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

[KnightWRX]

I guess the assumption is based on the large amount of money handed over at the time of purchase.

That gets you whatever was sold to you at the time : Hardware and maybe 3 years of Applecare. You and me probably realise this, but a few people buying Mac Pros don't seem to be the typical enterprise/business buyer. More of a consumer/prosumer group that thinks updates just come freely and expect them.

Wait till they get to deal with real support contracts, they'll find out quick enough what EOS and EOL mean.

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

But you'd be a recurring Apple customer on the basis of Applecare only for 3 years, not 6 years. If you want 6 years of support, Apple doesn't offer it. Support can include phone, onsite and things like updates. That the machine is getting updates 6 years later is just gravy by Apple.

What people consider a normal unfortunately has no bearing with what a vendor will provide you as far as updates and support goes unfortunately in this industry. Apple is especially fast at ending support on software/hardware, that's just reality.

After all these years, why would people expect different from them ? Because they have a "Think different" slogan ? If anything, Apple thinks different by ending legacy support quickly and moving on to the next best thing very fast.

- 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.

We have some servers with HP under contract that are over 10 years old, but HP isn't exactly Apple. I will agree with you though, if you can do your work on a 6 year old Mac Pro, maybe you don't need a Mac Pro to begin with.

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.

People hoped that the switch to Intel would bring longer support intervals, and look what just happened with Moutain Lion.

If anything, with yearly OS X releases, I'd say start expecting that as soon as Applecare runs out on you, the next OS is off limit for your hardware. The reason why will probably be completely random. 32 bit right now is the excuse.

 

[goosnarrggh]

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.

You've said it yourself ... other fully 64-bit OSes such as Windows and Linux can run on that hardware. Including hackintosh versions of OS X. It is a 64-bit machine, after all.

The problem isn't that the hardware/firmware makes it physically impossible for 64-bit OSes to run on the machine in general; the problem is that they engineered their newest OS in such a way that isn't deigned to work with that machine.

1) Maybe they designed it that way to force peoples' hands in driving new hardware purchases.

2) Maybe they designed it that way to reduce their software maintenance workload.

3) Maybe they designed it that way because of a philosophical drive to produce "clean" code, and any compromises that would have been required would have resulted in "impure" code. Refer back to (2).

No matter how I read it, for the problem keeps on coming back to software, not an issue with the machine not being "really 64-bit".

 

[AidenShaw]

1) Maybe they designed it that way to force peoples' hands in driving new hardware purchases.

Does anyone really believe that this isn't the reason for dropping those systems?

If Apple had updated the firmware in those "sold as 64-bit, now we're finding out that they're not" systems years ago we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Plain and simple, if it's an x64 CPU then 10.8 should be supported.

...and since 10.8 will run on them just fine with the hackintosh boot loader, Apple is clearly playing games.

 

[JordanNZ]

Does anyone really believe that this isn't the reason for dropping those systems?

If Apple had updated the firmware in those "sold as 64-bit, now we're finding out that they're not" systems years ago we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Plain and simple, if it's an x64 CPU then 10.8 should be supported.

...and since 10.8 will run on them just fine with the hackintosh boot loader, Apple is clearly playing games.

Or "If it's an x64 CPU, with a GPU that supports OpenGL 3.2 in hardware with 64 bit kexts then 10.8 should be supported".

And I agree.

 

[AidenShaw]

Or "If it's an x64 CPU, with a GPU that supports OpenGL 3.2 in hardware with 64 bit kexts then 10.8 should be supported".

And I agree.

...but Windows very gracefully supports systens with earlier generation graphics.

Apple wants to sell you new Apples....

 

[JordanNZ]

...but Windows very gracefully supports systens with earlier generation graphics.

Apple wants to sell you new Apples....

There is either a baseline to move forward with (64 bit+Core Profile support) or there are bunch of different combinations.

The advantages of going down this path outweigh the negatives. Yes, it sucks some systems won't be supported. But with the argument you're making, you might as well throw in 32 bit support, or even PowerPC.

The people that are going to benefit from this the most are developers. They can target one thing. 64 bit+Core Profile. That's going to keep things simple, and clean. And fixing bugs will be a lot easier.

 

[milo]

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

But these particular defenses of Apple totally fall into the apologist camp.

But with the argument you're making, you might as well throw in 32 bit support, or even PowerPC.

Nonsense. We're just talking about the boot rom, comparing that to PPC or even 32 bit is ludicrous. And this is an OS that CAN run on these machines, people outside of apple hacked it before release and proven that the OS itself is fine, you just need to work around the boot code. And as others have mentioned, 64 bit linux and 64 bit windows also run on these machines.

I almost have to wonder if Apple intentionally released the first 64 bit intel macs with 32 bit EFI knowing it would be an excuse to drop support sooner and push people to buy new macs instead of upgrading perfectly good machines.

 

[KnightWRX]

But these particular defenses of Apple totally fall into the apologist camp.

I'm not defending Apple here, you're quite getting my posts wrong. I'm simply stating what they are doing. I don't expect them to do any different, and I don't see why you do. That's their modus operandi. You're only disappointing yourself if you're expecting any different.

I'm not an apologist, Apple doesn't need me to apologize for them for anything, they can do it themselves if they ever get a feeling of guilt about their way of doing things.

 

[WAKAMA]

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

I completely agree. If anyone else thinks similarly, please let Apple know at http://www.apple.com/feedback/macosx.html (...been there, done that).

While searching for some information about the "OS X Mountain Lion is not compatible with this computer" error message I was getting when trying to purchase Mountain Lion from the App Store, I came across this Apple Support Community forum post: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4135260?tstart=0

I posted my thoughts about this on that forum, but Apple quickly removed it (literally within a few minutes), because it contained "Discussion of Apple Policies, Procedures or Decisions". So here's a copy of that post with my thoughts on this...

Seriously Apple??!! You’ve GOT TO BE KIDDING!! If you're looking to loose clientele fast, this is a GREAT WAY to do it!

I completely agree that you need to have minimum requirements such as OS X v10.6.8 or later, 2GB of memory, 8GB of available space in order to upgrade to the latest OS. That’s perfectly reasonable. BUT… telling us that we need to have a Mac from a more recent year, even if our current one far exceeds those other minimum hardware/software requirements… THAT’S ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS APPLE!!! That’s just a way to try to milk your past customers for new cash and its UNACCEPTABLE! Take for example the system that MHaddon mentions in his post above, which has:

2 x 3 GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Memory: 16 GB
Graphics: ATI Radeo HD 5770 1024 MB
Software: Mac OS X Lion 10.7.4

Are you SERIOUSLY expecting folks to spend another $4,000 on a new system with similar specs simply because they bought theirs prior to 2008 or whatever date is it???!!! I DON’T THINK SO! THIS IS ABSURD APPLE! Seriously, GET A GRIP!

 

[JordanNZ]

Nonsense. We're just talking about the boot rom, comparing that to PPC or even 32 bit is ludicrous. And this is an OS that CAN run on these machines, people outside of apple hacked it before release and proven that the OS itself is fine, you just need to work around the boot code. And as others have mentioned, 64 bit linux and 64 bit windows also run on these machines.

I almost have to wonder if Apple intentionally released the first 64 bit intel macs with 32 bit EFI knowing it would be an excuse to drop support sooner and push people to buy new macs instead of upgrading perfectly good machines.

You're forgetting the graphics limitation. 64 bit kexts+Core Profile support in hardware.

If those mac pros DO have cards that support those functions, then yes, I agree completely that they should boot the OS.

The point I was making was there is a little more to it than most people are saying.

 

[milo]

You're forgetting the graphics limitation. 64 bit kexts+Core Profile support in hardware.

If those mac pros DO have cards that support those functions, then yes, I agree completely that they should boot the OS.

The point I was making was there is a little more to it than most people are saying.

Not forgetting it at all. The MP has an upgradable graphics card, and you can swap in a newer one that has 64 bit drivers and supports what is needed (and people have done that as part of getting ML running on early MPs).

So I guess we both agree that the early MP should boot ML.

 

[thekev]

There is either a baseline to move forward with (64 bit+Core Profile support) or there are bunch of different combinations.

The advantages of going down this path outweigh the negatives. Yes, it sucks some systems won't be supported. But with the argument you're making, you might as well throw in 32 bit support, or even PowerPC.

The people that are going to benefit from this the most are developers. They can target one thing. 64 bit+Core Profile. That's going to keep things simple, and clean. And fixing bugs will be a lot easier.

In their policies they claim to support hardware for at least 5 years beyond discontinuation of the product. It's important to note that many things are still sold as refurbished units after discontinuation, yet they often fall short on this. The apologist attitude gets a little ridiculous at times. If it's Apple dropping support, it's forward thinking in terms of keeping the OS clean. When Adobe doesn't update legacy versions of its software for the latest OS, everyone rages on. You may not be in the latter camp, so don't consider that an implication. It's just common that Apple gets a free pass from many people. On Apple's end this reduces the necessary work and helps force upgrades.

 

[JordanNZ]

In their policies they claim to support hardware for at least 5 years beyond discontinuation of the product. It's important to note that many things are still sold as refurbished units after discontinuation, yet they often fall short on this. The apologist attitude gets a little ridiculous at times. If it's Apple dropping support, it's forward thinking in terms of keeping the OS clean. When Adobe doesn't update legacy versions of its software for the latest OS, everyone rages on. You may not be in the latter camp, so don't consider that an implication. It's just common that Apple gets a free pass from many people. On Apple's end this reduces the necessary work and helps force upgrades.

There are a lot of things I would like Apple to do differently. But in this particular situation, I can see why they've done what they've done. But I also understand this frustrates a lot of users.

Thankfully my late 2008 macbook is now running like a new machine, it's never felt this fast

I've never had any problems with Adobe. The only software company that I've ever had problems with when it comes to support is Avid (digidesign).

 

[KnightWRX]

In their policies they claim to support hardware for at least 5 years beyond discontinuation of the product.

If this is their policy, they broke it something fierce when they shipped Snow Leopard and pulled all PowerPC support.

The apologist attitude gets a little ridiculous at times. If it's Apple dropping support, it's forward thinking in terms of keeping the OS clean.

That's what Apple says it is. The apologist attitude ? I think you mean : The realist attitude. Apple has been doing this for ages, that people in 2012 are still surprised, shocked and outraged by it is frankly what is surprising.

"But they could update the EFI!". Of course they could, these things are updateable. They won't. Forget it. The machine isn't bringing them money, they'll cite numerous "accounting laws" to say they can't provide updates for them (like they used to for the iPod Touch) so they won't update the EFI, when we of course all know it's big BS.

"But they could have updated the EFI when the machine was under contract for people!". Of course they could have, these things are updateable. They didn't. Forget it. The machine was working fine with its EFI configuration on the then shipping OSes, there just wasn't a reason to upgrade. Apple doesn't reveal their plans like that nor do I think they consider current shipping hardware when making future internal roadmaps.

That's the reality. That's not an apology for the way Apple does things, it's an objective observation of what Apple has been doing and will keep doing. I hate that when you're objective on this forum, in a thread where this happens to "favor" Apple (I don't get why you and milo think I'm being nice to Apple here as all I have been saying is quite insulting towards them) you're an apologist and in a thread where it happens to go against Apple's policies, you're a "hater".

Objectivity. Realism. They have no place in discussion around here it seems. I expected more from you theKev, you're usually level headed about these things, was quite a surprise reading your post. I hope I'm just misunderstanding your meaning, I appreciate your usual interventions.

 

[sitsonthefence]

If this is their policy, they broke it something fierce when they shipped Snow Leopard and pulled all PowerPC support.

not wanting to enter the apologist debate, but a policy stating that they will support hardware 5 years after they discontinue a product means you should be able to get spares in the event of a hardware failure. It would not be a guarantee that future operating systems will work on it.

 

[KnightWRX]

not wanting to enter the apologist debate, but a policy stating that they will support hardware 5 years after they discontinue a product means you should be able to get spares in the event of a hardware failure. It would not be a guarantee that future operating systems will work on it.

Depends greatly on what such a policy even says. It could be anything from security updates to only to as you say parts availability or full OS stack support. If we had a link to the policy, we could very much better decipher its meaning and what it covers.

 

[thekev]

If this is their policy, they broke it something fierce when they shipped Snow Leopard and pulled all PowerPC support.

You misinterpret me a bit. Regarding PowerPC, they gave it roughly 4 years on security updates, but bug fixes were pretty terrible. They stopped paying attention to it long before the majority of applications were ported to Intel or universal binary solutions. The overall lack of support which wasn't even very good in the 2006 timeframe hastened the transition somewhat. On the rest of it, you should take note that I wasn't referring to mac pro 1,1 machines.

You might note that it's also a gpu thing, although I half expected that.

http://osxdaily.com/2012/02/16/os-x-10-8-mountain-lion-system-requirements/

I was more annoyed that some of the cutoff models didn't come out until 2009. It places the cutoff a bit early on some.

That's what Apple says it is. The apologist attitude ? I think you mean : The realist attitude. Apple has been doing this for ages, that people in 2012 are still surprised, shocked and outraged by it is frankly what is surprising.

"But they could update the EFI!". Of course they could, these things are updateable. They won't. Forget it. The machine isn't bringing them money, they'll cite numerous "accounting laws" to say they can't provide updates for them (like they used to for the iPod Touch) so they won't update the EFI, when we of course all know it's big BS.

"But they could have updated the EFI when the machine was under contract for people!". Of course they could have, these things are updateable. They didn't. Forget it. The machine was working fine with its EFI configuration on the then shipping OSes, there just wasn't a reason to upgrade. Apple doesn't reveal their plans like that nor do I think they consider current shipping hardware when making future internal roadmaps.

This statement probably would have been at least slightly different with the information I just provided. I'm also a bit grumpy at the moment due to recent hardware failures and tracking down cables. That could come across in my posts. Anyway I was annoyed that they changed the goalposts on what passes somewhat late in the release cycle. You might note that whenever someone on here suggests they want to buy a maxed out laptop to last 5 or more years, I tell them they're likely spending too much. Even today it's difficult to tell where your needs will be in several years, and there is always the potential for theft or damage. I typically suggest budgeting it as a 3 year purchase, so I guess by my own advice, they still wouldn't be truly affected by this.

Objectivity. Realism. They have no place in discussion around here it seems. I expected more from you theKev, you're usually level headed about these things, was quite a surprise reading your post. I hope I'm just misunderstanding your meaning, I appreciate your usual interventions.

I'm not sure I agree with your normal assessment of me. Other people just think I'm weird and way too fixated with shading algorithms.

 

[KnightWRX]

You might note that whenever someone on here suggests they want to buy a maxed out laptop to last 5 or more years, I tell them they're likely spending too much. Even today it's difficult to tell where your needs will be in several years, and there is always the potential for theft or damage. I typically suggest budgeting it as a 3 year purchase, so I guess by my own advice, they still wouldn't be truly affected by this.

And even then, old hardware that's not being updated on the software front by the vendor doesn't mean it's not working or usable. A lot of people on here talk as if their 2006 Mac Pro suddenly stopped working yesterday morning when Apple did ship ML.

But I agree with you, by experience too. Buying top of the line components in hopes they last a longer period is just wishful thinking. The 200 mhz difference isn't worth what Intel is charging for it, and 2-3 years down the line, the lowest CPU will probably trump it.

Either your needs aren't great to begin with and a simple, cheaper machine can do you just fine for years or you really need to keep ahead of the curve. Being ahead of the curve now, and struggling for performance 2-3 years don't the road but hoping to drag it out to 5 years doesn't really reflect actual, real world needs out of computing devices.

 

[thekev]

And even then, old hardware that's not being updated on the software front by the vendor doesn't mean it's not working or usable. A lot of people on here talk as if their 2006 Mac Pro suddenly stopped working yesterday morning when Apple did ship ML.

But I agree with you, by experience too. Buying top of the line components in hopes they last a longer period is just wishful thinking. The 200 mhz difference isn't worth what Intel is charging for it, and 2-3 years down the line, the lowest CPU will probably trump it.

There are times when third party developer support can become an issue. It's much more difficult for developers to continue to support hardware that Apple has dropped. In some circumstances this can force many upgrades simultaneously or awkward workarounds.

I get the desire to keep something expensive as long as possible, and it's fine to do that. I just don't suggest they budget the purchase that way unless they have complex requirements (CUDA, IO bandwidth requirements, exotic ram needs, etc). With Apple some atypical needs are difficult to fulfill without spending quite a lot. Whenever I've had to keep hardware too long, I've stuck to older software/OS revisions and adjusted settings to maintain tolerable performance.

Either your needs aren't great to begin with and a simple, cheaper machine can do you just fine for years or you really need to keep ahead of the curve. Being ahead of the curve now, and struggling for performance 2-3 years don't the road but hoping to drag it out to 5 years doesn't really reflect actual, real world needs out of computing devices.

That is similar to how I would view it. It can be difficult if you have complex graphics or IO requirements, so it's not always simple. I've just tried to dissuade some students on here that are about to enter college as many of them feel they need a rMBP, but of course it must last 5 or more years due to its price tag. Then of course others suggest that macs never go down in value and I refer to them to the price of refurbished 2011 models. My laptop is actually a 2011. I see no reason to upgrade or worry that it's worth less than it was last year. It would be a lot to spend specifically for the display upgrade.

 

[KnightWRX]

There are times when third party developer support can become an issue. It's much more difficult for developers to continue to support hardware that Apple has dropped. In some circumstances this can force many upgrades simultaneously or awkward workarounds.

I think however that hardware can be repurposed when it comes to that. I still have my 1997, student loan bought, P2-333 system. It's seen a couple of upgrades over the years and it's still running the very latest in software thanks to Linux. I use it as a home server presently, doing light DNS/DHCP/Web serving for my internal network. Runs like a charm still.

A Linux distribution installation can be repurposed for kids with an older Mac laptop, as a Facebook/e-mail/web machine. And it's going to provide him with probably a couple more years of worry free computing, with the latest security updates.

The main vendor doesn't need to be involved in the entire lifespan of the computer itself.

I've just tried to dissuade some students on here that are about to enter college as many of them feel they need a rMBP, but of course it must last 5 or more years due to its price tag.

I'm especially distraught by the students in Comp. Sci. who think they actually need all that computing power for "programming" courses. They're setting up their own disappointment when they realise most of their practical labs won't require more computing power than what was available in the late 80s. They usually think like you're talking here, I need a "rMBP" or I won't get through college without an upgrade. What is sad is they do get a loan, get the machine and even in their last semester, they're barely still allocating 1 MB of memory and their programs barely register on the CPU.

 

[Frixo Cool]

OK, I have some news...

After a rather long email to a Worldwide Developer Relations manager I got a reply today: "I will make sure the right person reads these comments."

So, maybe... if ML can be installed on a Hackintosh then it would be a real shame not to have it on at least top of line 2007 Mac Pro - still a beast of a machine with over 84 gigaflops of power. We need those for dev purposes, that's why we whine about ML. Of course that Lion is good enough for other uses.

 

[cryingrobot]

OK, I have some news...

After a rather long email to a Worldwide Developer Relations manager I got a reply today: "I will make sure the right person reads these comments."

So, maybe... if ML can be installed on a Hackintosh then it would be a real shame not to have it on at least top of line 2007 Mac Pro - still a beast of a machine with over 84 gigaflops of power. We need those for dev purposes, that's why we whine about ML. Of course that Lion is good enough for other uses.

I went through this same thing a few years back when Apple refused to support the 8800 cards for the 1,1 citing that 32bit EFI thing again. At that point the 1,1 was only a few years old and the best CPU was an ancient 7300 card. Nobody believed the EFI lie since the 8800s were being flashed easily. Apple clearly wanted to sell its new 3,1 line which was somewhat faster but in no way justified an upgrade from 1,1 which were still beasts. Eventually, they did come out with an 8800 card for the 1,1 and other cards as well.

There is really only one reason ML is not 1,1 compatible. They want people to buy their newest MPs. Thats fine but the new MPs are basically the same thing as the 1,1. Yes they are faster but its like going from a 150mph car to a 200 mph car. Most people dont really need that extra speed anyway. If Apple wants me to upgrade, show some imagination and make a MP that has some vision and not just some rehash of what I already have. Dont create some artificial barrier to force obsolescence..again. Nice going destroying 10 years of consumer loyalty with this 2 bit shell game.

 

[trainwrecka]

I believe the 2007 iMac chipset took advantage of full 64-bit that the Mac Pro didn't.

Oh, didn't realize that. Should have known there was a reason. Thanks.

 

[adream]

Facebook

Hi folks, hope all is well

I have set up a facebook page about this issue, gathering support to put a little pressure onto Apple

We have 323 people so far

I don't do this for personal promotion, I am simply interested in helping all of us stuck in Lion.

I understand I can't put a direct link into these forums (moderation rules)

If you search in google for the following terms you will quickly find the facebook page

Apple, bring Mountain Lion support to early Mac Pros

come over and join the cause

peace

 

[praktical]

Support for Some Older 64-Bit Macs

This is a smart corporate move by Apple to keep unit sales current. Whilst many of us with older machines might not be entirely happy with this we might have to end up shelling out the extra bucks for a new upgrade. Personally I'm not happy when a company uses its software sales to boost sales of newer hardware but it is and has been the trend in the technology arena.