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

The thing is that in the last 20 years of computer industry we've gotten used to the fact, that everything is getting noticeably faster and better, and it was an acceptable reason for upgrading our computers every 3-4-5 years.

We could always justify our actions: but it cannot play movies... but it cannot play DVD... but it cannot play HD... but it's too slow...

But now we've reached a level which provides more than satisfactory performance for the average user, and the need to upgrade our computers doesn't really exist anymore. Honestly, even an Intel Core 2 Duo is powerful enough for the usual tasks, paired with an SSD it can handle everything easily.

So today's computers should be more like a car: it's good as long as it works, if it cannot really be repaired anymore or it costed too much, it's time for change.

Why not use a computer not only for 5, but for 10 years, or more? Why does it sound so weird? Times have changed.

So with quitting the security updates, forcing poor, average people to buy new machines way before they would really need a new one... how should I say it... doesn't sound nice :(
 
mrbyu said:
Why not use a computer not only for 5, but for 10 years, or more? Why does it sound so weird? Times have changed.
Click to expand...

Hear hear! I made my 400 MHz G4 tower last from 2000 - 2009! I used it for music, and although there were more and more features coming out in the latest software that I couldn't use, the computer was just a means for recording my ideas, so I made do. This is contrary to my gadget loving nature, but it's how it should be in my opinion, I think society will need to become more thrifty out of necessity in the coming decades.

I finally reached the point where the latest version of Logic had evolved far enough that I really felt left behind, so I got a new Mac Pro in 2009, but I'm hoping to make that last a long time too.

Where the G4 really was left behind was the internet but I just used a cheap PC laptop for that.
 
Ping Guo said:
Apple sells hardware = strong disincentive to support old machines (so you buy a new one).

MS sells software = strong incentive to support machines for a long time (and install latest software on them).

This is what it boils down to.
Click to expand...

Linux (open source community) = strong incentive to help every people in the world without profit goals :rolleyes:
 
mrbyu said:
The thing is that in the last 20 years of computer industry we've gotten used to the fact, that everything is getting noticeably faster and better, and it was an acceptable reason for upgrading our computers every 3-4-5 years.

We could always justify our actions: but it cannot play movies... but it cannot play DVD... but it cannot play HD... but it's too slow...

But now we've reached a level which provides more than satisfactory performance for the average user, and the need to upgrade our computers doesn't really exist anymore. Honestly, even an Intel Core 2 Duo is powerful enough for the usual tasks, paired with an SSD it can handle everything easily.

So today's computers should be more like a car: it's good as long as it works, if it cannot really be repaired anymore or it costed too much, it's time for change.

Why not use a computer not only for 5, but for 10 years, or more? Why does it sound so weird? Times have changed.

So with quitting the security updates, forcing poor, average people to buy new machines way before they would really need a new one... how should I say it... doesn't sound nice :(
Click to expand...

Its not as if the machines that can't run ML will stop working when it is released...

However, I do feel sorry for the Mac Pro1,1 users. As they really don't have a viable computer to upgrade to (by todays standards anyway).
 
leman said:
They dropped all models which do not support at least OpenGL 3.2 core profile. I think this is the main story here.
Click to expand...

No, they dropped support for all those graphic cards for which they were too lazy... err... sorry, had more important projects like "Game Center" or, heck, "Facebook/Twitter integration" than upgrading the existing 32bit drivers to 64bit.

And mind you, "OpenGL 3.2" is implemented in the driver !

The standard was released in August 2009, so in theory certain graphic cards before that indeed might not support certain operations in hardware, but I doubt that is the case, as OpenGL 3.x merely made certain GL extensions "core" extensions which were available in practise since so much longer (by vendor-specific extensions). So OpenGL 3.x didn't re-invent the wheel, it merely made things "standard" which were used in practise anyway.

And in case some antique graphic card ("antique" as in 2005 and older) might indeed not support certain shading language features in hardware (of OpenGL 3.x - by the way, is that the standard that Mountain Lion will officially support? We are at OpenGL 4.3 already!), the driver could still implement them in software (with heavy performance penalties off course, but still "doable". And the user could deselect certain FX features... after all, we're talking an OS here, not a game console - or do we? :rolleyes:)

But yes, implementing Game Center brings so much more money into your cash cow than keeping your existing users happy. We're Apple users after all, we're used to "pay premium" - and still most of us seem to believe that "premium = quality = sustainability" ... that was once the case, but since the appearance of iPhone and "I need a new one every year..." - heck, the temptation to apply the same "Planned obsolescence" pattern to desktops was just too big for Apple, wasn't it? Who could blame them...
 
Last edited:
Blue Sun said:
Its not as if the machines that can't run ML will stop working when it is released....
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that of course. But we've already been talking about the support lastly. What if I want to use my computer for - let's just say - 10 years from now on, and I would like to get every important security updates and patches. Is this a reasonable demand? I think yes, especially if the machine itself is very capable of everything that I need.

Is this possible with OS X? It seems like NO, it isn't... :(

It's like if you had to buy a new car in every 5 years (even though your old one is in perfect condition) because there's a new filling nozzle at the petrol stations which isn't compatible with your current vehicle...
 
Blue Sun said:
Its not as if the machines that can't run ML will stop working when it is released...
Click to expand...

CORRECTION: They will stop get critical updates! So far Apple used to only support the "last two versions" of their OS.

Lion appeared -> Leopard doesn't get updates anymore. Mountain Lion appears -> Snow Leopard?

So YES, they will stop working in some way! Keeping them connected in any way with the Internet - or even plugin in a USB device - puts them at an unknown risk already!

Now with the current pace of releasing "Fix Packs" each year and calling them "new OS X release with 200+ features... like Facebook integration! Yay!" - how long does your OS X release you just bought gets critical fixes? 2 years? Go figure...
 
mrbyu said:
I'm aware of that of course. But we've already been talking about the support lastly. What if I want to use my computer for - let's just say - 10 years from now on, and I would like to get every important security updates and patches. Is this a reasonable demand? I think yes, especially if the machine itself is very capable of everything that I need.
Click to expand...

If you want to use a computer for 10 years you are not talking about a consumer machine, but some sort of highly specialized build (like a server). OS X is not meant for such use anyway. Linux will be a better choice. A reasonable life span for a consumer computer is 4 years max. After this, the machine becomes obsolete. So ML actually covers all "new" machines.

By the way, Apple is still releasing security updates for Leopard, an OS which was released in 2007. So you still get important security patches 5 years later. What more support do you want?
 
hobo.hopkins said:
People can't legitimately expect to receive the newest updates on machines that are 3+ years old.
Click to expand...

I think thats pretty ignorant of you to speculate on. Why shouldn't my late 2006 iMac be made to be upgraded?

Legitimately expect?

Mountain Lion could easily have had a version for 32bit drivers for machines that had them.
So I am expected to shell out $2000 every 5 years for a new computer even when my 2006 iMac operated just fine?

Money is not the issue, it is the fact that for the MILLIONS of recent machines they could EASILY included a version of the OS for older machines

I am a bit pissed about this, I think this is more about an attempt at secretly making reasons for customers to upgrade hardware and $$$
 
Fortimir said:
Playing devil's advocate, Windows will run with no loss of features on many computers much much older than that. I'm not sure why it's an unreasonable expectation.
Click to expand...

Because Windows has no 'features'. Its a basic system, the capabilities of the computer are defined by installed hardware and drivers. OS X follows a completely different model. Here, hardware and software is paired. Targeting a particular OS version also mean targeting particular hardware capabilities (some of which are artificial, I agree). Its really the question of design philosophy. Neither one is worse than another one per se. I do agree that Apples philosophy is more aggressive. But I also think that its good for innovation.
 
leman said:
Because Windows has no 'features'. Its a basic system, the capabilities of the computer are defined by installed hardware and drivers. OS X follows a completely different model. Here, hardware and software is paired. Targeting a particular OS version also mean targeting particular hardware capabilities (some of which are artificial, I agree). Its really the question of design philosophy. Neither one is worse than another one per se. I do agree that Apples philosophy is more aggressive. But I also think that its good for innovation.
Click to expand...

I do think Apples philosophy is worse. Just look at environmental issues.
 
Mr. Zarniwoop said:
No. 64-kernel runs 32-bit apps. KEXTs are part of the kernel, and have to be 64-bit in ML since DP2.
Click to expand...

I use ZDnet overclock on my mac pro 2008. Since lion I have to boot 32 bit to get it to work & then I can restart in 64 bit. Does anybody know if you will be able to boot lion 32 & run ZD Overclock & then boot to mountain lion? Or if ZD overclock works in mountain lion?

But on the whole I have a 2007 iMac & a 2008 Mac pro. I'll be holding off another year before I need to upgrade.
 
ridesdeepsnow said:
I think thats pretty ignorant of you to speculate on. Why shouldn't my late 2006 iMac be made to be upgraded?

Legitimately expect?

Mountain Lion could easily have had a version for 32bit drivers for machines that had them.
So I am expected to shell out $2000 every 5 years for a new computer even when my 2006 iMac operated just fine?

Money is not the issue, it is the fact that for the MILLIONS of recent machines they could EASILY included a version of the OS for older machines

I am a bit pissed about this, I think this is more about an attempt at secretly making reasons for customers to upgrade hardware and $$$
Click to expand...

You don't have to get the latest OS. If you haven't upgraded in 6 years your computer is obviously fine for your day to day activities. I'm not sure I see how apple is making you do anything. You don't have to spend $2k on a new machine, just keep using what you have - its not hard and apple isn't making you upgrade. You are still getting security patches, seems reasonable to me.

Also, how do you know it would be easy to program 32 bit drivers? Have you had much experience creating OS X then?

I actually think its unreasonable for us to expect that apple support outdated hardware beyond a certain point. Hardware advances, software has to be pruned, the industry moves forward. It's happened before and it'll happen again. In fact, it will continue to happen at shorter intervals as the tech industry progresses because the underlying law that dictates advancements is exponential.
 
leman said:
By the way, Apple is still releasing security updates for Leopard, an OS which was released in 2007. So you still get important security patches 5 years later. What more support do you want?
Click to expand...

Aside from the flashback Trojan fix, no they are not releasing fixes/supporting leopard in any manner

----------
ridesdeepsnow said:
I think thats pretty ignorant of you to speculate on. Why shouldn't my late 2006 iMac be made to be upgraded?

Legitimately expect?

Mountain Lion could easily have had a version for 32bit drivers for machines that had them.
So I am expected to shell out $2000 every 5 years for a new computer even when my 2006 iMac operated just fine?

Money is not the issue, it is the fact that for the MILLIONS of recent machines they could EASILY included a version of the OS for older machines

I am a bit pissed about this, I think this is more about an attempt at secretly making reasons for customers to upgrade hardware and $$$
Click to expand...

You realize your computer is 6 years old(one of the first intel macs at that) and will be supported at least another year in terms of lion right? What are you realistically expecting?

I still use 10.6 on my work computer and you know what? Still productive as ever
 
Bauer24 said:
You don't have to get the latest OS. If you haven't upgraded in 6 years your computer is obviously fine for your day to day activities. I'm not sure I see how apple is making you do anything. You don't have to spend $2k on a new machine, just keep using what you have - its not hard and apple isn't making you upgrade. You are still getting security patches, seems reasonable to me.

Also, how do you know it would be easy to program 32 bit drivers? Have you had much experience creating OS X then?

I actually think its unreasonable for us to expect that apple support outdated hardware beyond a certain point. Hardware advances, software has to be pruned, the industry moves forward. It's happened before and it'll happen again. In fact, it will continue to happen at shorter intervals as the tech industry progresses because the underlying law that dictates advancements is exponential.
Click to expand...

Please explain "outdated Hardware"

And I know the ability of Apple software engineers and their ability to cover this situation because a family member works in Cupertino at Apple and 2 friends who I went to college with are Software engineers for Microsoft.

I am glad you are so easy to lay down and allow a company to screw you over. And where Did I say anything about not upgrading in 6 years?

If it is called OSX then the updates should be written for those computers who have the older versions.
If Apple is NOT WILLING(but yet very able) to allow a LARGE portion of OSX users to update then the OS should be called OS11 or something.

If I am using 10.7.4, then 10.8 should be written for those with OSX. I want the new features coming with 10.8, and you know nothing about what type of work I do regarding computer use.

Just because you are a weak type of person who thinks "its unreasonable for us to expect that apple support outdated hardware" when the Hardware is not outdated. my hardware is outdated because it has 32 bit display driver? This outdated computer out performs most 1-2 year old competitor products.
 
mrbyu said:
I'm aware of that of course. But we've already been talking about the support lastly. What if I want to use my computer for - let's just say - 10 years from now on, and I would like to get every important security updates and patches. Is this a reasonable demand? I think yes, especially if the machine itself is very capable of everything that I need.

Is this possible with OS X? It seems like NO, it isn't... :(

It's like if you had to buy a new car in every 5 years (even though your old one is in perfect condition) because there's a new filling nozzle at the petrol stations which isn't compatible with your current vehicle...
Click to expand...

My 2008 iMac still runs SL, and I have gotten many security updates (Java and the like) since Lion was released.

----------
till213 said:
Lion appeared -> Leopard doesn't get updates anymore. Mountain Lion appears -> Snow Leopard?
Click to expand...

That is speculation, we don't know anything yet.

Have you tried contacting Apple regarding the matter?
 
Apple used to be good at this

One of the things that Apple used to be really really good at was releasing operating systems that ran well on much older machines. I thought that was one of the things we got for paying the "Apple Tax".

But 2009 is as far back as they go on the Mac Mini? And 2008 on many of the others?

Forget the some of the main features, I just want it to sync with my iCloud!

So they take away MobileMe and refashion it as iCloud. Take away my iDisk and then the new OS that does a little more with iCloud options won't run on older machines?!?!?

I'm listing this as my biggest complaint against Apple ever.

This doesn't even affect me, but I think it's poor form...

Gary
 
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