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 3

post #81 of 121
It's all about 'compute' ability of the GPU - pretty much everything from the 9400m onwards has GPGPU - or GPU compute ability. The nearest thing in your Mac to an A4 or A5 is the GPU - in fact at the lowest level, the stream processors (or CUDA cores in nVidia speak) are in many ways closer to the ARM spec than the Intel CPUs. OpenCL, and definitely any iOS style graphics or share APIs would benefit from this; in fact require it.

Intel chips before the HD3000 simply didn't have the concept of GPGPU compute ability.

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #82 of 121
The forum is growing tired of this noise about matte screens. They are massively inferior to the current generation of screens. Further the inability of people to adjust the lighting in their work areas have many of us wonder if there is a segment of Mac owners that could pass as imbeciles.

In a nut shell the forum is tired of baseless complaining about dead technology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post

Get over what? Are you being rude for a reason?
post #83 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post

Maybe nonsense to you. It is not to a lot of people. Attacking people's opinions as nonsense is not what a "Global Moderator" should be doing.

Your opinion as to matte over glossy is not nonsense. Your (and EVERYONE ELSE in the matte crowd's) sensationalization of this issue is nonsensical.

I was one of you. FERVENTLY one of you. My stars, I fought with the best of them. And then I actually used a glossy display and realized, "Hey, I was a moron; this is great." Seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post

I am leaning towards a Mac Mini with a matte display. May even get a used 30" Apple Cinema display.

Don't buy used! Buy a refurb directly from Apple.com. You can't trust the backlight on a straight used one. At least with refurb you're given a guarantee as to the condition of the backlight, panel, and everything else.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #84 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

Fragmentation!

Phasing out support for lower-end, 4 year old devices that cant handle the latest features is not fragmentation.

For a true example, I refer you to the Android platform, where one month old devices with the latest hardware can't be upgraded the latest version of the OS.
post #85 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

You are beating a dead horse here. No one wants to buy a Mac with an obviously inferior screen.

Really?
post #86 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Your opinion as to matte over glossy is not nonsense. Your*(and EVERYONE ELSE in the matte crowd's) sensationalization of this issue is nonsensical.

Sensationalization? How so?

Glare makes it difficult to work with glossy screens. That is the opinion of the "matte crowd." You don't have to agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

"Hey, I was a moron; this is great." Seriously.

No comment.
post #87 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post

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

It is nothing but non sense. Your complaining is a lot like a ghetto mama crying over her sons death, claiming he is a good boy all the while failing to acknowledge his drug dealing and other despicable behavior. He was no more a good boy than a matte screen is the right answer for today's PC's.
Quote:
As a so-called "Global Moderator," you need to learn a politeness.

Politeness; are you kidding people have been gentle with you. This is a thread about an OS update not a thread about a future hardware update.
Quote:
This forum is for the purpose of expressing opinions. Attacking people's opinions as nonsense is not what a "Global Moderator" should be doing.

The opinion has no place in the thread about Mountain Lion and the end of support for some hardware. Read that carefully we are talking old hardware here, not future hardware.

Beyond that you started off with the tone of an emotionally challenged child. People really want to have more rational conversations than that. Really you have polluted the thread here with nothing of value in the context of the thread and then you try to defend your so called opinion.

Not impressed at all!
post #88 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post

Sensationalization? How so?

You don't… at all… think it's a little over the top to suggest you'll move to a different OS because the screen available on the iMac doesn't have the coating you want and are too stubborn to change from? Particularly when you can go out and buy any screen you want and connect it to any Mac you want and have that instead?

And since calibration goes hand in hand with this sort of thing, you'd not prefer the greater amount of calibration afforded to you by an external screen anyway?

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #89 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabuga View Post

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.

Great post. I love the look of those old iBooks! My Pismo has got 768mb RAM, 120gb hdd and I replaced the old DVD-ROM with a Pioneer slot DVD-R/RW/RAMetc burner.

Whilst running an older computer that doesn't have access to some new features does feel like you are "missing out", it doesn't mean the older computer suddenly can't do what it's always done.
"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 #90 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post

Sensationalization? How so?

Glare makes it difficult to work with glossy screens. That is the opinion of the "matte crowd." You don't have to agree.

No comment.

Either Apple will decide at some point in the future to offer matte screens as an option on all their models, or they won't. Creating online petitions or bitching on message-boards is not going to affect that decision one iota. You don't represent the vast majority of the buying public. I suggest you save your time and energy, assume it's not coming, and switch to whatever the hell platform you want. You have absolutely no control or influence over what happens, so lay off your little crusade. This matte bullshit just pollutes threads it has nothing to do with. Suck it up or switch, I don't think anyone here could care less about what you do. You've expressed your opinion fully, now move on. There's nothing further you or anyone else can say about the matter.
post #91 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

What comes after Mountain Lion.... Dandelion?

Check out my MBP! She's a Dandy!
post #92 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

What comes after Mountain Lion.... Dandelion?

Sabre Tooth Cat!

Having a Jerky Boys flashback. . .
post #93 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabuga View Post

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.

Case in point: If you were running Lion, it would have automatically spellchecked your text, correcting the word to "relevant".
post #94 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Your opinion as to matte over glossy is not nonsense. Your*(and EVERYONE ELSE in the matte crowd's) sensationalization of this issue is nonsensical.

I was one of you. FERVENTLY one of you. My stars, I fought with the best of them. And then I actually used a glossy display and realized, "Hey, I was a moron; this is great." Seriously.

Objectively, glossy screens have a higher contrast ratio and better blacks, but worse whites, color accuracy and color gamut.

Check out this test:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5113/a...-2011-review/3

I don't think people's preference here makes them a moron.

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #95 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebensmuede View Post

Case in point: If you were running Lion, it would have automatically spellchecked your text, correcting the word to "relevant".

Or if he were running Firefox on any platform.

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #96 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

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.

Couldn't? Never? Always? It turns out? : )


There are as many instances of non-necessary end of support as there are necessary. It's hardly "It always turns out that there is a valid hardware-related reason for not supporting the old hardware". That's as much conjecture as what it's refuting.
post #97 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post

Or if he were running Firefox on any platform.

Hmmm, just did a test. Spellcheck via underlining - yes, automatic correction Ã* la iOS - no.
post #98 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.

There's nothing nonsense about a good matte display vs an uber shiny reflective extra glossy one if you need to do real image work. Te problem isn't that a decent glossy screen won't work, it's that Apple is obsessed with screens that are TOO glossy. Great for visuals that have lots of impact. Difficult to create those visuals on it.
post #99 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by madhatter61 View Post

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.

I wonder how good your son is at his job then, since for older backwards compatibility, there is always a VM, and 7 Pro includes XP Mode for running older SW for essentially peanuts, and any IT department worth their salt wouldn't be using a home edition of Windows to begin with, but even then, there's the option of a VM.

And the latest version of IE that can run on XP, is automatically pushed out through WU, even Microsoft wants IE 6 to die.

It's the same thing with OSX - you either come to a point where you have to break something, in order to go forward, or don't go forward at all. I have a 2007 Mini, I don't care about running ML on it, and I don't even have a desire to run Lion on it, it's just too old and slow.
post #100 of 121
I love this kind of response:

Quote:
I have this PC for 3+ years now. It runs Windows 7 and everything else just fine. A 3 year computer is not *old*, no matter what Apple would like you to happily agree to.

Funnily enough, my 3 year old mbp can run a 3 year old OS just fine as well.
"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 #101 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

I love this kind of response:



Funnily enough, my 3 year old mbp can run a 3 year old OS just fine as well.

Havent you heard? Windows 7 is going to be released Summer 2012. Or something.
post #102 of 121
The NVIDIA GeForce 9400 in my early 2009 mini is still golden! I'm getting a lot of mileage out of this thing, when you consider that Macs were supposed to have an Apple tax...

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #103 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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

You can still use Lion but you can't install ML.

No big deal to me, I am still using SL. And it serve my purpose.

Btw if you work out the cost per day you had sent $2 on your Mac (basing on the high valuation of $3000)
post #104 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebensmuede View Post

Case in point: If you were running Lion, it would have automatically spellchecked your text, correcting the word to "relevant".

Sorry to be a smart arse, but when I wrote that post, I was at work, on a Windows 7 box, running Firefox. I checked just now on my G5, Safari will underline my spelling mistakes.

Also, I'd like to offer my 2 cents regarding updating OS's:
I work in IT, generally, for businesses (running Windows), we don't often upgrade the OS of a PC once it's been sold. They generally run the same OS for the 3 - 5 year life of the PC. sometimes we might upgrade a single unit (say, the CEO's laptop), but not often a whole fleet will get the upgrade, too expensive for licensing. As for the Mac side, again, we generally don't update, unless the OS offers new features that the business needs.
For Apple, the OS cost is lower than Microsoft, but labour is still "expensive". We did some customers from 10.5 to 10.6 (performance boost, also the Magic Trackpad requires 10.6), but most only upgrade when we do rebuilds, or when they get a new machine.

For my personal customers (mostly home users, or 1 - 5 seat businesses), some expressly ask me to upgrade their OS (especially since it's been $60 NZD), but most stay on the OS their mac ships with.

Personally, my work computer always has the latest OS (Work gets MS Licensing), and later this year, I'll get a Mac Mini running ML, and I'll probably keep it updated.
Replace user and press any key to continue!
Reply
Replace user and press any key to continue!
Reply
post #105 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

Great post. I love the look of those old iBooks! My Pismo has got 768mb RAM, 120gb hdd and I replaced the old DVD-ROM with a Pioneer slot DVD-R/RW/RAMetc burner.

Whilst running an older computer that doesn't have access to some new features does feel like you are "missing out", it doesn't mean the older computer suddenly can't do what it's always done.

I've been collecting old Macs for a while, I've got all 13 of the iMac G3's, all 5 of the iBook G3 Clamshells, a G4 Cube, All 3 iMac G4's (my favorite looking Apple computers) Various PowerMacs. I love seeing how the designs have changed over the years as technology has changed and allowed smaller and more powerful computer to be developed.
Replace user and press any key to continue!
Reply
Replace user and press any key to continue!
Reply
post #106 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

The NVIDIA GeForce 9400 in my early 2009 mini is still golden! I'm getting a lot of mileage out of this thing, when you consider that Macs were supposed to have an Apple tax...

The NVIDIA GeForce 9400 has OpenGL 3.3 support.
post #107 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post

It's all about 'compute' ability of the GPU - pretty much everything from the 9400m onwards has GPGPU - or GPU compute ability. The nearest thing in your Mac to an A4 or A5 is the GPU - in fact at the lowest level, the stream processors (or CUDA cores in nVidia speak) are in many ways closer to the ARM spec than the Intel CPUs. OpenCL, and definitely any iOS style graphics or share APIs would benefit from this; in fact require it.

Intel chips before the HD3000 simply didn't have the concept of GPGPU compute ability.

Correct, and combined with the fact the Desktop environment is now OpenGL 3.x certified throughout the only cards that support that are dedicated GPGPUs with the 3.3 full stack support and the OpenCL 1.2 support.

With the release of the AMD Radeon 7000 series latest 7700 the pricing/performance for OpenGL 4.2 and OpenCL 2.0 compliant video cards gives Apple a lot of options at just over $100.

The fact Apple can now put an AMD Mobile 7600/7500/7400/7300 in the Mini, Macbook series never mind the iMac and Mac Pro with bigger options, combined with AMD all in with OpenCL gives Apple a very nice pool of GPGPUs to draw from:

http://www.amd.com/US/PRODUCTS/NOTEB...eon-7000m.aspx

These are nice specs for the 7500/7600 Mobile:

http://www.amd.com/us/products/noteb...m-7600m.aspx#2
post #108 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.

You could always buy a Dell or Asus or something. I'm sure you'd be happy with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlsonFrederick View Post

Mountain Lion signals end of OS X support for older Macs read more m a k e ca s h 4 . [c o m]

I have Apple's customer support number for you. 1-800-NO-TROLL.
post #109 of 121
..............
post #110 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.

the hardest thing with a windows environment is buying something new that will still run windows XP, when the old hardware finally dies. or without the "upgradeable hardware" totally replacing everything in the old box except the case
post #111 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabuga View Post

I've been collecting old Macs for a while, I've got all 13 of the iMac G3's, all 5 of the iBook G3 Clamshells, a G4 Cube, All 3 iMac G4's (my favorite looking Apple computers) Various PowerMacs. I love seeing how the designs have changed over the years as technology has changed and allowed smaller and more powerful computer to be developed.

at last count I had 237 old macs rangeing from mac plusses iicx's powercomputing towers, g3 laptops, ibooks etc. I have many times pondered clustering them together to be able to cook my morning toast on.
post #112 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

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.

Absolutely right and I tried to tell AppleInsider that but they don't listen as much as they used to. The Mac requirements have almost nothing to do with the GPU. ML does not require a heftier GPU. It is purely about the 64-bit kernel. The 64-bit kernel only runs on Macs with EFI64. To find out if you have EFI64 you need to run:

ioreg -p IODeviceTree -w0 -l | grep firmware-abi

If you don't get EFI64 in the output then you ain't running ML. So yes the MacPro1,1 is EFI32 and cannot run 64-bit kernel. This is why the same model also can't run Windows Server 2008 R2 or Server 2008 64-bit.
post #113 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

You are beating a dead horse here. No one wants to buy a Mac with an obviously inferior screen.

Apparently some people do. Otherwise, Apple wouldn't keep making these crappy glossy screens.

And yes, even Apple knows antiglare is superior, that's why they charge a premium for it on MacBook Pros.
post #114 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sector7G View Post

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

Why would it run slowly? Do you see anything in that list of new features that mean it should need extra power? We're there even any features in Lion that needed extra power? Answer no.

Macs are premium machines and OS X only has to be designed to run on a very minimal number of configurations. Yet somehow Microsoft who have a reputation for writing an OS that isn't as good are able to match the speed, while also supporting older machine and a huge number of configurations.

Personally I just don't see the point in replacing perfectly good machines to have the latest OS. I still wan't the latest OS though, so I'd rather pay Windows prices for OS X rather than buying a whole new machine.
post #115 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

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.

Probably, but it is also a little bit more subtle than this. For most people, computing is centered around internet and without up to date web browsers you are out in the cold, partly at least. Having the latest OS version will guarantee that you will have the most recent software updates also. So, OK, Apple is not forcing you to update but you will end up doing it anyway because ... this is how it is. It is called evolution.

Apple so far allowed Macs of up to 4-5 years old to run its latest OS. Limited updates for the previous version are still offered some time after a major release, and with those one is good for another 1-2 years. This takes us to 6-7 years of good use of the computer. I think it is not realistic to expect anything more from such an old machine with the current rates of advancement in software and internet services.
post #116 of 121
Bummer for the Core 2 Duo machine owners, those are still pretty capable. Dropping Core Duo was understandable in Lion since Core 2 Duo has newer instruction sets that are used in Lion, but in this case it just seems lack of 64 bit driver support for the Intel graphics chips are the only thing holding it back. Hopefully the modder community cobbles something together, I think they even got Lion working on Core Duo so this should be workable. If those graphics chips can push Lions animations I don't see anything in Mountain Lion that should push them more, so its just drivers.
post #117 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post

It's all about 'compute' ability of the GPU - pretty much everything from the 9400m onwards has GPGPU - or GPU compute ability. The nearest thing in your Mac to an A4 or A5 is the GPU - in fact at the lowest level, the stream processors (or CUDA cores in nVidia speak) are in many ways closer to the ARM spec than the Intel CPUs. OpenCL, and definitely any iOS style graphics or share APIs would benefit from this; in fact require it.

Intel chips before the HD3000 simply didn't have the concept of GPGPU compute ability.

The HD3000 doesn't have OpenCL, it is still supported. . I think the cuttoff is just for 64 bit driver support.
post #118 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipoo View Post

The HD3000 doesn't have OpenCL, it is still supported. . I think the cuttoff is just for 64 bit driver support.

If that were the case, the 2008 MBA would be supported. It's not. There are 64-bit KEXTs for the X3100.

Also, OpenCL isn't necessarily the key given the CPU compute device supports is anyway, it's really the extent of GPGPU functionality.

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #119 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.

Macs are very well supported. And given the push towards the cloud and iOS devices, the desktop computer is becoming less relevant. My wife was using a 2004 iBook G4 up until last week. She uses her iPad for everything, but kept the iBook for music storage. She recently decided to use some of the Cloud features. So I gave her my 2007 MacBook with Lion, and bought a 2009 white unibody MacBook on eBay, installed Lion. We are fully connected and everything works well. But if it wasn't for the cloud, she would have been perfectly happy with her iBook and Leopard.

Comparing the 2 MacBooks, both running Lion, the difference is noticeable. The 07 mb had 3gb ram and no 3rd party background apps. My 2009 mb has 4gb ram, but I have 6 or 7 background apps running at all times. The 09 is noticeably faster. It isn't just the graphics. The memory is slower, the system bus is slower, it limited to 3gb ram.

Also bear in mind that Apple makes hardware and is concerned with user experience. Running is not the same as running WELL. Microsoft is a software company, and could care less what computer you run it on. This past year they've made strides to innovate and remove legacy bloat, ending support for IE6. But that's why PCs seem better supported. But that doesn't mean it runs well.
post #120 of 121

3 vesions of the OS for a piece of hardware sounds great until you realize that the OS release cycle for the MAC is now like 8 months. 

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