the same time and will get security updates to 2020.

MS HAS to do that they would be NO different from Apple if they could push the upgrade envelope. I dont dislike MS but the love for them here is weird.

KPOM
Jul 11, 2012, 12:16 PM
Apple should change their security update policy to reflect the time they supported previously (4-6 years depending on the release) - with a yearly OS release cycle, 2 years is not enough for security support.

To put it in perspective, Snow Leopard looses new security updates in a couple of weeks, Windows 7 was released at about the same time and will get security updates to 2020.

I agree Apple should update its security policy, and be more explicit. However, I don't think it is fair to say that Snow Leopard will lose security updates in 2 weeks. Apple is still releasing security updates for Leopard.

Apple is definitely focused more on consumers than enterprises. Enterprises tend to keep computers longer and use older software. That's partly why Microsoft support is as good as it is. However, with Windows 8, I can see the seeds of change in Redmond, as well. I wouldn't be surprised if "Desktop" support gets deprecated in Windows 9 (perhaps akin to Windows XP Mode in Windows 7), and if it drops native support for APIs other than those compatible with Metro.

Sacird
Jul 11, 2012, 12:18 PM
Also, Macrumors what did you do to my downvote button :mad:? I can't unleash anonymous justice on posts I disagree with now

I know I always downvoted myself and now I can't. It really made a difference and separated the cool posts from the uncool. :p

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 12:18 PM
@bedifferent :

Source ? Why would they need to rewrite things like say POSIX support ? The VFS layer ? HFS support ? I don't think you understand how big an operating system is if you feel "rewritting from the ground up" is even an option.

Just to drive the point home on this, since Darwin's source is available on Apple's site, let's just check the 10.5.0 kernel source and compare some bits to the kernel shipped with 10.7.4. Something as simple as the NVRAM driver :

$ diff AppleNVRAM.cpp AppleNVRAM.cpp-1699
4c4
< * Copyright (c) 1998-2000 Apple Computer, Inc. All rights reserved.
---
> * Copyright (c) 1998-2008 Apple Computer, Inc. All rights reserved.
88,90c88,90
<
< if ((buffer == 0) || (length <= 0) || (offset < 0) ||
< (offset + length > kNVRAMImageSize))
---
>
> // length and offset can't be less than zero (unsigned), so we don't check
> if ((buffer == 0) || (length == 0) || (offset + length > kNVRAMImageSize))
127,128c127,128
< if ((buffer == 0) || (length <= 0) || (offset < 0) ||
< (offset + length > kNVRAMImageSize))
---
> // length and offset can't be less than zero (unsigned), so we don't check
> if ((buffer == 0) || (length == 0) || (offset + length > kNVRAMImageSize))


They changed 2 whole conditions and the copyright notice (the copyright was probably adjusted at the same time the conditions were). Also notice what actually changed...

Yep, they removed check for the offset being less than 0 since that was an "impossible" condition.

That's what is called a whole rewrite ? Really ? There never was a rewrite of OS X. That would be a huge undertaking and would probably yield very little tangible benefits. Rewrites are usually done for certain sub-systems, applications or libraries, not the whole operating system.

mytdave
Jul 11, 2012, 12:19 PM
Update the damn drivers! Well Apple, I guess I won't be upgrading any of my machines to Mountain Lion - you see, the thing is I'm in IT and I need to keep all machines up-to-date with the same software set. I can't have 1/2 of the machines on Lion, and the other half on Mountain Lion, so I guess that's the end of the road for you getting my business...

Here's the problem, you've dropped machines that are too new. You're cutting them off in the middle of a 5-year depreciation cycle. You need to support your machines with software updates for a least 5 years - now I understand why businesses dropped you guys in the '90's.

Hello Linux (still not going to migrate to Windows).

Sasparilla
Jul 11, 2012, 12:19 PM
I agree Apple should update its security policy, and be more explicit. However, I don't think it is fair to say that Snow Leopard will lose security updates in 2 weeks. Apple is still releasing security updates for Leopard.

Apple is definitely focused more on consumers than enterprises. Enterprises tend to keep computers longer and use older software. That's partly why Microsoft support is as good as it is. However, with Windows 8, I can see the seeds of change in Redmond, as well. I wouldn't be surprised if "Desktop" support gets deprecated in Windows 9 (perhaps akin to Windows XP Mode in Windows 7), and if it drops native support for APIs other than those compatible with Metro.

Apple only released the Java security update for Leopard when it became apparent to Apple that many of the infected Java clients for the OS X attack this last year were running Leopard - beyond that, Apple has not been releasing security updates for Leopard, they stopped when Lion was released.

Unless Apple changes its policies (supporting only the 2 most recent releases), security support for Snow Leopard ends in a couple of weeks. They need to change this, but so far there isn't any evidence they are (not on the radar I'm guessing).

derbothaus
Jul 11, 2012, 12:21 PM
They must have a better reason than graphics drivers.

Yes they do. Hardware sales.

Sacird
Jul 11, 2012, 12:22 PM
Update the damn drivers! Well Apple, I guess I won't be upgrading any of my machines to Mountain Lion - you see, the thing is I'm in IT and I need to keep all machines up-to-date with the same software set. I can't have 1/2 of the machines on Lion, and the other half on Mountain Lion, so I guess that's the end of the road for you getting my business...

Here's the problem, you've dropped machines that are too new. You're cutting them off in the middle of a 5-year depreciation cycle. You need to support your machines with software updates for a least 5 years - now I understand why businesses dropped you guys in the '90's.

Hello Linux (still not going to migrate to Windows).

Very nice.

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 12:22 PM
You need to support your machines with software updates for a least 5 years

They need to or you want them to ?

Apple doesn't need to do anything except sustain growth and profits for their shareholders.

apolloa
Jul 11, 2012, 12:23 PM
Yes, this is a big problem actually - they're going from security update support for their OS X releases of 4 or 5 years to 2 years and for someone who has one of these machines - they have to update to Lion and then only have a year before they loose security updates (Snow Leopard looses security updates in a few weeks).

Apple should change their security update policy to reflect the time they supported previously (4-6 years depending on the release) - with a yearly OS release cycle, 2 years is not enough for security support.

To put it in perspective, Snow Leopard looses new security updates in a couple of weeks, Windows 7 was released at about the same time and will get security updates to 2020.

In that case then, I would go out on a limb and here and claim their would be a good court case in here? I mean if a virus for OSX was launched, and Apple stated the only way you could avoid getting it was to buy a totally new computer or the latest OSX, that to me would not stand up in court.

Is it me, or has Apple REALLY become totally arrogant of it's customers lately? It REALLY lives up to that famous advert it proclaimed to never be.

nilk
Jul 11, 2012, 12:23 PM
I still find it hard to believe people with old machines would rush out and download ML in the first year. It isn't in their DNA to be an early adopter. Tiger/Leopard/Snow Leopard will be fine for those folks anyways.

Granted, I wasn't planning for my Mac Pro 1,1 to be my first Mac to try ML out on, but I already have Lion on it, and I'm hoping that ML fixes some of the bugs in Lion. I'm actually excited about some of the ML features, like AirPlay mirroring and all the syncing between iOS like with Messages, Notes, etc. So in the off-chance that Apple decided to support ML on the 1,1 (which I wasn't really expecting based on previous reports), I was planning to switch to it if I found it to be reasonably stable. I'm still planning to do this if the hacks work well enough.

I don't own and use a Mac Pro 1,1 because I'm a slow adopter, but rather because the Mac Pro 1,1 is still very capable and I don't yet need an upgrade because of hardware performance, and I don't want to spend the money for an upgrade I don't need. I'm happy to spend $20 on a OS upgrade, however, if it gives me new capabilities.

I might not be the typical old-machine owner, however. I know people still running Tiger, and I'm like "come on, at least upgrade to Leopard and get a Time Machine backup going"...

mrbyu
Jul 11, 2012, 12:24 PM
Very nice.

I see what you've changed here :p

mslide
Jul 11, 2012, 12:24 PM
People can't legitimately expect to receive the newest updates on machines that are 3+ years old.

One of the dumbest statements I've ever heard on this site. Are you a sales rep for Apple or something?

This decision was made for one reason only... to get people like me (who are using old-ass macs that run perfectly fine on the latest OS) to buy new hardware.

This just makes it that much harder to justify the Apple tax.

derbothaus
Jul 11, 2012, 12:24 PM
Update the damn drivers! Well Apple, I guess I won't be upgrading any of my machines to Mountain Lion - you see, the thing is I'm in IT and I need to keep all machines up-to-date with the same software set. I can't have 1/2 of the machines on Lion, and the other half on Mountain Lion, so I guess that's the end of the road for you getting my business...


You must be lazy IT. I have tons of mixed environments. Win XP-7, Linux, Mac OS 10.5-10.8. You see, the thing is, I know how to manage such things. As I see it everyone should stay on 10.6 or update to 10.8. 10.7 is the Vista moment.

AppleFan1984
Jul 11, 2012, 12:25 PM
Apple decided that one button was already one too many, so they've gone to the no-button mouse, instead.

Next up: the keyless keyboard[COLOR="#808080"]
Here's the video - the Macbook Wheel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BnLbv6QYcA

;)

Sacird
Jul 11, 2012, 12:27 PM
I see what you've changed here :p

Shhh.. :D

I felt the need to not take that shot. Ubuntu is pretty sweet though, I built a win7 machine and find the OS .....average....

Like the old arse XBOX 360.

audio_inside
Jul 11, 2012, 12:27 PM
How about,

"We want those who purchased a Macintosh in early 2007 or before to purchase..."

...a Hackintosh. OK, if you're going to EOL my MacPro1,1 then thanks, believe I will!

Mr_Ed
Jul 11, 2012, 12:28 PM
...
The report notes that some of the GPUs used in early 64-bit Macs were deprecated before 64-bit KEXTs were in common usage, and thus they were never upgraded from their original 32-bit KEXTs. With the affected machines now being a number of years old, Apple apparently decided that it was not worth investing the resources to upgrade those drivers to 64-bit in order to support OS X Mountain Lion.
...

Assuming Apple does not purposely cripple the installation process to preclude the old machines (which we know they will :mad:), would an older Mac Pro not on the approved list work if it had a more modern graphics card? I mean, if they have a 64-bit KEXT for the newer card, would that not be the one loaded at boot time?

AppleFan1984
Jul 11, 2012, 12:28 PM
A timely decision - that is, if Apple's going for irony:
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/07/apple-pulls-products-from-environmental-epeat-registry/

unwinded
Jul 11, 2012, 12:31 PM
From an objective thinking standpoint, this is a good thing going forward. Unless I am mistaken, all the required hardware supports an opencl gpu. All hardware also requires at least a dual core 64-bit intel CPU. Thus the transition has been completed. It began with 32-bit intel CPUs and in one case (mac mini) was single core. Rosetta allowed great BC with PPC apps until Lion, and Apple has been talking about opencl for years. Lion dropped Rosetta and some 32-bit early macs, now the rest have been dropped. Compatibility still extends to about 5 years for many models and 3 years in lesser cases. This is normal and it's not like the 'incompatible' ones will stop working. Even a fully updated intel mac running snow leopard is modern and can run most apps. A PPC mac running leopard is missing out on the latest apps, but considering what it can run given its age that's not bad.

Going forward the OS now has a basis that will allow it to excel compared to its competitors. The transition period was a smooth six years. I dont't see any problem except for the rare case of specific mac pros

monkeybongo
Jul 11, 2012, 12:32 PM
Honestly, it's not like your computer is going to stop working once Mountain Lion comes out. Even though my machines are supported, I'm debating if I'll even upgrade at all.

I don't blame them for cutting support but I do blame them for putting crappy Intel graphics chips in the laptops in the first place for the lower end Mac mini and Macbooks.

roasted
Jul 11, 2012, 12:36 PM
Sarcasam aside, its pretty typical of Apple to stop supporting computers pretty quickly. It helps force users to upgrade. Business model.

Talk to any devoted Apple fan and you'll likely hear the exact opposite story. :D:D:D:D

iMikeT
Jul 11, 2012, 12:37 PM
Some people need to stop living in the past.

No one can really expect a company continue to support a product that is five years old now can they?

cgc
Jul 11, 2012, 12:39 PM
They dropped all models which do not support at least OpenGL 3.2 core profile. I think this is the main story here. Personally, I welcome this decision.

The MacPros were dropped, not the GPU within them that could be easily upgraded to meet/surpass Mountain Lion's minimum system requirements. Netkas.org has gotten OSX 10.8 working on the 2006 MacPro so Apple is BSing us.

trainwrecka
Jul 11, 2012, 12:40 PM
We had a good run 2006 iMac, but your time is coming to a close... if they update the iMac anyway.

Boston007
Jul 11, 2012, 12:41 PM
Some people need to stop living in the past.

No one can really expect a company continue to support a product that is five years old now can they?

LOL
The apple fanboy arrogance is astounding.

LordVic
Jul 11, 2012, 12:43 PM
You must be lazy IT. I have tons of mixed environments. Win XP-7, Linux, Mac OS 10.5-10.8. You see, the thing is, I know how to manage such things. As I see it everyone should stay on 10.6 or update to 10.8. 10.7 is the Vista moment.

Clearly you don't work in a major corporations tech department supporting proprietary hardware / software environments, that also have strict regulations and policies regarding security, software, support and updates.

large corporations take years to migrate OS's. Many of which are still on XP and doing the changeover to 7.

Platform uniformity is a huge deal as it eliminates possible failures do to inconsistencies.

There is a huge reason why many medium and large enterprises are enforcing ITIL change management policies

GenesisST
Jul 11, 2012, 12:43 PM
Wasn't longevity one of the appeals of a Mac?

I get that new version don't support 32-bit, I really do and do not mind. My 2006 imac remains on SL and don't mind that. That machine is 6-years old and I was OK without Lion support. Still a great email/web/music machine!

Whatever is gained now will be their loss later... Us, Mac users, are a loyal bunch, but now a bit of that loyalty is lost.

At the next upgrade, I won't go for the top of the line because it is a moot point now. Whatever they gain now will be lost later...

And I think EFI32 is just an excuse. After all, isn't OS the "world's most advanced desktop operating system" (tm)? Should be able to handle that...

mrbyu
Jul 11, 2012, 12:44 PM
Ubuntu is pretty sweet though, I built a win7 machine and find the OS .....average....

That's exactly what I wanted to say from my heart, but I was afraid of getting cursed here by the fans. :)

I've used Ubuntu for 4 years before I bought my first Mac last year. I've seen how it evolved and I always supported the guys at Canonical. These developers have done something amazing in the last few years with this OS. Of course it cannot compete with OS X or even with Windows on some areas (especially on areas that require a lot of money), and they surely "borrowed" some ideas from OS X, but basically it's by far my most favourite and beloved operating system after OS X, and maaaan, it's free!

I'm trying to "free" every suffering person from Windows and convince them to use Ubuntu, and I already have plenty of happy "switchers" behind me. Not to mention that even a stone can run the latest version of Ubuntu (12.04), which is a LTS (long term support) distribution that means it's getting security updates for 3 years.

Unfortunately it still lacks a lot of professional programs that many people could consider necessarily (which is not Ubuntu's or Linux's fault of course), but for the average user it's already NIRVANA compared to Windows.

trainwrecka
Jul 11, 2012, 12:44 PM
Some people need to stop living in the past.

No one can really expect a company continue to support a product that is five years old now can they?

They can if their device is still capable. My 2006 iMac hasn't run the best since the upgrade to Lion (Tiger, Leopard, and Snow all ran fantastic) and upgrade to the latest iPhoto. Gave my system all sorts of problems, so I understand why they would drop support for it. Someone who purchased a Mac Pro probably invested for the future and would expect a 2007 Mac Pro (unsupported) to be on par with a 2007 iMac (supported).

derbothaus
Jul 11, 2012, 12:44 PM
Clearly you don't work in a major corporations tech department supporting proprietary hardware / software environments, that also have strict regulations and policies regarding security, software, support and updates.

large corporations take years to migrate OS's. Many of which are still on XP and doing the changeover to 7.

Platform uniformity is a huge deal as it eliminates possible failures do to inconsistencies.

There is a huge reason why many medium and large enterprises are enforcing ITIL change management policies

Wrong. And the Mac's are not under same umbrella. They have their own policies. I guarantee you'd know my company.

soundguyami
Jul 11, 2012, 12:47 PM
I have 3 - 2007 mac pros at work. Not happy. Especialy as an iOS developer where apple will surely force me to run the latest OS X to run the latest version of xcode.

Says the person that list a Hackentosh on their profile. You don't even play by the rules.

cgc
Jul 11, 2012, 12:47 PM
...
Apple doesn't need to do anything except sustain growth and profits for their shareholders.

Apple will lose customers if they see this as Apple's #1 priority (or any priority higher than customer support).