Originally Posted by Elijahg
Absolutely nothing to do with that at all. Upgraded Mac Pros don't work when they have GPUs that support OpenGL 4.
It's an entirely artificial limitation, as per usual with Apple, trying to force people to upgrade. Only thing is, there's so little in ML that people really need,
Oh, good. So if there's nothing that users of older systems need, there's no harm in the fact that they can't upgrade. I'm glad you established right from the start that you're whining about something that isn't a big deal.
Originally Posted by Elijahg
they're not gonna plonk down $2000+ to upgrade a perfectly usable (and fast) 2006/7 Mac Pro to some "new" Mac Pro that's not been updated in years, which may well end up being unsupported three years down the line. Back in the classic OS period, Macs were supported for 7 years or more, now you're lucky to get 4. Windows 8 can run on 10 year old Machines, because Microsoft doesn't add in artificial limitations.
There's no reason Apple couldn't either fix the firmware on the Mac Pros they claimed back in 2006/7 to be fully 64 bit, to really be fully 64 bit, or include a 32 bit kernel with ML. It's possible to run 64 bit Windows and Linux on the 32 bit EFI systems, so why can't Apple get OS X to run?
Of course there's a reason. It costs money, diverts resources from other projects, and adds complexity. Supporting 2 kernels is time consuming, expensive, and error prone.
I don't doubt that Apple considered that and weighed the advantages against the disadvantages - and concluded that continuing to upgrade the older hardware isn't worth the effort. Part of that is undoubtedly the fact that people with older hardware tend not to be as quick to upgrade as people with newer hardware. If they haven't upgraded to Lion, why would you expect them to upgrade to ML?
Originally Posted by Extrema
Cost to Apple to update integrated graphics drivers to 64-bit: $50,000
Cost to 1000 customers forced to upgrade their still useful hardware: $1,000,000
Benefit of this policy to Apple executives and shareholders: $1,050,000
Apple to customers: "Screw you."
Customers to Apple: ?????
Yes, you can look at it that way. The other way to look at it is that part of the reason OS X is a better choice than Windows is that they don't make an effort to support every POS hardware that has ever been created. At some point, the benefits are too small to outweigh the disadvantages. Supporting older Macs costs money that could better be spent on developing new stuff. It creates problems that affect everyone - not just those who use the older kernel. It adds complexity which slows everything down.
Besides, it's pretty much a moot point. Systems that don't have a 64 bit EFI (like my 2006 MBP) didn't run Lion, either. So if you managed without upgrading to Lion, inability to upgrade to SL probably isn't a big deal - at least for people who don't make a career out of whining about Apple's every move.
Oh, and if you want to talk about costs, let's talk about the people who actually DO upgrade. OSX - $19.99 which you can install on every Mac you own (for personal use). Windows - could be up to 10 times that amount or more, depending on which version - and that's PER computer. So instead of whining about the potential cost for someone who probably wasn't going to upgrade, anyway, why not talk about the costs for the people who actually will do so?
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
By distributing new versions of OS X solely on the Mac App Store, Apple has also drawn a line in the sand, since Macs not capable of installing at least OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8 won't be able to access the App Store.
Which eliminates PPC Macs - but they were eliminated a long time ago. If your system can't run SL, then it's hopelessly ancient and you probably weren't going to upgrade, anyway. How many people with systems too old to run SL would even be considering ML?