OS X Mountain Lion Drops Support for Many 2006-2008 Macs with Integrated Graphics

[DavidRavenMoon]

I just don't like how I am forced to update my OS every year or so for new things because my current operating system will no longer have support, and then in this instance update my computer every couple of years to use these new Operating Systems. I have a 10.6 machine sitting next to me with some features happily working, and others I know will not within a short amount of time.

You don't have to upgrade every year. I didn't upgrade my last mac since 2007 because Apple dropped PPC support. It didn't stop me from doing anything. I usually do update the OS every year because I enjoy having the latest version.

One one hand because it was a G4, I couldn't use the newer versions of the Adobe suite. On the other hand, switching to Lion meant I have to upgrade some of my software, like ProTools, because the version I have sopped working. So there are pros and cons to both. I might fix my old G4 and use that for ProTools.

But there are no security risks from using a 5 year old OS X because there are not really any security risks for Macs to start with.

As far as support, they can only go so far back. MS doesn't update old versions of Windows anymore. The only difference is that Apple releases new OSs more often. Windows is at 7, while OS X would really be at 17.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

My computer:


Hardware Overview:

Model Name: MacBook Pro
Model Identifier: MacBookPro4,1
Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
Processor Speed: 2.4 GHz
Number Of Processors: 1
Total Number Of Cores: 2
L2 Cache: 3 MB
Memory: 3 GB
Bus Speed: 800 MHz
Boot ROM Version: MBP41.00C1.B03
SMC Version (system): 1.27f3
Sudden Motion Sensor:
State: Enabled


Crucial says I can have 4 GB maximum, but Mactracker, and other sources say I can have 6. OWC also. This link also says that: http://tidbits.com/article/9839

And this:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/573906/

I am going to purchase a 4 GB card soon, I think, to install (2+4).

Hope this helps.

In that case, I'll check with OWC. I can't work with 4GB anymore. Thanks.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

As far as support, they can only go so far back. MS doesn't update old versions of Windows anymore. The only difference is that Apple releases new OSs more often. Windows is at 7, while OS X would really be at 17.

umm MS is still updating Vista (aka older version of Windows)

XP is in extended support right now and SP3 was released over a year after Vista was release.

Vista has a Plateform updated October 27, 2009 and Windows 7 had been RTM over the summer in 2009 and it was released to the general public October 22, 2009. That platform update for Vista was to add on some of the under the hood stuff Windows 7 was bring to the table. Chances are pretty good there will be a SP3 for vista not long after windows 8 comes out. SP3 adding in some of the new API into Vista. Windows 7 will also get a service pack as well doing the same thing.

Apple has gotten people more or less paying for service packs.

 

[vea1083]

How about the mid 2010 MacBook Pros?

I was wondeing if anyone can compare if Mountain Lion is more stable than OSX Lion in the 15" mid 2010 MacBook Pro. Let's say that my experience with Lion was so miserable that I downgraded to Snow Leopard this week. I would have Safari crashing with a spinning beach ball that would then freeze my whole system. Not to mention the log in screen beach ball that would also occur and have similar results.

Can anyone confirm if these issues were gone with Mountain Lion?

 

[meget]

Would you say it was a good idea to install the preview over the current lion installation? When Mountain Lion is public will i need to update or reinstall OS? Is there a way to turn developer changes back to go back to lion if needed?

 

[linkboy]

I was wondeing if anyone can compare if Mountain Lion is more stable than OSX Lion in the 15" mid 2010 MacBook Pro. Let's say that my experience with Lion was so miserable that I downgraded to Snow Leopard this week. I would have Safari crashing with a spinning beach ball that would then freeze my whole system. Not to mention the log in screen beach ball that would also occur and have similar results.

Can anyone confirm if these issues were gone with Mountain Lion?

Its still a beta OS, so its not really a reliable test. That will happen when the OS is released to the public this summer.

Would you say it was a good idea to install the preview over the current lion installation? When Mountain Lion is public will i need to update or reinstall OS? Is there a way to turn developer changes back to go back to lion if needed?

If you install the Developer Preview, you'll have to install the final version of ML over it or erase it and do a fresh install.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Maybe their is hope. http://osxdaily.com/2012/02/18/install-os-x-mountain-lion-developer-preview-on-old-unsupported-macs

Notice how the article states that it runs very well and with full hardware acceleration. If he can do that in a very short amount of time, imagine how little effort it would have been for Apple to support those machines! The REASON is they DON'T WANT TO. It's called planned obsolescence and it's getting shorter and shorter with the new "Green" Apple. The hardware is greener and will last a long time...in a landfill since you can't get new software for it about 8-10 years before it's actually unusable in technological terms.

I think massive points should be taken off on the sites that rate Apple for "greenness" based on that planned obsolescence. There's no good excuse for it (but that won't stop the fanboys from doing it anyway...night and day). It's GREED, plain and simple.

 

[millar876]

Oh dear, it seems as if my mac mini 1.1 will have to go without mountain lion. Shame really, as I've shoehorned in a 500gb HDD (up from stock 60) maxed out he ram at 2GB, slapped in a 2.0GHz Core2Duo (replacing 1.6GHz CoreDuo) and farted about deleting .plist files to get lion to run on it. It runs plex great, and even manages to transcode all the files I've tried so far for my iPad 1 and iPhone 4.

 

[djmodifyd]

good, i'm still running a unibody macbook from 08 (I like to call it a macbook unibody classic...)

it still runs like new

 

[QuarterSwede]

Notice how the article states that it runs very well and with full hardware acceleration. If he can do that in a very short amount of time, imagine how little effort it would have been for Apple to support those machines! The REASON is they DON'T WANT TO. It's called planned obsolescence and it's getting shorter and shorter with the new "Green" Apple. The hardware is greener and will last a long time...in a landfill since you can't get new software for it about 8-10 years before it's actually unusable in technological terms.

I think massive points should be taken off on the sites that rate Apple for "greenness" based on that planned obsolescence. There's no good excuse for it (but that won't stop the fanboys from doing it anyway...night and day). It's GREED, plain and simple.

You did't actual read the original thread (from an MR member) that states that they don't fully work. He can get them to boot and get to the desktop but as soon as he tries to use anything that requires something graphical it crashes. Right now, they surmise that the unsupported cards don't have the required OpenCL functions.

I remember when Leopard came out and the 12" PowerBook wasn't able to display the menubar's translucency. There was a bunch of moaning but the reason actually came down to a single shader that wasn't supported in the graphics card.

You can still call that planned obsolescence but there is one thing that's for sure, Apple always pushes what the OS can do graphically with the current cards available. If that means a few older machines won't be able to run smoothly or have they look they want then they get cut.

 

[linkboy]

good, i'm still running a unibody macbook from 08 (I like to call it a macbook unibody classic...)

it still runs like new

I have the last of the original MBP designs (15", 2.2ghz Core2Duo, 4GB RAM, 300+GB Hard Drive, etc) and its still running like a champ (other then the GPU that's a ticking time bomb and a dead Superdrive). I'm looking at sticking a 4GB RAM chip in to bump the RAM up to 6GB to get some more life out of it.

I'm not in the market for a new computer when this one is still doing what I need it to do and I'm not having any issues with any software that I run.

Its easily been one of the best computers I've owned.

If it isn't capable of running Mountain Lion, so be it. I've gotten 5+years out of this machine, I've more then gotten my monies worth out of it.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

You did't actual read the original thread (from an MR member) that states that they don't fully work. He can get them to boot and get to the desktop but as soon as he tries to use anything that requires something graphical it crashes. Right now, they surmise that the unsupported cards don't have the required OpenCL functions.

Yes, because OpenCL is really needed to run a simple GUI....

You can still call that planned obsolescence but there is one thing that's for sure, Apple always pushes what the OS can do graphically with the current cards available. If that means a few older machines won't be able to run smoothly or have they look they want then they get cut.

Exactly what benefit do I get from having OpenCL calls in the GUI? What eye candy does Mountain Lion feature that I simply cannot live without it in a preference setting (like lower feature levels in Windows for eye candy)? With Apple's level of resources and cash, there is simply no excuse for their poor level of support compared to Microsoft after the sale.

I can put Mountain Lion on my late 2008 Macbook Pro which is still running Snow Leopard, but I don't think I want to. I still use Rosetta for a couple of things like Diablo2 and Office '04 (see no reason I should pay to upgrade when I use it so little these days so it would be just one more cost to this "upgrade") nor do I need any of these iOS-centric features. I like Screens just the way it is in Snow Leopard and Leopard, not like Mission Control has it. Apple doesn't provide nearly enough customization and options for people that prefer the previous setups for things like that.

Despite all the rhetoric about making OSX more efficient and optimized, the FACT remains that Snow Leopard made my Macbook Pro SLOWER than it was with Leopard. The only noticeable improvement was a slight decrease in hard drive space used on install (due to erasing PPC support stuff), but then the drive I have in that machine is quite large and so it really wasn't worth it. But I HAD to upgrade to keep certain programs' newer versions working (as developers typically dump older OS support when it inconveniences them more than a few seconds).

 

[QuarterSwede]

Yes, because OpenCL is really needed to run a simple GUI....



Exactly what benefit do I get from having OpenCL calls in the GUI? What eye candy does Mountain Lion feature that I simply cannot live without it in a preference setting (like lower feature levels in Windows for eye candy)? With Apple's level of resources and cash, there is simply no excuse for their poor level of support compared to Microsoft after the sale.

I can put Mountain Lion on my late 2008 Macbook Pro which is still running Snow Leopard, but I don't think I want to. I still use Rosetta for a couple of things like Diablo2 and Office '04 (see no reason I should pay to upgrade when I use it so little these days so it would be just one more cost to this "upgrade") nor do I need any of these iOS-centric features. I like Screens just the way it is in Snow Leopard and Leopard, not like Mission Control has it. Apple doesn't provide nearly enough customization and options for people that prefer the previous setups for things like that.

Despite all the rhetoric about making OSX more efficient and optimized, the FACT remains that Snow Leopard made my Macbook Pro SLOWER than it was with Leopard. The only noticeable improvement was a slight decrease in hard drive space used on install (due to erasing PPC support stuff), but then the drive I have in that machine is quite large and so it really wasn't worth it. But I HAD to upgrade to keep certain programs' newer versions working (as developers typically dump older OS support when it inconveniences them more than a few seconds).

I'm not defending them. Just stating facts. I'm currently running a late 07 MacBook that won't be able to run ML. Don't you think I want to?

 

[mabhatter]

I don't know why anyone would care about compatibility with this update. It sounds completely nonessential.

Updates are important because many independent developers move to the new APIs relatively quickly after a new release to add new features. That's the other big thing that has made Macs so much fun for the last 5 years. It's been a fun ride since I got my white MacBook in 2007... but when you have to start picking and choosing which apps you can't follow anymore it's going to get un-fun rather quickly.

 

[meget]

Its still a beta OS, so its not really a reliable test. That will happen when the OS is released to the public this summer.



If you install the Developer Preview, you'll have to install the final version of ML over it or erase it and do a fresh install.

So all my data is gone when i reinstall the lion over mountain lion? or is it always kept safe? I do time machine backups though

 

[Can't Stop]

You don't know that ML is slower or more bloated, it just shipped the first beta today and will hopefully improve from there. I've seen at least one report from a dev that it's faster at least than Lion was.

I can confirm it's very fast.

 

[AnonMac50]

Yes, because OpenCL is really needed to run a simple GUI....



Exactly what benefit do I get from having OpenCL calls in the GUI? What eye candy does Mountain Lion feature that I simply cannot live without it in a preference setting (like lower feature levels in Windows for eye candy)? With Apple's level of resources and cash, there is simply no excuse for their poor level of support compared to Microsoft after the sale.

I can put Mountain Lion on my late 2008 Macbook Pro which is still running Snow Leopard, but I don't think I want to. I still use Rosetta for a couple of things like Diablo2 and Office '04 (see no reason I should pay to upgrade when I use it so little these days so it would be just one more cost to this "upgrade") nor do I need any of these iOS-centric features. I like Screens just the way it is in Snow Leopard and Leopard, not like Mission Control has it. Apple doesn't provide nearly enough customization and options for people that prefer the previous setups for things like that.

Despite all the rhetoric about making OSX more efficient and optimized, the FACT remains that Snow Leopard made my Macbook Pro SLOWER than it was with Leopard. The only noticeable improvement was a slight decrease in hard drive space used on install (due to erasing PPC support stuff), but then the drive I have in that machine is quite large and so it really wasn't worth it. But I HAD to upgrade to keep certain programs' newer versions working (as developers typically dump older OS support when it inconveniences them more than a few seconds).

Well said.
Actually, on my MacBook Pro (Early 2008), even Leopard (which it shipped with) is slower than Tiger! On an external drive, I've tried Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard, Lion, and Mountain Lion. Under NDA I cannot comment on Mountain Lion, but I can on the rest, and the fact is that the older the OS, the faster it is!

 

[the8thark]

And no ATI X1600 support either...

That gpu is long dead. It was not even top of the line when I bought it in my previous iMac in 2006. It was mid range then.

So you expect Apple to support 6-7 year old hardware? That's a little tough to do I would think.

----------

Despite all the rhetoric about making OSX more efficient and optimized, the FACT remains that Snow Leopard made my Macbook Pro SLOWER than it was with Leopard.

Snow Leopard was was faster, more stable, less buggy and overall a better user experience then Leopard was on my 2006 White plastic iMac. So for me I'm glad I updated that old machine to SL.

Maybe it's just you who had the SL issues. Because I and others did not. I did not though upgrade that iMac to Lion though. Not because I don't want to. Simply because I don't know if Lion would run well on a 2.0Ghz C2D processor. If it did I'd upgrade that old machine tomorrow.

But it can not run ML. So SL or L is the end of the road for it.

 

[Wild-Bill]

Thats ok, Snow Leopard is still superior (faster, less bloated, more stable and has expose).

No thanks, I'll pass on Lion and Mountain Lion.

Here here! Still kicking 10.6.8 on my Mac Pro. ....and wondering if they are ever going to release 10.6.9 with iCloud support??

 

[Sackvillenb]

That's too bad, does anybody know that actual specific reasons for this? And please don't say it's "planned obsolescence", I don't think that's the reason... at least not this time...

 

[ID_Field_Blank]

Just because Apple is dropping support for old hardware doesn't mean that the old hardware will cease to function....

Its not as if on release day they'll pull a big level and everything that doesn't run ML will just power down and stop.

You may not like that it won't be supported, but it won't make any difference really. Life will just continue as it is today with the OS you have now and it won't actually matter.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

That's too bad, does anybody know that actual specific reasons for this? And please don't say it's "planned obsolescence", I don't think that's the reason... at least not this time...

Then we can't say anything because that IS the reason. They aren't making enough money. They want more. They want you to buy a new machine every other year at a minimum. No, there is NO OTHER REASON. Apple makes its money selling hardware, not software (like Microsoft). The software is simply a tool to facilitate more hardware sales and that's exactly how they are using it these days.

Just because Apple is dropping support for old hardware doesn't mean that the old hardware will cease to function....

Its not as if on release day they'll pull a big level and everything that doesn't run ML will just power down and stop.

You may not like that it won't be supported, but it won't make any difference really. Life will just continue as it is today with the OS you have now and it won't actually matter.

I'm so SICK of hear this steaming pile of an argument. It evades the issue ENTIRELY and suddenly we're all koombaya buddies with Apple again. Bologna. Yes, my Commodore 64 still works and still runs the software it used to back then too! The sun will come out and life goes on just like it did the day before...except that as each day ticks by I can get less and less new software and software updates and security patches and developers don't bother to support anything for older versions of the OS (from Apple to Google to Adobe).

The key difference there is that the C64 is the same basic functional hardware the last day they made it as the first day they made it (aside from cost savings changes with newer cheaper parts). It became obsolete because of its hardware. Here it's obsolete because of it's SOFTWARE that dumps all support for older systems. You're particularly screwed when XCode dumps all support for your machine (like with PPC). It's the kiss of death since you cannot just upgrade to newer XCode and keep making backwards compatible software without jumping through a huge number of hoops and maintain two trees of code. It's too much work/bother for a dwindling user base and so the end is inevitable. This does NOT happen so easily with Windows because the market shares are vastly larger (and developers would lose potential sales) and Microsoft is very good about supporting their older products. People used to whine that Apple was that piddly little company and couldn't be bothered to spend money and resources to support older products. Well, now that's a steaming pile too. They are richer than Microsoft yet they don't bother to support squat and they have people like you to thank for telling everyone how "nothing changes" when they dump you which is a LOAD OF CRAP.

 

[Imola Ghost]

How can I tell what year/model my 13" Macbook Pro is?

I guess I'm looking for the MB????? number?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Well said.
Actually, on my MacBook Pro (Early 2008), even Leopard (which it shipped with) is slower than Tiger! On an external drive, I've tried Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard, Lion, and Mountain Lion. Under NDA I cannot comment on Mountain Lion, but I can on the rest, and the fact is that the older the OS, the faster it is!

Not that I am surprised at all by those results. Often time as newer OS are made they try to take more advantage of the more powerful hardware. That in-tune causes it to run a little more slowly. The only OS that I have seen things really get faster is going from Vista to Windows 7.

Now yes as time goes on the hardware gets better and goes beyond what the older OS can use. I know if I put XP on my laptop it would slow down the computer compared to windows 7 but that is because my laptop hardware can not fully be used by windows XP due to the limitation of XP both being 32 bit and I do not believe it can take full advantage of the CPU. Nothing can be done about those short coming as XP is over 10 years old.

As for the graphical excuse people are coming up with to defend Apple. Sorry I call that crap. Look how MS dealt with the problem. Windows Aero is disable on computers that can not use it. In XP it would disable transparency on computer hardware that could not run it.

Code wise it is really not that hard to do it. Throw that part of the code in a try catch block. Apple has poor error handling there. And for those who do know know yes you can write, and throw your own errors as well. It makes handling some things a lot easier to throw your own custom errors. Just make sure you handle them.

 

[nicklad]

That gpu is long dead. It was not even top of the line when I bought it in my previous iMac in 2006. It was mid range then.

So you expect Apple to support 6-7 year old hardware? That's a little tough to do I would think.

Oh, not at all. I was merely commenting that it was not supported either.