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 - Page 2

post #41 of 121
Its not dropping support for those older Macs if they still get critical updates (if any are needed) for the OS they CAN run (you know, the one were all running right now).

Apple has a long history of offering maintenance/security updates for non-current OS X versions. No reason to think that will change. Those peoples Macs are still supported, they just dont get all the new stuff.
post #42 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by KazKam View Post

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.

Nice viewpoint, but your older hardware still runs on Snow Leopard, and perhaps even Lion. Just not Mountain Lion. Your stuff still works ... you just can't expect all the new bells and whistles the latest hardware can cope with.
post #43 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'm always extremely disappointed when I read stuff like this.

Apple is dropping support for these machines because they choose to, just like they could choose to support them. There's no amazing new fantastic thing in the minor OS point upgrade that absolutely needs a new graphics card or new processor.

Apple's business model is to force users to upgrade every 2-3 years. That is it in a nutshell.

I know a lot of you refuse to question Apple's actions because you own Apple stock or whatever.
post #44 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

They need to support OpenGL 3.x and those Integrated GPUs do not.

Hmm.. So there are things in the OS that require OpenGL 3.x?
Would that mean even better performance in graphics? One can hope.

At the same time it makes me wonder how all games that are using older than OpenGL 3.x will run.
I guess they should be fine still. Apple probably just don't want to have to adjust to too many graphic cards. Fair enough I'd say as long as it mens those being supported will run well.
post #45 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.

The support lies in the resell value. You really think that come September 21 when this thing is released that all these Macs that can still run Lion, with all its great iCloud integration already, won't still fetch a handsome sum?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #46 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.

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.

I agree completely, Prof, and I'm on the cusp of getting excluded with my mid-09 17" MBP - I daresay it won't make the cut for 2013's 10.9. But truly, I shouldn't expect 4 year old hardware to be able to run brand a new OS. If I keep this mbp beyond that, it will still run both SL and Mountain Lion perfectly well, however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KazKam View Post

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.

I don't think that 3-4 years is an insufficient duration for being able to support the latest OS features.
"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 #47 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.

Or you can just keep on running Lion 10.7 on your 4+ year old Mac. It could have more than 10 years of life left in it.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #48 of 121
Funny how the tables have turned, Microsoft is talking up how Windows 8 can run like a champ on an old PC with 1gb of ram (the demo at the launch event had 512MB), meaning that Windows 8 will run on lower end hardware than Win 7, which had lower needs than Vista...

Now after a decade of bringing greater performance and a "faster mac" feeling on every build, now tehy are going bloat and killing off great hardware...With proper drivers, a 2008 Macbook, like the one on my dining room table, would be a fantastic windows 8 PC.

I dont care about"support" running unsupported doesnt bother me, the question is will technical measures be taken to stop me from installing at my own risk?

Either way, a new computer isnt in the cards for at least another 10-12 months so I may be behind the latest OS release for a while for the first time in years...so sad.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #49 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldenclaw View Post

I'm always extremely disappointed when I read stuff like this.

Apple is dropping support for these machines because they choose to, just like they could choose to support them. There's no amazing new fantastic thing in the minor OS point upgrade that absolutely needs a new graphics card or new processor.

Apple's business model is to force users to upgrade every 2-3 years. That is it in a nutshell.

I know a lot of you refuse to question Apple's actions because you own Apple stock or whatever.

If you really feel this way you need to contact the BBB to let them know Apple is forcing you to buy a new Mac.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #50 of 121
I have hung on to 2 beautiful 24" white 2006 iMacs because they have antiglare screens. They run Lion. They will not run Mountain Lion.

If Apple decides to offer antiglare screens on their current iMacs (like they do on MacBook Pros), I will be happy to upgrade. Otherwise, I will need to decide what to do this summer.
post #51 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.

Wrong. There is a hardware imperative for Apple to have Siri run on the 4S only:

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/02/06/...s-exclusivity/
"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 #52 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post

I have hung on to 2 beautiful 24" white 2006 iMacs because they have antiglare screens. They run Lion. They will not run Mountain Lion.

If Apple decides to offer antiglare screens on their current iMacs (like they do on MacBook Pros), I will be happy to upgrade. Otherwise, I will need to decide what to do this summer.

Might I proffer a suggestion?

Get over it.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #53 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.

You do - said 5 year old mac will still run SL perfectly well, which is a great OS.
"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 #54 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldenclaw View Post

I'm always extremely disappointed when I read stuff like this.

Apple is dropping support for these machines because they choose to, just like they could choose to support them. There's no amazing new fantastic thing in the minor OS point upgrade that absolutely needs a new graphics card or new processor.

Apple's business model is to force users to upgrade every 2-3 years. That is it in a nutshell.

I know a lot of you refuse to question Apple's actions because you own Apple stock or whatever.

Well you can take your 4 year old Mac, (if you actually have one) and install the latest version of Windows 7 on it. Or just keep it on Snow Leopard or Lion which will run for many more years just fine. You could buy a new one and then donate it to a school and write it off on your taxes, turn it into a home server, put it in the kitchen as an occasional use machine. Take it out to the firing range and shoot it to pieces and put the video online and collect the Adsense click money. Bury it in the back yard for future anthropologists to discover. Sell it on eBay.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #55 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by logic368 View Post

My late 2008 aluminum MacBook (one of the first unibody models) is still supported!

I have the same MacBook. It looks like according to this story, it wouldn't be supported because it has an Intel Core 2 Duo processor. Am I reading it wrong?
post #56 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post

I have hung on to 2 beautiful 24" white 2006 iMacs because they have antiglare screens. They run Lion. They will not run Mountain Lion.

I'm not sure why you expect a 6 year old -obsolete- computer to be able to run a brand new OS. My old Pismo is stuck on 10.4.8 - should I complain about that?
"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 #57 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldenclaw View Post

I'm always extremely disappointed when I read stuff like this.

Apple is dropping support for these machines because they choose to, just like they could choose to support them. There's no amazing new fantastic thing in the minor OS point upgrade that absolutely needs a new graphics card or new processor.

Apple's business model is to force users to upgrade every 2-3 years. That is it in a nutshell.

I know a lot of you refuse to question Apple's actions because you own Apple stock or whatever.

Please explain to me how the hell you're 'forced' to upgrade just because your mac can't run the latest OS? I have a 7 year old powerbook that is still running Tiger perfectly. It didn't self-destruct or become useless once Leopard was released, and still still does exactly what I bought it to do to this day. Enough with this 'forced upgrade' garbage. I personally don't know a single real-world mac owner who would feel 'forced' to upgrade based on a new OS. It's mostly a message board myth. Unfortunately I don't own Apple stock, but nice to know you plan on dismissing any alternate opinions because that might be the case.
post #58 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

I'm not sure why you expect a 6 year old -obsolete- computer to be able to run a brand new OS. My old Pismo is stuck on 10.4.8 - should I complain about that?

Pismo! Yay! I loved those!

Not… 10.4.11?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #59 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by grblade View Post

I have the same MacBook. It looks like according to this story, it wouldn't be supported because it has an Intel Core 2 Duo processor. Am I reading it wrong?

You are reading it wrong.

Core 2 duo CPUs are 64 bit, which is a requirement. What is not supported are the old on board graphic chipsets like the x3100 and prior gfx chips.

Edit: you also require a 64 bit EFI
post #60 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Pismo! Yay! I loved those!

Not… 10.4.11?

Got it 2nd hand, someone had dropped a G4 in it! It hit a sweet spot on 4.8 (or was it 4.9, I forget), so I didn't bother any with any more updates. I should boot it up again, it's been a while, the PRAM battery will go flat...
"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 #61 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.

Hey, let's start a new internet meme. Every time any anything goes wrong in the world our answer should be "Well Apple has a $100 Billion in the bank, they could solve it."

Example: Crisis in Greece. "Apple has a $100 Billion in the bank, why don't they just save Greece?"
post #62 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.

Looks like you are completely correct. Just checked my 1,1, and while most processes are running 64 bit, kernel_task is not. I tried to force a 64-bit boot, but it made no difference. I guess the EFI is the determining factor.
post #63 of 121
Nuts. I was just bragging about my over 5 year old MacBook Pro, MacBookPro2,1 (late 2006), and how it can handle everything I want (and it still looks great). It is my main computer, and I use it for my business. I use Snow Leopard and am constantly using Safari, Apple Mail, Microsoft Office for Mac 2011, and Acrobat 9 Pro, and on a less frequent basis, other applications as well. I can see it now: at least a month's income investing in a new MBP and all the software to go with it.
post #64 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Might I proffer a suggestion?

Get over it.

Get over what? Are you being rude for a reason?
post #65 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post

Get over what?

The matte/glossy nonsense, that is. Pretending that you have to start looking for a new computing platform because they don't offer your preferred display covering in their computers is ludicrous.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #66 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.

i think its a good idea, i think in the long run the people who are mad about not getting the upgrade will be less than if if people start seeing macs running slow and laggy like a windows computer. macs have a standard to uphold, macs should always be fast and flawless in there customers eyes
post #67 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

I'm not sure why you expect a 6 year old -obsolete- computer to be able to run a brand new OS. My old Pismo is stuck on 10.4.8 - should I complain about that?

I don't think you got my point.

What I was saying is that I am ready to upgrade, but Apple does not offer an antiglare screen on an iMac since they discontinued the 2006 white iMacs. That feature is very important to me.

On the other hand, they have continued to offer the antiglare screen option on the MacBook Pros. So, why not the iMacs.
post #68 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

The matte/glossy nonsense, that is. Pretending that you have to start looking for a new computing platform because they don't offer your preferred display covering in their computers is ludicrous.

Maybe nonsense to you. It is not to a lot of people.

As a so-called "Global Moderator," you need to learn a politeness. This forum is for the purpose of expressing opinions. Attacking people's opinions as nonsense is not what a "Global Moderator" should be doing.
post #69 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post

As a so-called "Global Moderator," you need to learn a politeness. This forum is for the purpose of expressing opinions. Attacking people's opinions as nonsense is not what a "Global Moderator" should be doing.

He's not here to stroke your ego or make you feel handsome or intelligent. He's a forum member just like you who was offered the option to support this community by volunteering some of his time to cleaning up spam as it occurs.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #70 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.


and this surprises you?

wow...wake up.

   I am long on my shares of AAPL at $37.00

Reply

   I am long on my shares of AAPL at $37.00

Reply
post #71 of 121
What comes after Mountain Lion.... Dandelion?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #72 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'd have to say just the opposite, many computers in business never get updated some running well after MS stops supporting the machine. Some businesses prefer to replace the hardware at the sametime and then dispose of the old machine.
post #73 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post

What I was saying is that I am ready to upgrade, but Apple does not offer an antiglare screen on an iMac since they discontinued the 2006 white iMacs. That feature is very important to me.

Whilst I doubt that they'll add an option for matte screens on the iMacs again, you never know. Your options seem to be either 3rd party solutions (films etc) or use a second monitor as your main screen on a new iMac, or go for a Mac Mini with a matte display. Save some money by getting a refurb and put it towards your anti-glare needs, perhaps?
"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 #74 of 121
That is one reason why I went out and bought an early 2008 MBP. Without that GPU the machine would be far less usable than it is today! A dGPU assures you of a longer useful life for your Mac. Frankly this isn't any different than on Windows

Quote:
Originally Posted by madhatter61 View Post

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.

No surprise at all.
post #75 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

Whilst I doubt that they'll add an option for matte screens on the iMacs again, you never know. Your options seem to be either 3rd party solutions (films etc) or use a second monitor as your main screen on a new iMac, or go for a Mac Mini with a matte display. Save some money by getting a refurb and put it towards your anti-glare needs, perhaps?

I am leaning towards a Mac Mini with a matte display. May even get a used 30" Apple Cinema display.
post #76 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

Fragmentation!

Yeah right. Show me how many currently shipping Mac programs still support PowerPC Macs running OS X 10.4 Tiger because of the PPC holdouts. Although I'm not sure what would justify dropping Intel's older integrated graphics chips, besides the fact that they sucked.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #77 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post

I have hung on to 2 beautiful 24" white 2006 iMacs because they have antiglare screens. They run Lion. They will not run Mountain Lion.

If Apple decides to offer antiglare screens on their current iMacs (like they do on MacBook Pros), I will be happy to upgrade. Otherwise, I will need to decide what to do this summer.

Keep running Lion. Be happy. It's a great OS. Or so I've heard. I'm using Snow Leopard.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #78 of 121
Because frankly you don't know what you are talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldenclaw View Post

I'm always extremely disappointed when I read stuff like this.

Apple is dropping support for these machines because they choose to, just like they could choose to support them. There's no amazing new fantastic thing in the minor OS point upgrade that absolutely needs a new graphics card or new processor.

Considering the info available you have no way of knowing this. However if you follow releases of info to developers you would have realized long ago that Apple would be making greater use of the installed GPU in each new OS/X release. It isn't like Apple hides this stuff.

They are certainly making a choice, but that choice is to support hardware which will produce the best results for the OS.
Quote:
Apple's business model is to force users to upgrade every 2-3 years. That is it in a nutshell.

This is total BS, no one has to upgrade their OS, nor their computer. My personal one is now 4 years old, it still runs even if it is slightly damaged.
Quote:
I know a lot of you refuse to question Apple's actions because you own Apple stock or whatever.

That is a foolish statement to make.
post #79 of 121
You are beating a dead horse here. No one wants to buy a Mac with an obviously inferior screen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post

I have hung on to 2 beautiful 24" white 2006 iMacs because they have antiglare screens. They run Lion. They will not run Mountain Lion.

If Apple decides to offer antiglare screens on their current iMacs (like they do on MacBook Pros), I will be happy to upgrade. Otherwise, I will need to decide what to do this summer.
post #80 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

Got it 2nd hand, someone had dropped a G4 in it! It hit a sweet spot on 4.8 (or was it 4.9, I forget), so I didn't bother any with any more updates. I should boot it up again, it's been a while, the PRAM battery will go flat...

Lol, thats awsome! I've got an old iBook G3 Clamshell (The Lime 466 MHz one). I've maxed it with 570 MB of RAM, and changed the HDD to a CF card, with an IDE adaptor. Since it's got no fan, and now no platter drive, it runs totally silently. I've got 10.4.11 on it. It's a good juke box, and since it's styling is different, it's a real looker!

For people who say that that their computer not running the latest OS makes it unusable, My BEST Mac is a PowerMac G5 Dual 1.8, it's running Leopard. It works fine, there are some features I want, but it's a statement that a 9 year old computer is still running, and still 70% relivent.
Replace user and press any key to continue!
Reply
Replace user and press any key to continue!
Reply
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