or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Mountain Lion signals end of OS X support for older Macs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mountain Lion signals end of OS X support for older Macs

post #1 of 121
Thread Starter 
In its announcement of OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion on Thursday, Apple failed to mention that a handful of Macs that will be cut from the fold when the next generation operating system debuts this summer due to end of support for older Intel integrated graphics chipsets.

Certain Macs made from 2006 to 2008 that incorporate Intel's GMA 950 and GMA X3100 integrated graphics processors will not be supported () by Mountain Lion, which means that Apple's newest version of OS X marks the end of the software road for owners of these computers, according to French Apple blog MacGeneration.

Integrated graphics chipsets are used in power-critical applications like laptops that have run times limited to the size of their batteries. Some Apple laptops, and subsequently Mac mini and iMac models that use a reworked mobile logic board, incorporate the integrated graphics model to be more energy efficient. The trade off for this efficiency is processing power, as integrated solutions are not as fast as discrete power-hungry GPU's, and is most likely the reason why OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion no longer supports older models.

List of affected machines compiled by Cult of Mac:


Any Intel Core 2 Duo MacBook from late 2007 to late 2008 (Model Numbers: MB061*/B, MB062*/B, MB063*/B, MB402*/A MB403*/A MB404*/A, MB402*/B)
Mid 2007 Mac mini (Model Numbers: MB138*/A, MB139*/A)
Late 2006 polycarbonate iMac (Model Number: MA710xx/A)
Early 2008 MacBook Air (Model Number: MB003LL/A)


The cycle of ending support for previous generation machines is an inevitability with the ever evolving world of computing as new operating systems and software are simply too complex to run optimally on older hardware.

For example, when Mac OS X 10.7 Lion was released in July of 2011, the AirDrop file sharing feature was limited to modern machines due to WiFi hardware requirements.



[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 121
Fragmentation!
post #3 of 121
My MBP is a 2009er!

Winning!
post #4 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

Fragmentation!

Dropping support for 4+ year old machines isn't fragmentation. Fragmentation is when the device you just got can't run the new OS to be released next month, or which was even released before you purchased. This is called keeping the OS lean and efficient by not having to support a million older configurations. IMO dropping new OS support for anything beyond 3 years is fair game and acceptable.
post #5 of 121
This information conflicts with the release notes which states that in order to install ML the Mac must run 64 bit kernel which excludes several other models including some Mac Pros

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #6 of 121
My late 2008 aluminum MacBook (one of the first unibody models) is still supported!
post #7 of 121
I'm finding it hard to believe they'll drop support for machines because of integrated graphics support. A 2008 Air is not so old in Mac terms. Can someone translate for me from the original links where Apple said this is a certainty?
post #8 of 121
Arg. This old story. My poor 2006 iMac got cut from Lion (which was a good thing since it still runs all the software my new computer can't).

I'm beginning to worry about my 2011 Sandy Bridge MacBook Pro 17"! I wonder if it will be supported by 10.9.....
post #9 of 121
Same old story with Apple. If its over 3 years old they don't care, its time you spent some money with them again.
post #10 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleZilla View Post

My MBP is a 2009er!

Winning!

Hmm... The MBP isn't even listed. Maybe this means even a Late 2006 might be ellegible to upgrade. Although it probably would be slowing the poor machine down.
post #11 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

Same old story with Apple. If its over 3 years old they don't care, its time you spent some money with them again.

The only thing that's the "same old story" here is this comment.

Every time a new OS or program comes out and old hardware is deprecated we get people like this saying that it's a scam or that it has to do with politics or money and that they really could support the older hardware if they wanted to.

The fact is though, I don't think there is a single documented case of this actually being true despite it being said every single time. It always turns out that there is a valid hardware-related reason for not supporting the old hardware, but that never stops folks like this from making this same "fantasy gripe" every single time.
post #12 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

Same old story with Apple. If its over 3 years old they don't care, its time you spent some money with them again.

They have been remarkably upgradable up to this point. Macs normally can run approximately 3-4 major revisions, which is way better than almost any Windows based computer.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #13 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach View Post

Hmm... The MBP isn't even listed. Maybe this means even a Late 2006 might be ellegible to upgrade. Although it probably would be slowing the poor machine down.

Yeah the article says macs with integrated gfx chips will not be supported... most if not all macbook pros use discrete gfx chips which is why they are not listed.

W. Pauli, winner of the Nobel prize in physics, said that all scientific methods fail when questions of origin are involved.


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Reply

W. Pauli, winner of the Nobel prize in physics, said that all scientific methods fail when questions of origin are involved.


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Reply
post #14 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

This information conflicts with the release notes which states that in order to install ML the Mac must run 64 bit kernel which excludes several other models including some Mac Pros

Did they update EFI on those Macs?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesmcd View Post

I'm beginning to worry about my 2011 Sandy Bridge MacBook Pro 17"! I wonder if it will be supported by 10.9.....

They are moving to a yearly update cycle. Do you really think that your 2011 MBP will not support Mac OS X in 2013?


Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

Same old story with Apple. If its over 3 years old they don't care, its time you spent some money with them again.

You mean a couple 4yo Macs't, several 5yo Mac, most 6yo Macs, and no 7yo Macs will get the update? That sounds right to me and reasonable. It's longer than iOS gets updated for and without any feature loses. And it's certainly better than new Android and Windows updates.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #15 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

Dropping support for 4+ year old machines isn't fragmentation. ....

He forgot /S
post #16 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

They have been remarkably upgradable up to this point. Macs normally can run approximately 3-4 major revisions, which is way better than almost any Windows based computer.

I have a PC from 2003 that I was able to install Windows 7 (32bit) onto. Arguably, it was a high-end machine. Also arguably, Apple makes ONLY high-end machines, correct? Originally, the computer had XP. (I didn't dare put Vista on the thing!) Apple is cutting off computers pretty much prior to 2006.

Since 1998, there have been only four major Windows OS upgrades for consumers (not counting ME, since it was a downgrade.) Mac has had 9 major OS upgrades (9, 10.0, .1, .2, .3, .4 but not counting the PPC to Intel transition, .5, .6, .7) since that time. Just for comparison.

<end troll>
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
post #17 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

Same old story with Apple. If its over 3 years old they don't care, its time you spent some money with them again.

Actually no, your current 3yo Mac will still run. They're not forcing you to upgrade. My Mac is 7yo and it works fine for me to a point.
post #18 of 121
Dropping support for a 4 year old machine seems a little much to me.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #19 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

The only thing that's the "same old story" here is this comment.

Every time a new OS or program comes out and old hardware is deprecated we get people like this saying that it's a scam or that it has to do with politics or money and that they really could support the older hardware if they wanted to.

The fact is though, I don't think there is a single documented case of this actually being true despite it being said every single time. It always turns out that there is a valid hardware-related reason for not supporting the old hardware, but that never stops folks like this from making this same "fantasy gripe" every single time.

well the really cool thing is that even all the old plastic black and white (albeit intel) MacBooks still work just great, with either leopard or snow leopard, so why would i even want to upgrade those. A 4 year cycle for your main PC in a business that evolves this quickly is really good.

To all those that would have apple hinder new methods and performance just so it can run on your old hardware, please write to the RIAA and demand all turntable manufacturers put back 78RPM
post #20 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleZilla View Post

My MBP is a 2009er!

Winning!

Same here, except ars claims we are out:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...m_campaign=rss
post #21 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Dropping support for a 4 year old machine seems a little much to me.

support, well i still get updates for Snow Leopard, so its not support they are dropping so much as just not developing new OS
post #22 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

They have been remarkably upgradable up to this point. Macs normally can run approximately 3-4 major revisions, which is way better than almost any Windows based computer.

Agreed... My White 24" iMac I got in April 2006 with Intel Inside came with OS 10.4 and I upgraded to 10.5 then 10.6, and maybe I could do 10.7 but haven't checked into it. However, it is time for me to upgrade and this summer seems like the perfect time to do it!

Anybody heard anything of the next iMacs?
/
/
/

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #23 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

This information conflicts with the release notes which states that in order to install ML the Mac must run 64 bit kernel which excludes several other models including some Mac Pros

Which Mac Pros are not 64 bit? Mac Pro 1,1 appears to be.
post #24 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post

I'm finding it hard to believe they'll drop support for machines because of integrated graphics support. A 2008 Air is not so old in Mac terms. Can someone translate for me from the original links where Apple said this is a certainty?

They are referring only to the original Air. The late 2008 Air will still run Mountain Lion. Remember, the original Air had the very slow Intel graphics and will be 4.5 years old by the time Mountain Lion is released. The late-2008 had NVIDIA graphics and was a much-improved machine.
post #25 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post

I have a PC from 2003 that I was able to install Windows 7 (32bit) onto. Arguably, it was a high-end machine. Also arguably, Apple makes ONLY high-end machines, correct? Originally, the computer had XP. (I didn't dare put Vista on the thing!) Apple is cutting off computers pretty much prior to 2006.

Since 1998, there have been only four major Windows OS upgrades for consumers (not counting ME, since it was a downgrade.) Mac has had 9 major OS upgrades (9, 10.0, .1, .2, .3, .4 but not counting the PPC to Intel transition, .5, .6, .7) since that time. Just for comparison.

<end troll>


Windows 95
Win 98 was released in May
Win 2000
Win XP
Win Vista
Win 7

Win 7 may be the exception and Windows experts may be the exception, but in general Windows machines never get upgraded due to many different reasons.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #26 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Which Mac Pros are not 64 bit? Mac Pro 1,1 appears to be.

Does kernel_task say 64 bit in Activity Monitor. There is a difference between kernel and applications. It has to do with the boot rom. I think the Mac Pro 1,1 boots 32 bit but runs 64 bit applications.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #27 of 121
I think people must be misreading this.... You can still run lion and your computer doesn't stop working if you don't qualify. Lion is still great....

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #28 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Win 7 may be the exception and Windows experts may be the exception, but in general Windows machines never get upgraded due to many different reasons.

Um, what? Most Windows machines in business ARE upgraded. Perhaps not all consumer machines, but business machines, definitely.
post #29 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

The fact is though, I don't think there is a single documented case of this actually being true despite it being said every single time. It always turns out that there is a valid hardware-related reason for not supporting the old hardware, but that never stops folks like this from making this same "fantasy gripe" every single time.

That's a flat out lie. Siri was successfully ported to work on older iPhones, and yet Apple shut them down just this week.
post #30 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

Um, what? Most Windows machines in business ARE upgraded. Perhaps not all consumer machines, but business machines, definitely.

I have not seen this to be common. Many businesses are still running XP.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #31 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPOM View Post

They are referring only to the original Air. The late 2008 Air will still run Mountain Lion. Remember, the original Air had the very slow Intel graphics and will be 4.5 years old by the time Mountain Lion is released. The late-2008 had NVIDIA graphics and was a much-improved machine.

If they kill support for the integrated won't this also impact the low power modes on Automatic Graphics Switching on the MBPs?
post #32 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

Dropping support for 4+ year old machines isn't fragmentation. Fragmentation is when the device you just got can't run the new OS to be released next month, or which was even released before you purchased. This is called keeping the OS lean and efficient by not having to support a million older configurations. IMO dropping new OS support for anything beyond 3 years is fair game and acceptable.

I don't think you can so easily dismiss the fragmentation argument, I think it's one of the biggest problems facing Apple right now and in the near future, in relation to OS X. I agree they can't be expected to support every new feature on every old device, within reason, and I'm not sure where that line is.

BUT, the fact remains that Lion adoption has plateaued at around 32% (http://bit.ly/ADPFIw), which isn't that great, IMO, considering how long it's been out. For whatever reason... don't like it, don't need it, older hardware, new high-bandwidth upgrade mechanism, w/e. I worry the fragmentation will get even worse with Mountain Lion, with only mostly current Lion users adopting, and not necessarily all of them.

The fact is, Apple builds beautiful high-quality hardware. It's been one of its greatest selling points, but it becomes moot if the software outgrows the hardware too fast and people are left with beautiful high-quality door stops (OK, that's not fair, those old machines will still work, just not with what is billed as Apple's future... iCloud).

All of a sudden the advantage of the interoperability of all of my Apple devices becomes irrelevant because only three of the current eight Apple devices I use can upgrade to iOS 5 or Lion.

I truly wonder how many of these decisions are based on technical limitations of old hardware, the time and resources required to develop for and support older devices, or the drive to coerce people to buy new hardware.
post #33 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Does kernel_task say 64 bit in Activity Monitor. There is a difference between kernel and applications. It has to do with the boot rom. I think the Mac Pro 1,1 boots 32 bit but runs 64 bit applications.

There are a number of Macintosh models that are able to run Lion but do not run the kernel in 64bit mode. I believe it's a combination of the motherboard chipset limitations at the time, along with the fact that most of those models are using a 32bit version of the UEFI firmware. Looking at the list, all the newer models from the last 3 years have 64bit versions of the UEFI firmware installed. These look to be the models cut from Mountain Lion support.
post #34 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesmcd View Post

Arg. This old story. My poor 2006 iMac got cut from Lion (which was a good thing since it still runs all the software my new computer can't).

I'm beginning to worry about my 2011 Sandy Bridge MacBook Pro 17"! I wonder if it will be supported by 10.9.....

Really?
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #35 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex3917 View Post

That's a flat out lie. Siri was successfully ported to work on older iPhones, and yet Apple shut them down just this week.

With Apple, running is not the same as running well. I think the noise canceling microphones is one thing that makes it work better on 4S. I have not tested it but I suspect there may be some unacceptable lag in response time as well. They sometimes err in that regard too like when they allowed iOS 4 to run on 3G hardware. It ran crappy.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #36 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

The only thing that's the "same old story" here is this comment.

Every time a new OS or program comes out and old hardware is deprecated we get people like this saying that it's a scam or that it has to do with politics or money and that they really could support the older hardware if they wanted to.

The fact is though, I don't think there is a single documented case of this actually being true despite it being said every single time. It always turns out that there is a valid hardware-related reason for not supporting the old hardware, but that never stops folks like this from making this same "fantasy gripe" every single time.

All we have to do is look at the vintage of the Intel graphics integrated chip series. The 950 and 3100 series are not good enough anymore. Intel was never really great in graphic anyway. It is truly no surprise the new Mountain Lion OS is not supporting ancient hardware.
post #37 of 121
If you have 100 billion in the bank, you could surely continue support for a five year old Mac.
post #38 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepriver View Post

If you have 100 billion in the bank, you could surely continue support for a five year old Mac.


I think the support for 5 year old Macs is that they have very good resale value.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #39 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

Um, what? Most Windows machines in business ARE upgraded. Perhaps not all consumer machines, but business machines, definitely.

My son works in IT and he just got a new HP laptop with Windows 7. He is having all kinds of fun (frustration really) trying to interface with '97 programs that won't work period on the Windows 7 API

Many companies were still using IE6 ... crappy browers ... full of malware holes ... many didn't upgrade til MS forced their hand. They don't upgrade unless forced to in many instances.

We all have opinions though don't we.
post #40 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

Fragmentation!

They need to support OpenGL 3.x and those Integrated GPUs do not.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Mountain Lion signals end of OS X support for older Macs