Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
MactiniThey still are selling 32-bit Windows. My point is that they did need to break compatibility in order to make the transition. Plus, there were a lot of angry owners of legacy peripherals whose 32-bit drivers didn't work on 64-bit Vista, which helped keep 64-bit adoption rates down. Microsoft wised up with Windows 7 and required vendors to write 64-bit drivers in order to be certified as compatible with any version of Windows 7 (even the 32-bit version). Apple took a different approach, combining a 32-bit kernel with a 64-bit application layer, allowing 32-bit drivers to continue to work with Snow Leopard and Lion.
The key point is people buying Windows 7 machines today. People buying new Macs today don't notice it, either. However, people upgrading from 32-bit to 64-bit Windows certainly notice it, as Windows 64-bit requires a clean installation (i.e. it won't migrate your old programs and settings). Heck, you can't even "upgrade" from Windows 7 32-bit to Windows 7 64-bit.
We can debate whether Microsoft's clean break or Apple's gradual approach was better, but in general, Apple got people to 64-bit application support sooner than Microsoft did, because they took a gradual approach.64-bit Windows has been around since XP. However, it wasn't until Windows 7 that 64-bit versions of Windows outsold 32-bit versions, and mostly because new PCs were sold equipped with 64-bit versions.
On the Windows side, most people get new operating systems when they get new computers. While the potential upgrade population is bigger (and wider, since Windows 7 and Windows 8 are compatible with older PCs), generally people stick with what is preinstalled.
I'm a developer too, and I think the Mac Pro situation is different. The Mac Pro 1,1 / 2,1, while it has EFI32, is an otherwise 64-bit capable machine and officially runs a 64-bit userland while still using a 32-bit kernel. It can boot a 64-bit kernel even, and while Apple doesn't officially support that, people have managed to make it happen:
http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,1123.0.html
Also, Apple could have provided a firmware update for the Mac Pro 1,1 / 2,1 to provide EFI64 if that was even the real issue.
This isn't about 32-bit vs 64-bit, this is about planned obsolescence of completely capable hardware. I'm not upset about it, because this is typical Apple procedure, and I saw it coming, but I do think it is a shame that such capable hardware is losing support. This is especially a shame for those with a 8-core 3.0 which still outperforms some of the 2012 Macs that just came out. All you really need to do to make these machines current is put in a more recent video card (which may be unofficially supported, but still works, like the ATI 5770) and use an SSD for your system partition, and you've got a very powerful, fast machine.
Now you might say that Apple shouldn't have to expend the resources to support old machines and that one of the benefits of their focus on newer hardware is that things are more stable and reliable, etc. But the Mac Pro has had such little variation that I don't see what the big deal in supporting the 1,1 / 2,1 is. And they have enough cash in the bank to fund this. It'd be nice if they could throw their Mac Pro users a bone here.
Ah well, this is just one of the things you have to accept as a purchaser of a Mac Pro, that it's going to lose support way before the hardware becomes irrelevant. At least we can install Linux or Windows on these powerful machines and still have them be useful for the next 10 years. Or keep hacking newer OS X updates to make it work, essentially making it a hackintosh.
Last edited:
Considering that all my Macs run Lion, two of them being 2007 iMacs, I say it was a great run for those machines when Mountain Lion becomes their last OS we'll see on it. Five years and running beautifully (knock on wood), my kids are having a blast, and most of the games they've gotten on disc in the Apple Store (sadly lost PowerPC support back when I upgraded to Lion) and the Mac App Store work swimmingly.
I haven't even upgraded them to a full 4GB or SSDs yet, so I gather I can still get 1-2 years more of good use of them before I have to retire them, so I say those iMacs were definitely worth their investments.
I haven't even upgraded them to a full 4GB or SSDs yet, so I gather I can still get 1-2 years more of good use of them before I have to retire them, so I say those iMacs were definitely worth their investments.
You're forgetting all the external USB/other peripherals though, like printers, scanners, webcams, etc...
Yep that was personally a pain - my USB Serial dongle didn't work with Vista - look how soon I forgot about it by switching to Linux which had a driver right out of box for the same dongle
MacBook Pro 2009...Mountain Lion a go, or no go?
I am not sure whether my laptop (MacBook Pro, 17", early 2009, 2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor) will support OS X Mountain Lion.
According to this Apple support page, my laptop is 64-bit (I have an Intel Core 2 Duo). From what I've read, Mountain Lion will not run on 64-bit systems, which means I would be out of luck. However, most other sites (including Apple's own Mountain Lion upgrade info page) I've read says that Mountain Lion will indeed work on an early-2009 MacBook Pro.
So I'm wondering...what's the official answer? I'm pretty sure I have a 64-bit processor, which I think makes Mountain Lion un-usabe, but according to other sites my early-2009 model will run Mountain Lion. Any advice? Thank you!
I am not sure whether my laptop (MacBook Pro, 17", early 2009, 2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor) will support OS X Mountain Lion.
According to this Apple support page, my laptop is 64-bit (I have an Intel Core 2 Duo). From what I've read, Mountain Lion will not run on 64-bit systems, which means I would be out of luck. However, most other sites (including Apple's own Mountain Lion upgrade info page) I've read says that Mountain Lion will indeed work on an early-2009 MacBook Pro.
So I'm wondering...what's the official answer? I'm pretty sure I have a 64-bit processor, which I think makes Mountain Lion un-usabe, but according to other sites my early-2009 model will run Mountain Lion. Any advice? Thank you!
Just going over some details in my head. Correct me if I'm wrong (likely am).
New Revisions of OSx typically drop hardware support for machines 3-5 years old.
Apple only offers patches, hotfixes and support towards the current OS release and 1 prior release (Lion and SL now).
Once ML comes out, Snow Leopard goes into EOL and stops receiving any patches or security updates.
So if you're on hardware that supports SL, but cannot run Lion / ML. you have no choice but to replace the hardrware itself to keep up to date, When in reality the hardware itself is more than capable of running your average daily task of today.
if you don't replace your hardware, the most you will get is 1 more year of support if you can get Lion installed.
Effectively Apple has railroaded the users base into planned obsolescence of 2-3 years before they are basically trapped running unsupported OS.
If this isn't done asa pure money making scheme, than I'm a monkey's uncle
To put this in perspective:
OSx Snow Leapord and Windows 7 came out approximately the same time.
Windows 7 will continue to get support until 2020 according to microsoft.
Snow leopard with the release of Mountain Lion will no longer receive any support.
New Revisions of OSx typically drop hardware support for machines 3-5 years old.
Apple only offers patches, hotfixes and support towards the current OS release and 1 prior release (Lion and SL now).
Once ML comes out, Snow Leopard goes into EOL and stops receiving any patches or security updates.
So if you're on hardware that supports SL, but cannot run Lion / ML. you have no choice but to replace the hardrware itself to keep up to date, When in reality the hardware itself is more than capable of running your average daily task of today.
if you don't replace your hardware, the most you will get is 1 more year of support if you can get Lion installed.
Effectively Apple has railroaded the users base into planned obsolescence of 2-3 years before they are basically trapped running unsupported OS.
If this isn't done asa pure money making scheme, than I'm a monkey's uncle
To put this in perspective:
OSx Snow Leapord and Windows 7 came out approximately the same time.
Windows 7 will continue to get support until 2020 according to microsoft.
Snow leopard with the release of Mountain Lion will no longer receive any support.
Last edited:
The common ground for comparison if there is one with the Microsoft vs Apple 64-bit transition debate is that breaking 16-bit compatibility which few cared about and was fixed by using XP Mode is different than breaking compatibility with not-so-old perfectly capable 64-bit hardware.
If Microsoft said Windows 8 will not work with 64-bit machines prior to 2008 (which Win 7 worked great with) then you would have a point.
I have the same computer
You can enable the EFI64 through the command line with a script. I found it online awhile ago. Do a search you should be able to find it. Sadly I am at work so I can't pinpoint it for you had I been home.
Yes, this is a big problem actually - they're going from security update support for their OS X releases of 4 or 5 years to 2 years and for someone who has one of these machines - they have to update to Lion and then only have a year before they loose security updates (Snow Leopard looses security updates in a few weeks).
Apple should change their security update policy to reflect the time they supported previously (4-6 years depending on the release) - with a yearly OS release cycle, 2 years is not enough for security support.
To put it in perspective, Snow Leopard looses new security updates in a couple of weeks, Windows 7 was released at about the same time and will get security updates to 2020.
The main issue of comparison is not if Microsoft supports something but if your OEM does.
So how many of you are getting support from DELL for your hardware? When you take an upgraded Mac in for service, they support the latest OS. With Dell, they support what it was SHIPPED WITH and no more. Sure IMICROSOFT will tell you crazy 10-year-old specs are OK... How many OEMs will SUPPORT, under warranty, an upgrade to Win 8 for items ON THE SHELF right now? Regardless if Microsoft gives you a free coupon or not.
ah ! my Macbook Mid 2007 gone
Hope apple will support XCode for lion for atleast a year.
Also waiting for some work around like this one
http://osxdaily.com/2012/02/18/install-os-x-mountain-lion-developer-preview-on-old-unsupported-macs/
Hope apple will support XCode for lion for atleast a year.
Also waiting for some work around like this one
http://osxdaily.com/2012/02/18/install-os-x-mountain-lion-developer-preview-on-old-unsupported-macs/
No, the common ground is that Vista 64-bit broke compatibility with a lot of legacy peripherals whose manufacturers didn't exist anymore (and thus weren't around to write 64-bit drivers), or who couldn't be bothered to update their 32-bit drivers. XP Mode doesn't always work with those devices either, since the host OS has trouble recognizing them.
Granted, Microsoft is a lot better at supporting legacy devices and systems than Apple. They always have been. And it is disappointing Apple couldn't release a firmware update or 64-bit drivers. However, that may be the price to pay for $20 operating system upgrades. Now that Microsoft is going down the route of $40 upgrades, as well as making their own PCs, it will be interesting to see if they start making similar moves with Windows 9, particularly if Surface is a success and they start moving people over to Metro.
That's unfortunate, especially for the Mac Pro owners. The original model is still pretty decent compared to the newest.
Also, Macrumors what did you do to my downvote button? I can't unleash anonymous justice on posts I disagree with now
Also, Macrumors what did you do to my downvote button
? I can't unleash anonymous justice on posts I disagree with nowWell put, although I'm guessing this is an unintended consequence of moving to a yearly iOS release cycle for OS X as opposed to a money making scheme and can be fixed (if Apple figures out the problem here). Users have to stay with the latest release or loose security in 2 years or less.
The other choice these users have (beside selling the hardware now on eBay before it looses all its value) is holding their nose's and loading Windows on it and getting security updates much, much longer (v 7 goes to 2020).
MS HAS to do that they would be NO different from Apple if they could push the upgrade envelope. I dont dislike MS but the love for them here is weird.
I agree Apple should update its security policy, and be more explicit. However, I don't think it is fair to say that Snow Leopard will lose security updates in 2 weeks. Apple is still releasing security updates for Leopard.
Apple is definitely focused more on consumers than enterprises. Enterprises tend to keep computers longer and use older software. That's partly why Microsoft support is as good as it is. However, with Windows 8, I can see the seeds of change in Redmond, as well. I wouldn't be surprised if "Desktop" support gets deprecated in Windows 9 (perhaps akin to Windows XP Mode in Windows 7), and if it drops native support for APIs other than those compatible with Metro.
Also, Macrumors what did you do to my downvote button
I know I always downvoted myself and now I can't. It really made a difference and separated the cool posts from the uncool.
@bedifferent :
Just to drive the point home on this, since Darwin's source is available on Apple's site, let's just check the 10.5.0 kernel source and compare some bits to the kernel shipped with 10.7.4. Something as simple as the NVRAM driver :
They changed 2 whole conditions and the copyright notice (the copyright was probably adjusted at the same time the conditions were). Also notice what actually changed...
Yep, they removed check for the offset being less than 0 since that was an "impossible" condition.
That's what is called a whole rewrite ? Really ? There never was a rewrite of OS X. That would be a huge undertaking and would probably yield very little tangible benefits. Rewrites are usually done for certain sub-systems, applications or libraries, not the whole operating system.
Just to drive the point home on this, since Darwin's source is available on Apple's site, let's just check the 10.5.0 kernel source and compare some bits to the kernel shipped with 10.7.4. Something as simple as the NVRAM driver :
Code:
$ diff AppleNVRAM.cpp AppleNVRAM.cpp-1699
4c4
< * Copyright (c) 1998-2000 Apple Computer, Inc. All rights reserved.
---
> * Copyright (c) 1998-2008 Apple Computer, Inc. All rights reserved.
88,90c88,90
<
< if ((buffer == 0) || (length <= 0) || (offset < 0) ||
< (offset + length > kNVRAMImageSize))
---
>
> // length and offset can't be less than zero (unsigned), so we don't check
> if ((buffer == 0) || (length == 0) || (offset + length > kNVRAMImageSize))
127,128c127,128
< if ((buffer == 0) || (length <= 0) || (offset < 0) ||
< (offset + length > kNVRAMImageSize))
---
> // length and offset can't be less than zero (unsigned), so we don't check
> if ((buffer == 0) || (length == 0) || (offset + length > kNVRAMImageSize))They changed 2 whole conditions and the copyright notice (the copyright was probably adjusted at the same time the conditions were). Also notice what actually changed...
Yep, they removed check for the offset being less than 0 since that was an "impossible" condition.
That's what is called a whole rewrite ? Really ? There never was a rewrite of OS X. That would be a huge undertaking and would probably yield very little tangible benefits. Rewrites are usually done for certain sub-systems, applications or libraries, not the whole operating system.
Lame
Update the damn drivers! Well Apple, I guess I won't be upgrading any of my machines to Mountain Lion - you see, the thing is I'm in IT and I need to keep all machines up-to-date with the same software set. I can't have 1/2 of the machines on Lion, and the other half on Mountain Lion, so I guess that's the end of the road for you getting my business...
Here's the problem, you've dropped machines that are too new. You're cutting them off in the middle of a 5-year depreciation cycle. You need to support your machines with software updates for a least 5 years - now I understand why businesses dropped you guys in the '90's.
Hello Linux (still not going to migrate to Windows).
Update the damn drivers! Well Apple, I guess I won't be upgrading any of my machines to Mountain Lion - you see, the thing is I'm in IT and I need to keep all machines up-to-date with the same software set. I can't have 1/2 of the machines on Lion, and the other half on Mountain Lion, so I guess that's the end of the road for you getting my business...
Here's the problem, you've dropped machines that are too new. You're cutting them off in the middle of a 5-year depreciation cycle. You need to support your machines with software updates for a least 5 years - now I understand why businesses dropped you guys in the '90's.
Hello Linux (still not going to migrate to Windows).
Apple only released the Java security update for Leopard when it became apparent to Apple that many of the infected Java clients for the OS X attack this last year were running Leopard - beyond that, Apple has not been releasing security updates for Leopard, they stopped when Lion was released.
Unless Apple changes its policies (supporting only the 2 most recent releases), security support for Snow Leopard ends in a couple of weeks. They need to change this, but so far there isn't any evidence they are (not on the radar I'm guessing).
Last edited:
