Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

OS X Mountain Lion Officially Drops Support for Some Older 64-Bit Macs

Nothing to do with GPU. 32-bit EFI physical limitation

Another nonsense article. Kudos to all those that knew this already.

I don't know why people keep clinging to the GPU having anything to do with this. It's strictly the fact that Mountain Lion has a 64-bit kernel only. This requires 64-bit EFI. The architecture of the machines which have 64-bit processor, but only 32-bit EFI, cannot support 64-bit EFI. This is a physical design drawback of the firmware chip used by Apple. Not a decision Apple took not to update the firmware. Apple Professional Services confirmed this information with Engineering for me. Apple wouldn't have any fear of telling developers and customers alike if this was about GPU's alone and if they could upgrade the firmware to 64-bit.

https://developer.apple.com/library...MacOSX/WhatsNewInOSX/Articles/MacOSX10_8.html states that it has a 64-bit kernel and that 32-bit kexts won't work. This has ALWAYS been the case since the earliest access to the 64-bit kernel (Snow Leopard). So it's been true for three years now. 64-bit kernel means all drivers need to be 64-bit. Nothing to do with not making 64-bit drivers for certain GPU's. http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4287

The 64-bit kernel is just the way ahead for the OS. Just like they had to drop PowerPC support. They're dropping 32-bit kernel support.

Nothing lasts forever folks. History repeating.
 
mcnaugha said:
Another nonsense article. Kudos to all those that knew this already.

I don't know why people keep clinging to the GPU having anything to do with this. It's strictly the fact that Mountain Lion has a 64-bit kernel only. This requires 64-bit EFI. The architecture of the machines which have 64-bit processor, but only 32-bit EFI, cannot support 64-bit EFI. This is a physical design drawback of the firmware chip used by Apple. Not a decision Apple took not to update the firmware. Apple Professional Services confirmed this information with Engineering for me. Apple wouldn't have any fear of telling developers and customers alike if this was about GPU's alone and if they could upgrade the firmware to 64-bit.

https://developer.apple.com/library...MacOSX/WhatsNewInOSX/Articles/MacOSX10_8.html states that it has a 64-bit kernel and that 32-bit kexts won't work. This has ALWAYS been the case since the earliest access to the 64-bit kernel (Snow Leopard). So it's been true for three years now. 64-bit kernel means all drivers need to be 64-bit. Nothing to do with not making 64-bit drivers for certain GPU's. http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4287

The 64-bit kernel is just the way ahead for the OS. Just like they had to drop PowerPC support. They're dropping 32-bit kernel support.

Nothing lasts forever folks. History repeating.
Click to expand...

Wasn't that the reason some machines could not be upgraded to Lion. All Macs Able to run Lion should have 64bit EFI, so why are they dropping support for some of them?
 
aurichie said:
The truth is its time to buy a new Mac. You really should be replacing your Mac every couple of years to benefit from all the advancements and latest technologies anyway. These kinds of initiatives of dropping support for older machines should drive more people to buy the latest and great hardware which is good for the business, and good for the rest of us who want the Mac product line to remain viable.

So I applaud Apple on this occasion for taking a brave decision for the good of the Mac.
Click to expand...

I got a 12-Core Westmere Mac Pro, so I'm good to go. However, it's still based on the current 2010 specs as Apple hasn't updated the Mac Pro in a long time.

Read the comments on this thread. People aren't complaining about 7-8 year old Mac's, but 3-4 year old systems that Apple sold as full 64-bit systems such as the Mac Pro 1,1/1,2 but did not provide EFI64. As a developer, I have gotten 10.8 to run perfectly on Mac's that are not old, were very expensive systems but are deemed "unsupported hardware". Apple has decided, made an effort, in not addressing those systems. Instead, they focused engineering resources on eye candy in "Mission Control", iOS and iCloud integration such as "Game Center" while neglecting OpenGL Core 4.0 support, improving Finder and supporting systems that are still under AppleCare and have full 64-bit hardware functionality because they WANT people to buy new systems every 2, 3 or 4 years. This is terrible for the enterprise market, and for those who dropped $4-5k on a Mac Pro such as myself. This also leaves developers who need the current OS X for Xcode for work out in the cold.

It's one thing to phase out outdated tech, but another to not provide the kext's for their own hardware that are not outdated and can run their system's. If your system is 5+ years old that's another matter, yet if your hardware can run their proprietary OS but they refuse to support their own systems in order to force some to upgrade, that's a slap in the face.
 
applegatetech said:
I think you should be able to use a 32bit kext from Lion to get these older machines upgraded. Apple should just include them in Mountain Lion.
Click to expand...


mcnaugha said:
Another nonsense article. Kudos to all those that knew this already.

I don't know why people keep clinging to the GPU having anything to do with this. It's strictly the fact that Mountain Lion has a 64-bit kernel only. This requires 64-bit EFI. The architecture of the machines which have 64-bit processor, but only 32-bit EFI, cannot support 64-bit EFI. This is a physical design drawback of the firmware chip used by Apple. Not a decision Apple took not to update the firmware. Apple Professional Services confirmed this information with Engineering for me. Apple wouldn't have any fear of telling developers and customers alike if this was about GPU's alone and if they could upgrade the firmware to 64-bit.

https://developer.apple.com/library...MacOSX/WhatsNewInOSX/Articles/MacOSX10_8.html states that it has a 64-bit kernel and that 32-bit kexts won't work. This has ALWAYS been the case since the earliest access to the 64-bit kernel (Snow Leopard). So it's been true for three years now. 64-bit kernel means all drivers need to be 64-bit. Nothing to do with not making 64-bit drivers for certain GPU's. http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4287

The 64-bit kernel is just the way ahead for the OS. Just like they had to drop PowerPC support. They're dropping 32-bit kernel support.

Nothing lasts forever folks. History repeating.
Click to expand...

Oops, forgot that 64bit kernel = no 32bit kexts :(
 
applegatetech said:
Wasn't that the reason some machines could not be upgraded to Lion. All Macs Able to run Lion should have 64bit EFI, so why are they dropping support for some of them?
Click to expand...

No I'm afraid that's not true. There are some Lion-compatible Macs with only have 32-bit EFI. Just get someone with one of those Macs running Lion to run this in the Terminal:

ioreg -p IODeviceTree -w0 -l | grep firmware-abi

The output will be EFI32. Mountain Lion needs EFI64.
 
mcnaugha said:
Another nonsense article. Kudos to all those that knew this already.

I don't know why people keep clinging to the GPU having anything to do with this. It's strictly the fact that Mountain Lion has a 64-bit kernel only. This requires 64-bit EFI. The architecture of the machines which have 64-bit processor, but only 32-bit EFI, cannot support 64-bit EFI. This is a physical design drawback of the firmware chip used by Apple. Not a decision Apple took not to update the firmware. Apple Professional Services confirmed this information with Engineering for me. Apple wouldn't have any fear of telling developers and customers alike if this was about GPU's alone and if they could upgrade the firmware to 64-bit.

https://developer.apple.com/library...MacOSX/WhatsNewInOSX/Articles/MacOSX10_8.html states that it has a 64-bit kernel and that 32-bit kexts won't work. This has ALWAYS been the case since the earliest access to the 64-bit kernel (Snow Leopard). So it's been true for three years now. 64-bit kernel means all drivers need to be 64-bit. Nothing to do with not making 64-bit drivers for certain GPU's. http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4287

The 64-bit kernel is just the way ahead for the OS. Just like they had to drop PowerPC support. They're dropping 32-bit kernel support.

Nothing lasts forever folks. History repeating.
Click to expand...

Apple can update the EFI on 64-bit Mac's. Example, the Mac Pro 1,1/1,2 was marketed and sold as a full 64-bit system, yet Apple has not released the proper EFI64 for them. Those exact systems run Windows 7 and 8 64-bit perfectly, and 10.8 does run on those systems with a simple user tweak. Some are also systems still under AppleCare and are not "old tech". This is a decision Apple chose to make not because their own hardware doesn't support their own OS, but because they want to push people to a hardware update cycle of 2-3 years. When throwing down thousands for arguably the most expensive systems on the market, this is a slap in the face. It's another matter if your system is 5+ years old, which is understandable. We're talking about systems that do support EFI64, but Apple will not produce the firmware for them to run their own systems. When you need the latest OS for development or security updates, that's a problem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
aurichie said:
The truth is its time to buy a new Mac. You really should be replacing your Mac every couple of years to benefit from all the advancements and latest technologies anyway. These kinds of initiatives of dropping support for older machines should drive more people to buy the latest and great hardware which is good for the business, and good for the rest of us who want the Mac product line to remain viable.

So I applaud Apple on this occasion for taking a brave decision for the good of the Mac.
Click to expand...

Are you drunk?

Most users don't need to have the latest and greatest.

" macs last longer than pcs "

Yeah. Ok.
 
bedifferent said:
Apple can update the EFI on 64-bit Mac's. Example, the Mac Pro 1,1/1,2 was marketed and sold as a full 64-bit system, yet Apple has not released the proper EFI64 for them. Those exact systems run Windows 7 and 8 64-bit perfectly, and 10.8 does run on those systems with a simple user tweak. These are also systems still under AppleCare and are not "old tech". This is a decision Apple chose to make not because their own hardware doesn't support their own OS, but because they want to push people to a hardware update cycle of 2-3 years. When throwing down thousands for arguably the most expensive systems on the market, this is a slap in the face. It's another matter if your system is 5+ years old, which is understandable. We're talking about systems that do support EFI64, but Apple will not produce the firmware for them to run their own systems. When you need the latest OS for development or security updates, that's a problem.
Click to expand...

Its strange what things have become: years ago, people were always justifying the higher price with higher longevity of the product. Nowadays, when that perk has gone out the window, the argument has turned into that we should be thankful for Apple pushing technology further (or something like that, i can't quite wrap my head around it, really). At this point, i see no reason to ever buy a mac. Part from the design, theres not much too it. Even the quality is going down the drain nowadays, as Apple squeezes out the last of the margins hoping people won't figure things out.
 
Apolla, this is specifically for you.

It's a list from the horses a** themselves. Just take a look at the dates.

When was the last 10.5.x Update?

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1222

You must be able to find it from here. A clue it's the date on the right hand side.
 
bedifferent said:
Apple can update the EFI on 64-bit Mac's. Example, the Mac Pro 1,1/1,2 was marketed and sold as a full 64-bit system, yet Apple has not released the proper EFI64 for them. Those exact systems run Windows 7 and 8 64-bit perfectly, and 10.8 does run on those systems with a simple user tweak. These are also systems still under AppleCare and are not "old tech". This is a decision Apple chose to make not because their own hardware doesn't support their own OS, but because they want to push people to a hardware update cycle of 2-3 years. When throwing down thousands for arguably the most expensive systems on the market, this is a slap in the face. It's another matter if your system is 5+ years old, which is understandable. We're talking about systems that do support EFI64, but Apple will not produce the firmware for them to run their own systems. When you need the latest OS for development or security updates, that's a problem.
Click to expand...

I's assuming that to run ML, Apple will be updating the firmware on Late 2008 Unibody Macbook's from EFI32 to EFI64.
 
G51989 said:
Support old versions of Windows is one of the things that has made Windows such a huge success.

Windows 7 is bloated? Seriously? Windows 8 is even less resource intensive.

Yeah, actually yes you can run Windows 7 on hardware that is not older than 10 years, Windows 8 actually doesn't need much either.

And I gotta Say, Windows 7 is much better than OSX 10.7, what a pile of crap. I wish I could downgrade my iMac to 10.6.

Wait, not supported lolz.

Windows 7 needs the following.



1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)

16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)

DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver


Expect for the gigs of ram, which I'd bump up to 2 gigs. You should be fine.




Same here, bump it up to 2 gigs of ram and you'll be fine.

By fine, I mean for typical daily computing stuff. You'll be fine.

8 might actually better for older machines, I got the public beta, and it seems to use memory/cpu cycles than 7 does.
Click to expand...


It's too bad that MacRumors took away the "down vote" arrow today.
 
G51989 said:
Its just an Apple thing.

Microsoft is supporting 10 year old systems with windows 8, and has been supporting xp for a decade.
Click to expand...

Support and ability to run the OS properly are not mutually inclusive. Sure, I can install Windows 8 on a 10 year old machine: but how will it run? Not very well. The hardware simply cannot keep up with the changes in software demands and internet graphics content.

Apple realizes this and plans accordingly. Consider that I have a 5-year-old white Macbook and while it browses the web OK, it cannot run 1080p video off of YouTube very well or play larger than 12 mkv (mpeg2) vid files. My MacMini 5,2 makes my Macbook look like an antique. Why? Because it's hardware is designed to run Lion and high-intensity internet graphics without any problems.
 
imageWIS said:
Support and ability to run the OS properly are not mutually inclusive. Sure, I can install Windows 8 on a 10 year old machine: but how will it run? Not very well. The hardware simply cannot keep up with the changes in software demands and internet graphics content.

Apple realizes this and plans accordingly. Consider that I have a 5-year-old white Macbook and while it browses the web OK, it cannot run 1080p video off of YouTube very well or play larger than 12 mkv (mpeg2) vid files. My MacMini 5,2 makes my Macbook look like an antique. Why? Because it's hardware is designed to run Lion and high-intensity internet graphics without any problems.
Click to expand...

The point you are missing with this is that YOU get to choose that option.

If some dude wants to install windows 8 on a 10 year old machine, he can... will it run? ... yes.. run well??? not so much..

He isn't forced to upgrade ( I suspect he would if he tried on a 10 year old machine though )
 
bedifferent said:
How much effort does it take to upgrade a kext/driver? I would guess less effort than working on "Game Center".
Click to expand...

It's a different problem and different developers.

Working in kernel mode in general is a lot harder than developing user mode software like Game Center. Also, living in kernel mode, kexts will require a different standard of testing because of their potential to crash the entire computer.

And the kexts themselves are going to be based on NVidia and AMD code. They probably don't want to do the work validating the drivers for 64-bit on darwin for free, and Apple probably doesn't want to pay them to do it to keep some 5 year old computers running.
 
imageWIS said:
Support and ability to run the OS properly are not mutually inclusive. Sure, I can install Windows 8 on a 10 year old machine: but how will it run? Not very well. The hardware simply cannot keep up with the changes in software demands and internet graphics content.

Apple realizes this and plans accordingly. Consider that I have a 5-year-old white Macbook and while it browses the web OK, it cannot run 1080p video off of YouTube very well or play larger than 12 mkv (mpeg2) vid files. My MacMini 5,2 makes my Macbook look like an antique. Why? Because it's hardware is designed to run Lion and high-intensity internet graphics without any problems.
Click to expand...

Yes, but we are not talking about some 5 year old cheap MacBook, we are talking about 10,000$ Mac Pro systems marketed as "true 64-bit workstation" that are still faster than any consumer Mac even today! Most users upgraded those work horses with 16 or 32 GB of ECC RAM, SSDs, Radeon 5870, and so on... the machine is still super fast and capable of any task. To drop support for such a powerhouse is just plain wrong.
 
MacRumors said:
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)[/url]
Click to expand...

I have a 2007 iMac, an early 2008 Mac Pro, and a 2008 MacBook Pro. Looks like I'll be upgrading something after Mountain Lion.
 
Smacky said:
Microsoft still releases updates for Win XP
Click to expand...

Microsoft supports Win XP because Microsoft supports the enterprise market. Apple doesn't and that's a tactical advantage. It's stupidly expensive to support and test software for old systems - much, much more expensive than new development. Microsoft is happy to do it because the cost is dwarfed by the sheer size of their market for Windows. Apple doesn't have that luxury.

This is a good thing. It means that Apple can leave behind old mistakes. Think of all the gunk in Windows (the registry, the windows preboot environment, winsxs, embedded dll version numbers, the stupid dll search path rules, cmd.exe, etc...) that Microsoft will be forced to support for ages, that malware writers will be exploiting for ages, and that end-users and developers will be tripping over for just as long.
 
TheFro said:
The point you are missing with this is that YOU get to choose that option.

If some dude wants to install windows 8 on a 10 year old machine, he can... will it run? ... yes.. run well??? not so much..

He isn't forced to upgrade ( I suspect he would if he tried on a 10 year old machine though )
Click to expand...

Are you forced to upgrade on your Mac? I mean sure, its no longer officially supported, but any repair shop can fix it to keep it running.
 
G4DP said:
Apolla, this is specifically for you.

It's a list from the horses a** themselves. Just take a look at the dates.

When was the last 10.5.x Update?

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1222

You must be able to find it from here. A clue it's the date on the right hand side.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the link and a nice reply :)

But it confuses me further, because if I look at Leopard:

http://support.apple.com/downloads/#macosx105

Apple have supported it still this year? With security updates. Although before then their is a big gap between updates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back