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

[kingtj]

Huh?

Seriously, I think this comment is nothing but wishful thinking.
I've worked in computers and I.T. for about 25 years now, and I can assure you that even when companies I worked for spent over $3,000 on a laptop (and we did for some of the Toshiba Tecras and high-end Dells we bought), they may as well have been scrap in 5 years.

I think the people complaining need to put everything into perspective. No matter which OS you choose to run, by the time you've kept a given machine 5 years, a LOT has changed. Most likely, Intel has released 1 or 2 completely new revisions of CPUs, which tend to require a whole new processor socket - meaning new motherboard and chipset. Traditionally, RAM makers have come up with a whole new standard for their memory sticks by then too. Video card makers have surely released at least 3 or 4 major upgrades to whichever series of card your 5 year old system has in it, too. Heck, 5 years ago, there was basically no such thing as an SSD drive - and now they're quickly taking over for traditional hard drives!

I don't think we're saying the equipment you bought will just fail to power on after it's 5 years old ... but people satisfied with the performance of a 5+ year old machine, vs. what they could have for another $1,400 purchase? Well, they should be just fine keeping the same OS and software they bought for it in years past too! You gotta pay to play in this industry, if you want to keep up with the latest tech.

when you spend $1400 on a laptop, desktop, you shouldnt have to scrap it 5 years later, i didnt mind paying the high price but now?? all i can say is goodbye mac and hello osX86.. they wouldnt have had to dumb down the graphic to include older machines, they would have just needed to include a dumbed down driver that the installer detected which one to install. with the programmers they have, they could have had it done in half a day or less. they just want us to buy new hardware.. and i will, just not from them, i can build a mac for half the cost and maintain the high quality hardware

 

[milo]

If you can run a 64-bit application, then they didn't lie to you; a 32-bit machine cannot run 64-bit applications.

What version of Mac OS X are you using right now? 10.7 Lion? If so, then you absolutely are capable of running a 64-bit application, because you are capable of running Finder. Finder was compiled as a 64-bit-only application in Lion.

The bit-ness of the kernel does not necessarily impose insurmountable limitations on the bit-ness of the applications you run.

He didn't say anything about applications, I'm not sure if you're totally misunderstanding the whole issue here.

Those are machines with 64 bit CPU and were sold as 64 bit machines. But now apple is claiming they're not really 64 bit because of the EFI. So yes, Apple was either dishonest when they sold the machines or they're being dishonest now.

Perhaps if I install a better/faster mac compatible video card in the one of the empty PCIe slots, and remove the Mezzanine Graphics card, I'll be on the same level as 2008 Mac Pro models (wishful thinking).

Apple will undoubtedly update Logic in the future, ultimately requiring ML, abandoning older OS versions. What alternative do I have in moving forward. I do not like the idea of moving over to a Windows-based rack mount systems and ProTools, but it may be where I have to go!

Since that machine has 64 bit EFI, upgrading the video card may solve the problem. Your options otherwise would be to go to mac pro and tough it out not having rack mount, go hackintosh, or go windows. And there are other options on windows besides PT, depending on what kind of work you're doing they may be better ones.

 

[goosnarrggh]

He didn't say anything about applications, I'm not sure if you're totally misunderstanding the whole issue here.

Those are machines with 64 bit CPU and were sold as 64 bit machines. But now apple is claiming they're not really 64 bit because of the EFI. So yes, Apple was either dishonest when they sold the machines or they're being dishonest now.

I haven't seen any public statement from Apple which explicitly states that they are claiming those machines are not really 64-bit. If they have made such a statement, I would appreciate knowing where to look to find it.

They have 64-bit CPUs and they run 64-bit apps. With that evidence alone, it is sufficient to reach the conclusion that they are 64-bit machines; Apple told the truth, case closed.

They are not compatible with the newest operating system because certain components and/or firmware aren't up to muster. This is either by deliberate design, or as the unfortunate consequence of a previous misguided decision. That doesn't magically mean that they stop being 64-bit machines.

Other examples of 64-bit machines that really are 64-bits, and yet are not officially compatible with Mountain Lion include every beige-box AMD64 PC that uses BIOS instead of UEFI; all SPARC-powered computers based upon revision 9 or newer of that architecture's specification; all PowerPC G5-based computers.

 

[milo]

They are not compatible with the newest operating system because certain components and/or firmware aren't up to muster. This is either by deliberate design, or as the unfortunate consequence of a previous misguided decision. That doesn't magically mean that they stop being 64-bit machines.

With some of the machines that are dumped the only difference is 32 bit EFI versus 64. There is a specific component in those machines that is NOT 64 bit, and frankly it was dishonest for Apple to advertise them as 64 bit machines when they weren't fully so. Particularly when that component not being 64 bit means losing OS support earlier than necessary.

And really, if "not up to muster" is what people are using to defend what apple has done...that's pretty sad.

 

[AidenShaw]

With some of the machines that are dumped the only difference is 32 bit EFI versus 64. There is a specific component in those machines that is NOT 64 bit, and frankly it was dishonest for Apple to advertise them as 64 bit machines when they weren't fully so. Particularly when that component not being 64 bit means losing OS support earlier than necessary.

And really, if "not up to muster" is what people are using to defend what apple has done...that's pretty sad.

Especially true since Windows 64-bit and Linux 64-bit can boot on those systems without any problem.

 

[milo]

Especially true since Windows 64-bit and Linux 64-bit can boot on those systems without any problem.

Exactly. And ML runs just fine once you bypass the EFI and boot with one of the hackintosh methods.

Apple has dropped the ball on at least three separate opportunities with machines like the early mac pro.

1 They didn't ship with EFI 64 in the first place
2 Apple never updated the EFI firmware over the years that have passed
3 Apple didn't make ML run on 32 bit EFI, which has been shown to be possible

 

[KnightWRX]

3 Apple didn't make ML run on 32 bit EFI, which has been shown to be possible

That's not dropping the ball at all. Apple is shedding legacy support by doing this, just like it's possible to run Rosetta forever, but at some point, you just have to cross that bridge. EFI32 support is now that bridge and Apple is crossing it.

Also, why would Apple update old hardware to new 64 bit EFI ? That would require developement and testing work on hardware they do not sell or support anymore.

Apple is a consumer company. They tend to move faster than enterprise products. What you have won't stop working, but if you want the latest and greatest, get ready to pay up for newer devices.

 

[milo]

Apple is shedding legacy support by doing this, just like it's possible to run Rosetta forever, but at some point, you just have to cross that bridge. EFI32 support is now that bridge and Apple is crossing it.

For what benefit? These EFI32 machines are capable of running 64 bit OS and it appears even 64 bit kernel. The only issue is the actual booting itself, which shouldn't be that hard for Apple to support.

Rosetta is translation of code written for a completely different CPU. A huge amount of work to create, support, and test, and it's obvious why they would limit support for it. To compare that to firmware used for booting is flat out absurd.

Also, why would Apple update old hardware to new 64 bit EFI ? That would require developement and testing work on hardware they do not sell or support anymore.

I'm saying they should have done that update years ago. And how hard can the development be, they have 64 bit EFI for all the newer machines and in many cases the hardware is very similar (there might even be some that are identical other than the EFI version). It's not like they need to rewrite the whole OS, just the bit of code that boots the machine. And a part that third parties have been hacking around for years, if they can do it it's a bit ridiculous that Apple can't.

 

[KnightWRX]

For what benefit? These EFI32 machines are capable of running 64 bit OS and it appears even 64 bit kernel. The only issue is the actual booting itself, which shouldn't be that hard for Apple to support.

Rosetta is translation of code written for a completely different CPU. A huge amount of work to create, support, and test, and it's obvious why they would limit support for it. To compare that to firmware used for booting is flat out absurd.

One less configuration to test/support/maintain in their OS. Streamlining and simplifying, there's just no reason to drag around the support anymore.

I'm saying they should have done that update years ago.

They didn't have a reason to do that update years ago though, and now it's too late.

Consumer products aren't like enterprise products, you shouldn't expect Apple to support their older hardware anymore than Sony supports their older DVD players.

 

[milo]

One less configuration to test/support/maintain in their OS. Streamlining and simplifying, there's just no reason to drag around the support anymore.

So now it's completely irrelevant which machines are capable of actually running a new OS, and they should drop support based on "eh, that's just too many to keep up with". Particularly when "maintaining" is probably a one time update in this case.

They didn't have a reason to do that update years ago though, and now it's too late.

Of course they had a reason - because at some point that update would be required for an OS update, which is what's happening now.

Typical apple apologist - when people wanted an update to EFI 64 support the excuse was "you don't need it", then now that it's needed the excuse is "whoops, too late". Sorry, you don't get to have it both ways.

 

[HVDynamo]

Why not? My late '06 MBP will run Lion, despite the 5-year difference in release dates.

That being said, I understand why my machine won't be supported, as it's 32-bit. But dropping Mac Pro support is just stupid, especially since they lack a product for users of older Mac Pros to upgrade to.

Wrong, the late 2006 MBP's have Core 2 Duo processors in then, which are 64-bit. It's the EFI that is 32 bit because apple was too lazy to make that 64 bit when they moved to 64 bit processors.

 

[G4DP]

milo, KnightWRX is far from an apologist. He'll slate them like any true mac user.

 

[cwwilson]

Happy to hear my late 2009 iMac will live to see at least one more major update before it kicks the bucket. Might possibly get a new Mac before the year is up but we'll see.

 

[KnightWRX]

So now it's completely irrelevant which machines are capable of actually running a new OS, and they should drop support based on "eh, that's just too many to keep up with". Particularly when "maintaining" is probably a one time update in this case.

Well, yes it is irrelevant to a point what machines are capable of running the new OS, the question is, what machines are they under contract to provide updates for.

Apple is not an enterprise vendor. A one time update still requires testing/development/distribution. All of that for an unsupported configuration no one gives you money to support ?

Of course they had a reason - because at some point that update would be required for an OS update, which is what's happening now.

No one can predict the future. Hence no, they didn't have a reason. Their existing stuff worked on machines customers paid for, and their stuff would work on it as long as customers were covered for support contracts. So, why change it ?

Typical apple apologist - when people wanted an update to EFI 64 support the excuse was "you don't need it", then now that it's needed the excuse is "whoops, too late". Sorry, you don't get to have it both ways.

It was "You don't need it" and it is now "whoops too late". It is both ways, I don't get what you're not getting here. That's how Apple operates because again, Apple is not an enterprise company with LTS solutions.

And did you just call me an Apple apologist ? Wow, so funny considering that I'm also a Google employee, a Nokia Shill, a Samsung Fanboy, an Android lover and a ton of other insults people throw at me. No, I'm an Apple realist. Apple operates in a way and they've done nothing different here than they usually do. The fact you're surprised by it is what is strange, did you really expect an EFI64 update to machines that didn't require it when they were covered by Applecare and that now that they do, they won't get it because no one is giving Apple money for them ? Are you really surprised ? Really really ?

I sure as heck am not, I have come to not expect different from Apple.

 

[macEfan]

Guess it's time to finally upgrade the old 2.1ghz Core 2 imac!

 

[G51989]

Guess it's time to finally upgrade the old 2.1ghz Core 2 imac!

Though if all you did was basic tasks, word processing, internet, youtube, facebook, things like that. Netflix and all the " basic stuff "

You'd be fine on a 8 year old PC.

I think Microsoft/PC OEMs should advertise.

" With a Windows PC, you'll be good to go for 8-10 years. With a Mac, you'll get 3. Tops "

I wonder how the Fanboys will go with this whole " Macs Last Longer ( they don't, Apple products have pretty higher failure rates in my personal experience, they just happen to look/be awesome )

 

[ReddestDream]

5 Years . . .

Apple should have a standard of 5 years of updates for each machine starting when the machine is released. That's realistically how long most people can keep their machines working. Under this rule:

- iMac (Mid 2007 or newer)

Counting this as Mid-2012, from Mid-2007 to now is 5 years. This is fine.

- MacBook (Late 2008 Aluminum, or Early 2009 or newer)

Counting this as Mid-2012, from Early 2009 to now is 3.5 years. This is bad, but this model, the plain MacBook, isn't made anymore. This is at least understandable.

- MacBook Pro (Mid/Late 2007 or newer)

Counting this as Mid-2012, from Mid/Late-2007 to now is 4.5-5 years. This is fine considering that the Late-2007 model was the same as the Mid-2007 with only a minor speed bump (same model numbers).

- MacBook Air (Late 2008 or newer)

Counting this as Mid-2012, from Late 2008 to now is only 3.5 years. This is bad. The Late-2008 MacBook Air should have gotten ML.

- Mac mini (Early 2009 or newer)

Counting this as Mid-2012, from Early 2009 to now is only 3.5 years. This is bad. The Early-2009 should have gotten ML.

- Mac Pro (Early 2008 or newer)

Counting this as Mid-2012, from Early 2008 to now is 4.5 years. This isn't THAT bad compared to the others, but it definitely isn't long enough for a professional grade computer.

- Xserve (Early 2009)

Counting this as Mid-2012, from Early 2009 to now is only 3.5 years. Considering that this model is discontinued, it's understandable that Apple doesn't want to update it, but this is criminally short for machine intended for a server rack . . .

I actually think this shows more about Apple's priorities than anything else. It seems like only the iMac, MacBook Pro, and Mac Pro got a decent update interval while everything else got shafted this cycle . . .

 

[G4DP]

Apple should have a standard of 5 years of updates for each machine starting when the machine is released. That's realistically how long most people can keep their machines working. Under this rule:

- iMac (Mid 2007 or newer)

Counting this as Mid-2012, from Mid-2007 to now is 5 years. This is fine.

- MacBook (Late 2008 Aluminum, or Early 2009 or newer)

Counting this as Mid-2012, from Early 2009 to now is 3.5 years. This is bad, but this model, the plain MacBook, isn't made anymore. This is at least understandable.

- MacBook Pro (Mid/Late 2007 or newer)

Counting this as Mid-2012, from Mid/Late-2007 to now is 4.5-5 years. This is fine considering that the Late-2007 model was the same as the Mid-2007 with only a minor speed bump (same model numbers).

- MacBook Air (Late 2008 or newer)

Counting this as Mid-2012, from Late 2008 to now is only 3.5 years. This is bad. The Late-2008 MacBook Air should have gotten ML.

- Mac mini (Early 2009 or newer)

Counting this as Mid-2012, from Early 2009 to now is only 3.5 years. This is bad. The Early-2009 should have gotten ML.

- Mac Pro (Early 2008 or newer)

Counting this as Mid-2012, from Early 2008 to now is 4.5 years. This isn't THAT bad compared to the others, but it definitely isn't long enough for a professional grade computer.

- Xserve (Early 2009)

Counting this as Mid-2012, from Early 2009 to now is only 3.5 years. Considering that this model is discontinued, it's understandable that Apple doesn't want to update it, but this is criminally short for machine intended for a server rack . . .

I actually think this shows more about Apple's priorities than anything else. It seems like only the iMac, MacBook Pro, and Mac Pro got a decent update interval while everything else got shafted this cycle . . .

So, if you don't purchase it the day it's released your sod out of luck? Are you serious? This is one of the most contrived attempts at justifying Apple's policies i've seen in recent weeks.

The cut off should be when the product is no longer sold. So someone buying the 2010 MacPro a couple of months ago should basically expect nothing in 2015? Even though the machine was purchased in 2012?

 

[SpyderBite]

So, if you don't purchase it the day it's released your sod out of luck?

I missed the public announcement that stated that all machines purchased before June 11th, 2012 were incompatible with Mountain Lion. Please point me to the link.

 

[KnightWRX]

The cut off should be when the product is no longer sold. So someone buying the 2010 MacPro a couple of months ago should basically expect nothing in 2015? Even though the machine was purchased in 2012?

Someone buying a 2010 Mac Pro should not expect anything after their Applecare runs out. This is Apple, not some LTS solution vendor. If you want LTS, buy an extended support contract from a vendor that offers it.

 

[linkgx1]

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

lol, awesome self pwnage.

 

[Navdakilla]

lol, awesome self pwnage.

Hahah I was hoping no one would notice

 

[MrNomNoms]

when you spend $1400 on a laptop, desktop, you shouldnt have to scrap it 5 years later, i didnt mind paying the high price but now?? all i can say is goodbye mac and hello osX86.. they wouldnt have had to dumb down the graphic to include older machines, they would have just needed to include a dumbed down driver that the installer detected which one to install. with the programmers they have, they could have had it done in half a day or less. they just want us to buy new hardware.. and i will, just not from them, i can build a mac for half the cost and maintain the high quality hardware

Assuming you spent $1500 on a laptop that works out to be $300 per year which works out to be $6 per week. You're claiming on this forum that $6 per week is too much of a burden for you to carry?

Someone buying a 2010 Mac Pro should not expect anything after their Applecare runs out. This is Apple, not some LTS solution vendor. If you want LTS, buy an extended support contract from a vendor that offers it.

But equally when one does purchase a professional grade computer like a Mac Pro one does expect a reasonable level of support. If Apple were selling $1000 workstations then I could understand but Mac Pro's aren't cheap, on the contrary they're fairly expensive when you take into account how quickly they're at cutting off support.

For me I'm going to see Apple run its course but if I find that within 2-3 years that they kill off support for my hardware (see signature) then I guess I'll be looking at moving to the PC/Windows 8 (or Windows 9 by then) world where I know that the upgrade cycle of hardware and software are on my terms and not the software or hardware vendor deciding to kill off support on some sort of arbitrary basis.

 

[KnightWRX]

But equally when one does purchase a professional grade computer like a Mac Pro one does expect a reasonable level of support.

Expect what you want, but unless you're a recurring paying customer, whatever you get after your support contract runs out is gravy. And with Apple, Long Term is nothing they do and they've never really done it, so I dunno why people would expect it.

 

[MrNomNoms]

Expect what you want, but unless you're a recurring paying customer, whatever you get after your support contract runs out is gravy. And with Apple, Long Term is nothing they do and they've never really done it, so I dunno why people would expect it.

I guess the assumption is based on the large amount of money handed over at the time of purchase. I just had a look and assuming one had purchased a Mac Pro in 2006 (the very first model) then it would be usable for at least 6 years which is a pretty good life for even a high end model - I don't know many professionals with a high end workstation (one also assumes that performance is important based on such a high end performance) would keep something for that long.

I do hope that Mountain Lion closes the 32bit chapter of Apples business through the removal of 32bit support from the kernel is the start of a long cycle of support due to a simpler level of support required not that 32bit compatibility being jettisoned.