or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Mountain Lion update page confirms incompatibility with older Macs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mountain Lion update page confirms incompatibility with older Macs - Page 2

post #41 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

If they haven't upgraded to Lion, why would you expect them to upgrade to ML?

Personally, I've held on to Snow Leopard on my 64-bit Intel Mac because I have been reluctant to jump on the bandwagon with newer technology - I've been content to stick with well-supported proven technology.  As soon as ML comes out, Snow Leopard will lose all security support, so I plan to upgrade my 64-bit Intel Mac to Lion very soon just so that I can maintain current technical support.

 

As for my 32-bit Intel Macs... Well, once ML comes out I suppose I will be left with the choice of either relegating them to the trash heap, or else installing an alternate OS which still receives security support such as Windows (I still have a license for XP lying around, and it has more than a year of security support left) or Linux.

post #42 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

Personally, I've held on to Snow Leopard on my 64-bit Intel Mac because I have been reluctant to jump on the bandwagon with newer technology - I've been content to stick with well-supported proven technology.  As soon as ML comes out, Snow Leopard will lose all security support, so I plan to upgrade my 64-bit Intel Mac to Lion very soon just so that I can maintain current technical support.

As for my 32-bit Intel Macs... Well, once ML comes out I suppose I will be left with the choice of either relegating them to the trash heap, or else installing an alternate OS which still receives security support such as Windows (I still have a license for XP lying around, and it has more than a year of security support left) or Linux.

Or, you could simply do what most normal people would do and continue to use the computer for whatever you've been using it for until it's time to upgrade. Snow Leopard won't stop running on that computer the day Mountain Lion comes out. Why would you throw it in the trash or install a different OS simply because there's a newer OS available?

The security argument is a red herring. Since there has never been a self-propogating virus for OS X in the wild, it's not going to hurt anything to continue to use the older machine.

And even if your argument had merit, it's a moot point. The number of people who can't function without the upgrade is infinitesimal. For the overwhelming majority of people with older Macs, it's just plain a non-issue. So why should Apple spend money, divert resources, and bloat the OS to satisfy the demands of an insignificant number of people?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elijahg View Post

I think you'll find many people with a $5000 Mac Pro 1,1 are on Lion. Even the oldest Mac Pros are fast, faster than some of Apple's latest machines. My Mac Pro 1,1 runs Rage at 40fps no problem, but it needs Lion. What happens when apps are updated to require ML, and autoupdate and break like Apple's botched iPhoto update few weeks back? As I said before and you ignored, why could they support machines for 7 years in the classic era, but not now on a modern OS?

Because they're not bound by your arbitrary rules.

Those $5,000 Mac Pros will continue to operate when ML is released. It's not like it magically stops working.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #43 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elijahg View Post


I think you'll find many people with a $5000 Mac Pro 1,1 are on Lion. Even the oldest Mac Pros are fast, faster than some of Apple's latest machines. My Mac Pro 1,1 runs Rage at 40fps no problem, but it needs Lion. What happens when apps are updated to require ML, and autoupdate and break like Apple's botched iPhoto update few weeks back? As I said before and you ignored, why could they support machines for 7 years in the classic era, but not now on a modern OS?

 

Basically, it seems you're asking for the ability to update all applications into the future without ever having to update the hardware, too.  I think Apple would consider that to be an unreasonable request.

post #44 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Or, you could simply do what most normal people would do and continue to use the computer for whatever you've been using it for until it's time to upgrade. Snow Leopard won't stop running on that computer the day Mountain Lion comes out. Why would you throw it in the trash or install a different OS simply because there's a newer OS available?
The security argument is a red herring. Since there has never been a self-propogating virus for OS X in the wild, it's not going to hurt anything to continue to use the older machine.

That is fine for you.  I'm just not prepared to take the risk.

 

In my opinion,Snow Leopard will magically stop being suitable for many of they tasks for which it used to be suitable before it loses security support.  Specifically, it will magically stop being suitable for any task which requires it to interact with documents or data that originated on any outside, untrusted, machine.

 

The requirement for a piece of malware to be self-propagating in order to qualify as a legitimate threat is, frankly, an equally grievous red herring.  Just look at Flashback.  It affected pre-Snow Leopard computers, and it did not raise any security warning dialog boxes to give you a chance for sober second thought to back out of whatever web page you were looking at.  The vulnerability which allows Flashback to install itself was patched in Snow Leopard and Lion, but it still exists without any effective* mitigation in all pre-Snow Leopard machines.  The next time something like this is discovered, the underlying vulnerability may be fixed in Lion and Mountain Lion, but not in anything pre-Lion.

 

* They backported the Flashback removal tool, and they backported the modification which automatically disables the Java Plugin in Safari after you've gone a while without using it.  This still leaves holes for anybody who regularly uses websites that do make a legitimate use of Java, and it also leaves a gaping hole for any Leopard user who is a non-Safari web browser -- which, for any remaining Leopard users, ought to be everybody: Safari on Leopard hasn't received security or feature updates in almost a year.

 


And even if your argument had merit, it's a moot point. The number of people who can't function without the upgrade is infinitesimal. For the overwhelming majority of people with older Macs, it's just plain a non-issue. So why should Apple spend money, divert resources, and bloat the OS to satisfy the demands of an insignificant number of people?

Of course, Apple shouldn't be forced to continue releasing new versions of their OS which support the older machines if they don't want to.  Just a few posts ago, I made the argument that Apple shouldn't be doing that.  I am only suggesting that is irresponsible to advise the people who are left behind to stick with Snow Leopard.  I am making the argument that anybody left behind should seriously consider other OS options, since sticking with Snow Leopard will leave them in an unacceptable security position.


Edited by lfmorrison - 7/12/12 at 7:47am
post #45 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

Of course, Apple shouldn't be forced to continue releasing new versions of their OS which support the older machines if they don't want to. Just a few posts ago, I made the argument that Apple shouldn't be doing that. I am only suggesting that is irresponsible to advise the people who are left behind to stick with Snow Leopard. I am making the argument that anybody left behind should seriously consider other OS options, since sticking with Snow Leopard will leave them in an unacceptable security position.

That is, of course, your option. However:

1. It may well cost you a great deal more in time and money to switch (buying new apps, etc) than to simply buy a new Mac Mini.
2. You will lose some productivity and capabilities in switching from an OS that you're familiar with to one that is new.
3. Most importantly, Apple is smart enough to realize that you can't keep every single person happy all the time. There are undoubtedly a very, very few people who will have situations like yours where they're unwilling to continue using the OS. Apple has found that the benefits of cutting out obsolete ancient history outweigh the disadvantages. They may lose a customer or two, but the benefits of having a clean, reliable OS outweigh the number of people lost.

And, realistically, if you're whining about the need to upgrade a 6 year old computer, Apple's not losing that much.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #46 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Also: what amazing new graphical improvements are to be found in Mountain Lion versus Lion, that would make 2008 models no longer compatible? Aside for the ridiculous and useless notification bar, what's changed?

From what I have read and in short : nothing, they just wouldn't allocate any 'resource' to write the needed GPU drivers...

post #47 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That's silly. They're supporting machines 4 years old and newer.


Not quite:

 

  • Mac mini (Early 2009 or newer)
  • Xserve (Early 2009)
post #48 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That is, of course, your option. However:
1. It may well cost you a great deal more in time and money to switch (buying new apps, etc) than to simply buy a new Mac Mini.
2. You will lose some productivity and capabilities in switching from an OS that you're familiar with to one that is new.
3. Most importantly, Apple is smart enough to realize that you can't keep every single person happy all the time. There are undoubtedly a very, very few people who will have situations like yours where they're unwilling to continue using the OS. Apple has found that the benefits of cutting out obsolete ancient history outweigh the disadvantages. They may lose a customer or two, but the benefits of having a clean, reliable OS outweigh the number of people lost.
And, realistically, if you're whining about the need to upgrade a 6 year old computer, Apple's not losing that much.


I honestly don't agree that I've been whining.  Otherwise, a perfectly reasonable summary.

 

By the way, Apple will still have me as a customer: I will be upgrading my sole 64-bit capable machine to Lion (10.7), to protect it from the obsolescence I predict for the remaining 32-bit units.

post #49 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elijahg View Post


I think you'll find many people with a $5000 Mac Pro 1,1 are on Lion. Even the oldest Mac Pros are fast, faster than some of Apple's latest machines. My Mac Pro 1,1 runs Rage at 40fps no problem, but it needs Lion. What happens when apps are updated to require ML, and autoupdate and break like Apple's botched iPhoto update few weeks back? As I said before and you ignored, why could they support machines for 7 years in the classic era, but not now on a modern OS?


At the same time, whoever decides to pitch in a good reply to the above question... I have an additional question:

 

I understand the basics of 64-bit and it's advantages, mainly being able to access and manage more than 4GB of RAM. So with that out of the way, what other advantages are there?

 

I ask this because other software besides Apple's is all moving to 64-bit (Adobe for ex.), and we are continually being told that, "when 64-bit is finished....bla bla etc. etc.... we will be able to do _________", which normally includes features and functions that were present in software of over 3 decades ago in 16-bit!

 

Me personally, there's a serious disconnect from the logical advantages of 64-bit, and what we are seeing from assorted software companies and their programs (not only Adobe).

 

And well... it still is all about the "software", isn't it?

 

Bloody fantastic: Hey! I got me some 64-bit "Screamin' Demon" spanking new computer with optimized 64-bit OS... but my software runs like it's in a tank of molasses... when and if it installs and runs at all.

 

Please explain....

Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #50 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post


At the same time, whoever decides to pitch in a good reply to the above question... I have an additional question:

 

I understand the basics of 64-bit and it's advantages, mainly being able to access and manage more than 4GB of RAM. So with that out of the way, what other advantages are there?

 

I ask this because other software besides Apple's is all moving to 64-bit (Adobe for ex.), and we are continually being told that, "when 64-bit is finished....bla bla etc. etc.... we will be able to do _________", which normally includes features and functions that were present in software of over 3 decades ago in 16-bit!

 

Me personally, there's a serious disconnect from the logical advantages of 64-bit, and what we are seeing from assorted software companies and their programs (not only Adobe).

 

And well... it still is all about the "software", isn't it?

 

Bloody fantastic: Hey! I got me some 64-bit "Screamin' Demon" spanking new computer with optimized 64-bit OS... but my software runs like it's in a tank of molasses... when and if it installs and runs at all.

 

Please explain....


Theoretically, a program that needs to perform many iterations of complicated mathematical operations with high precision or a wide dynamic range should be able to do it in fewer instructions (and therefore finish those operations faster) on a 64-bit machine than on a 32-bit machine, because they'll be able to manipulate integral data types with high-precision or wide-dynamic range (ie 64-bit variables) using single instructions instead of needing to split the manipulations up into several operations on smaller 32-bit chunks.

 

As well, "long mode" on an AMD64 processor includes access to double the number of CPU registers than the previous modes of operation (32-bit, and 16-bit before that), meaning that a program with tight loops working on relatively small datasets might be able to keep more of its state in higher-speed memory, avoiding some of the penalties of cache misses when it needs to occasionally fetch data out of main system RAM.

 

Having both the kernel and the usermode processes running in the same mode of operation may also allow some other performance improvements, since there will not be any need to provide any mode changes or ABI translations as control passes between the two.  (So there may be a performance penalty when you use a 64-bit userspace application on Lion's hybrid 32/64-bit kernel which wouldn't have been present on Lion's pure-64-bit kernel; equivalently there would likely be a performance penalty to run a 32-bit userspace application on the pure 64-bit kernel of either Lion or Mountain Lion.)

 

For the time being, Mountain Lion will have an exclusively 64-bit kernel, but it will still ship a complete 32-bit runtime to allow you to continue running Applications that haven't yet been updated to 64-bit.  Eventually, you'll see the best possible performance once all your userspace software has been upgraded to remove any 32-bit references.

post #51 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So why should Apple spend money, divert resources, and bloat the OS to satisfy the demands of an insignificant number of people?
Because they're not bound by your arbitrary rules.
Those $5,000 Mac Pros will continue to operate when ML is released. It's not like it magically stops working.

I'm not sure what you see as my arbitrary rules, Apple's the one creating arbitrary rules on which computers can and can't run ML, not me. They're creating unnecessary restrictions on what OSs can run Xcode too, so yes, people with Lion will magically stop being able to write apps for the App Stores at some point when Apple decides to release a Lion-incompatable Xcode update.

According to "du -h /mach_kernel", the Lion kernel is 15mb, with 32 bit support. Not exactly massive, especially seeing how there are 760 retina images in iPhoto's resources alone, wasting 50mb. If bloat bothers you so much, why aren't you (to use your buzzword) whining about the huge retina images that aren't used on most Macs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1 View Post

Basically, it seems you're asking for the ability to update all applications into the future without ever having to update the hardware, too.  I think Apple would consider that to be an unreasonable request.

The problem is the limitation is just artificial. If it was a real hardware limitation, such as how Leopard dropped support for the G3 due to the lack of the AltiVec engine, that would be understandable. However, that is not the case, the hardware is capable of running a 64-bit kernel. And as I have stated before, Apple advertised the 2006/7 Mac Pros as fully 64 bit, but they aren't. How do you excuse that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post


At the same time, whoever decides to pitch in a good reply to the above question... I have an additional question:

I understand the basics of 64-bit and it's advantages, mainly being able to access and manage more than 4GB of RAM. So with that out of the way, what other advantages are there?

The main advantage is the additional RAM that can be accessed by individual processes. A 32 bit kernel can access upto 32gb of RAM using PAE, or Physical Address Extension, but the individual processes can't access more than 4gb. With a 64 bit kernel, processes can access massive amounts of RAM. 16.8 million terabytes, if you had a motherboard big enough 1wink.gif

64 bit processes can sometimes be a bit faster too, as the compiler has more hardware CPU registers to use, 32 bit x86 doesn't really have enough. Rarely noticeable though.
post #52 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Oh dear! A friend running ML GM tells me a Mac MBP 2010 running Lion with Final Cut Studio and Aperture 3 running, when updated to Mountain Lion GM continues to run both fine. However a fresh installation of ML on the same MBP refuses to install either.
Update. I suggested turning off auto graphic switching ... Waiting to hear if that helped.

Previously installed apps are auto-registered with Gatekeeper. Are you sure he doesn't have that enabled and didn't do a right-click and then choose Open to bypass the unsigned app denial?

"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 #53 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Previously installed apps are auto-registered with Gatekeeper. Are you sure he doesn't have that enabled and didn't do a right-click and then choose Open to bypass the unsigned app denial?

Great info thanks. What would the messages be that we triggered by that? The messages being seen are: Aperture - cant run with video card ... Hopefully switching off the auto switch will help but for Final Cut Pro the message is -Can't install because Power PC! This is from the full Final Cut Pro Suite upgrade pack. All previous versions and serials at the ready as per usual. Also the Aperture is version 1, since again, both versions 2 and 3 are upgrade packs that require the installations in sequence!
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #54 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post


The longer they continue to distribute both a 32-bit kernel and a 64-bit kernel, the longer they'll need to spend money developing for and testing both configurations.  By limiting themeslves to only the 64-bit code base, they can be more agile responding to future maintenance of the product, while at the same time needing to devote fewer development resources to the task.

As long as Apple continues to make security updates for SL for another 3 years or so, there is no reason that people can't continue to use their perfectly good circa < 2007 machines. If they want the new iCloud features then they can decide if it is worth the expense or not. I think supporting a computer and its released version of OS X for a total of 5 years is reasonable. Perhaps less for iOS devices. You should expect a total of 2 additional upgrade versions beyond the OS that the machine came with.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #55 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Great info thanks. What would the messages be that we triggered by that? The messages being seen are: Aperture - cant run with video card ... Hopefully switching off the auto switch will help but for Final Cut Pro the message is -Can't install because Power PC! This is from the full Final Cut Pro Suite upgrade pack. All previous versions and serials at the ready as per usual. Also the Aperture is version 1, since again, both versions 2 and 3 are upgrade packs that require the installations in sequence!

With those messages my suggestion is not the issue.

"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 #56 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Extrema View Post

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: ?????

That's not just the wrong way to look at the situation, the bulk of the market doesn't even think about the situation like that.

No one is *forced* to do anything. You're misrepresenting the situation.

The REAL situation is that most Macs, going back to 2007, are supported. That's hardware that is nearly 6 years old. Given Apple's philosophy (that is VERY enlightened, and which moves the industry forward),
that's pretty good. Apple is not doing this just to squeeze money out of consumers. They're doing this to maintain their edge in each market, not just "computers." This involves regular refreshes and
transitions *away* from older software to the extent of dropping support. Apple's consumer satisfaction, year after year, in nearly every area in which they compete, indicates quite clearly that this is not only a bold strategy, but an
eminently smart one. Consumers simply agree. And why shouldn't they? They recognize, probably instinctively, the long-term value proposition of Macs running OS X, whether it's the newest version, or an older version.

A few people will be butt-hurt about Apple's decisions, but the minority is the minority. The bulk of the market is what obviously matters at this juncture. These pissed-off folk are certainly free to move to Windows. But I'm
betting they'd *still* be willing to stay with Apple given the alternatives. And we're seeing nothing but market-share increases YOY for Macs.

So, as always, that whole "Apple is screwing over their customers" argument rings hollow.
post #57 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

With those messages my suggestion is not the issue.

Ok, well good to know anyway.

Wouldn't it be nice if Aperture license would allow switching to the App store version without need to repurchase. I can see why FCP isn't but Aperture is there anyway and having to use three sets of installs from disks is crazy in this day and age. Or is it and it's not obvious how?
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #58 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Ok, well good to know anyway.
Wouldn't it be nice if Aperture license would allow switching to the App store version without need to repurchase. I can see why FCP isn't but Aperture is there anyway and having to use three sets of installs from disks is crazy in this day and age. Or is it and it's not obvious how?

That would be a barrier on Apple's side.

The video card could be erroneous, but unlikely. Is he sure these MBPs are identical? Is he sure his FCP installer supports Intel-based machines?

"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 #59 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elijahg View Post

According to "du -h /mach_kernel", the Lion kernel is 15mb, with 32 bit support. Not exactly massive, especially seeing how there are 760 retina images in iPhoto's resources alone, wasting 50mb. If bloat bothers you so much, why aren't you (to use your buzzword) whining about the huge retina images that aren't used on most Macs?


The fundamental problem is that you don't understand what 'bloat' is all about. Hard disk space is cheap. Those 760 retina images are non-issues because most of the time they're just sitting their on your hard disk. Unless they're accessed, they have no impact on performance.

It's not just the kernel. It's also all the drivers. All the APIs that need to be accessible in 32 bit mode. Those things add up. But where they add up is not so much in hard disk space but in the resources they use - not just computer resources, but Apple's resources.

It's about effort and opportunity for errors to appear. If Apple has to have both a 32 and 64 bit version, it means vastly more resources than if they only have to support one OS. That means more opportunity for errors to creep in and conflicts to occur.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #60 of 95

I am pissed...

 

All of my Mac's are eligible for the update.  The oldest Mac Mini just barely skirted by.....

 

Now I don't have anything to bitch about in this post.....  and that really pisses me off... ;0)

post #61 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

That would be a barrier on Apple's side.
The video card could be erroneous, but unlikely. Is he sure these MBPs are identical? Is he sure his FCP installer supports Intel-based machines?

It is the same MBP but the installations could well be from the previous Mac . The boot disk was cloned and put on th MBP, previously it was on a MacPro. Fascinating problem if that's the case.

Nope, got my hands in this machine now. Booting to Snow Leopard drive everything can install fine. So this is an OS barrier not hardware. What is needed is a selective version of migration manager, that can allow specific applications and all their associated files, FCpro isn't something that can be manually dragged across in my experience.

I'm now thinking it is the actual installation software that requires Rossetta!
Edited by digitalclips - 7/12/12 at 10:19am
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #62 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It's about effort and opportunity for errors to appear. If Apple has to have both a 32 and 64 bit version, it means vastly more resources than if they only have to support one OS. That means more opportunity for errors to creep in and conflicts to occur.

Which will ultimately affect, over the long term, consumer perception (leaning toward the negative) of Apple products.

Apple is, at least in part, so successful because they do the opposite of the competition. This comes with sacrifice, but in the grand scheme of things Apple has the right philosophy, that ultimately benefits the most consumers possible.
post #63 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post


Theoretically, a program that needs to perform many iterations of complicated mathematical operations with high precision or a wide dynamic range should be able to do it in fewer instructions (and therefore finish those operations faster) on a 64-bit machine than on a 32-bit machine, because they'll be able to manipulate integral data types with high-precision or wide-dynamic range (ie 64-bit variables) using single instructions instead of needing to split the manipulations up into several operations on smaller 32-bit chunks.

 

As well, "long mode" on an AMD64 processor includes access to double the number of CPU registers than the previous modes of operation (32-bit, and 16-bit before that), meaning that a program with tight loops working on relatively small datasets might be able to keep more of its state in higher-speed memory, avoiding some of the penalties of cache misses when it needs to occasionally fetch data out of main system RAM.

 

Having both the kernel and the usermode processes running in the same mode of operation may also allow some other performance improvements, since there will not be any need to provide any mode changes or ABI translations as control passes between the two.  (So there may be a performance penalty when you use a 64-bit userspace application on Lion's hybrid 32/64-bit kernel which wouldn't have been present on Lion's pure-64-bit kernel; equivalently there would likely be a performance penalty to run a 32-bit userspace application on the pure 64-bit kernel of either Lion or Mountain Lion.)

 

For the time being, Mountain Lion will have an exclusively 64-bit kernel, but it will still ship a complete 32-bit runtime to allow you to continue running Applications that haven't yet been updated to 64-bit.  Eventually, you'll see the best possible performance once all your userspace software has been upgraded to remove any 32-bit references.

 

Thank you for the quick reply and a very thorough explanation of the processes behind the tech.... VERY informative.

It still leaves me with the question, or maybe another: in your opinion, where are we going to see this massive optimization in software to take advantage of this... and is the ball then really in the court of say Adobe, to completely rewrite their programs from the ground up to take full advantage of the new 64-bit kernel?
Technically... is it really that difficult?
Just curious... because there are all kinds of "nasty slowness" and crashes going on at the moment among the Mac community using recent upgrades to CS6 as well as LR4. The Adobe forums have been flooded, although not as much as I would have expected going by my multiple client's bad reactions. Those clients mentioned are using 64-bit capable, loaded machines (Spring 2011 iMac i7, 256gb SSD, 16gb RAM, 1gb VRAM -- I installed a ton of them).
We're not receiving much if any response from Adobe there... that's why I decided to pose the question here, as it "seems" it could be related to 64-bit and the transition-phase by Adobe.
Sorry for going "sideways" in the topic... but again, the software is what we see and use all day, and the OS is supposed to give it a stable base and not get in the way. Apple seems to be doing their side... and the "other guys"....?
PS. Also see Macworld for the report that InDesign is crashing OSX on new MBPs with 10.7.4... also at Apple Support.
 
Conclusion: it appears it's too early for Apple to be so far out in front with OSX, and not allow SOME backward compatibility for older machines and users, that may find it to their advantage to run certain software in 32-bit mode still (older software versions) while certain guys get their S*** in order. I know: if Apple waited for them we would still would be on Carbon... but...!?
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #64 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


The fundamental problem is that you don't understand what 'bloat' is all about. Hard disk space is cheap. Those 760 retina images are non-issues because most of the time they're just sitting their on your hard disk. Unless they're accessed, they have no impact on performance.
It's not just the kernel. It's also all the drivers. All the APIs that need to be accessible in 32 bit mode. Those things add up. But where they add up is not so much in hard disk space but in the resources they use - not just computer resources, but Apple's resources.
It's about effort and opportunity for errors to appear. If Apple has to have both a 32 and 64 bit version, it means vastly more resources than if they only have to support one OS. That means more opportunity for errors to creep in and conflicts to occur.

I don't think it is about resources as much as it is about Apple wanting people to get into the App Store and iCloud to ensure a more secure and integrated user experience. Sure they could write new 32 bit code, but they would rather not so it is a good excuse to get people to upgrade.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #65 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I'm now thinking it is the actual installation software that requires Rossetta!

You can check which installed apps are PPC, Intel or Universal in System Information.

"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 #66 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Which will ultimately affect, over the long term, consumer perception (leaning toward the negative) of Apple products.
Apple is, at least in part, so successful because they do the opposite of the competition. This comes with sacrifice, but in the grand scheme of things Apple has the right philosophy, that ultimately benefits the most consumers possible.

Apple is so successful because they have great products that work reliably and are relatively free of bloat. They have apparently decided that the benefits of not supporting older systems outweighs the disadvantage.

I suspect that their opinion is more useful than yours.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #67 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The fundamental problem is that you don't understand what 'bloat' is all about.

Oh so all those people who say about Windows ballooning in size between XP and Vista aren't talking about bloat? Sorry I didn't realise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Hard disk space is cheap. Those 760 retina images are non-issues because most of the time they're just sitting their on your hard disk. Unless they're accessed, they have no impact on performance.
Well if that's not a perfect definition of bloat, I don't know what is. Wait, yes I do: Software bloat is a process whereby successive versions of a computer program include an increasing proportion of unnecessary features that are not used by end users, or generally use more system resources than necessary, while offering little or no benefit to its users. Seems bang on to me.

But you for the fourth time still haven't answered my question, why was it okay for Apple to advertise 1,1 Mac Pros as fully 64 bit, when they weren't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It's not just the kernel. It's also all the drivers. All the APIs that need to be accessible in 32 bit mode. Those things add up. But where they add up is not so much in hard disk space but in the resources they use - not just computer resources, but Apple's resources.
It's about effort and opportunity for errors to appear. If Apple has to have both a 32 and 64 bit version, it means vastly more resources than if they only have to support one OS. That means more opportunity for errors to creep in and conflicts to occur.

Yes, I know they add up (marginally), and Apple's so short on cash there's no way they can afford to hire a few extra devs to test on older machines. So if they can't afford that, they should be supporting 64 bit ML on the fully 64 bit systems they advertised, but which in reality aren't fully 64 bit at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Apple is so successful because they have great products that work reliably and are relatively free of bloat. They have apparently decided that the benefits of not supporting older systems outweighs the disadvantage.
I suspect that their opinion is more useful than yours.

Now you're even attacking people who agree with what you're saying. I smell a troll.
post #68 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

 

OSX 10.9 Liger!

 

 

Sweeeeet.

 

A guy in a bar told me about a rumor that Tim Cook wants to emphasize Apple consumer orientation by switching to house cat varieties. 10.9 will be OSX Tabby. Only machines with retina displays will be supported by Tabby.

post #69 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyPaul View Post

Sweeeeet.

A guy in a bar told me about a rumor that Tim Cook wants to emphasize Apple consumer orientation by switching to house cat varieties. 10.9 will be OSX Tabby. Only machines with retina displays will be supported by Tabby.

Haha, sounds about right 1wink.gif Or maybe OS XI: Moggy.
post #70 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You can check which installed apps are PPC, Intel or Universal in System Information.

It's not the apps, it just the install utility itself. By installing in SL then migrating to ML they all work fine! Makes me wonder if Pacifist might be a solution. I'll have to try that.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #71 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

It's not the apps, it just the install utility itself. By installing in SL then migrating to ML they all work fine! Makes me wonder if Pacifist might be a solution. I'll have to try that.

Remember you can right-click the installer and show the package contents. Hopefully that will led you to the app or installer that will work without using Pacifist.

"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 #72 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elijahg View Post

Oh so all those people who say about Windows ballooning in size between XP and Vista aren't talking about bloat? Sorry I didn't realise.
Well if that's not a perfect definition of bloat, I don't know what is. Wait, yes I do: Software bloat is a process whereby successive versions of a computer program include an increasing proportion of unnecessary features that are not used by end users, or generally use more system resources than necessary, while offering little or no benefit to its users. Seems bang on to me.

So your definition agrees with me. Since the overwhelming majority of people currently using Intel Macs (especially those who would consider upgrading) don't need a 32 bit kernel, adding a 32 bit kernel would be bloat. That supports exactly what I said - if Apple did what you are asking for (keeping a 32 bit kernel in ML), it would constitute unnecessary features that have little or not benefit to most users - so your idea constitutes bloat. Sound like exactly what I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elijahg View Post

But you for the fourth time still haven't answered my question, why was it okay for Apple to advertise 1,1 Mac Pros as fully 64 bit, when they weren't?

I don't know. Why don't you point out exactly what advertisement you're talking about. You see, I'd prefer to discuss facts rather than someone's distorted memories. If you can find an ad where Apple claimed that the system was "fully 64 bit" and if you can demonstrate that the computer does not meet the description, feel free to ask for your money back.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #73 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

As long as Apple continues to make security updates for SL for another 3 years or so, there is no reason that people can't continue to use their perfectly good circa < 2007 machines. If they want the new iCloud features then they can decide if it is worth the expense or not. I think supporting a computer and its released version of OS X for a total of 5 years is reasonable. Perhaps less for iOS devices. You should expect a total of 2 additional upgrade versions beyond the OS that the machine came with.

 

Apple's security update policy is to support the two most recent releases (currently Snow Leopard and Lion, released last July - when Leopard lost security update support).  Barring a change in Apple policy, which they have not said anything about, Snow Leopard looses security updates in a couple of weeks when Mountain Lion is released.

 

The main problem SL is about to loose security updates is that Apple appears to be moving to a yearly release schedule of OS X, just like iOS - which makes sense since the new features are often interoperability based items between the two - but they still have the support system of just the two last releases for OS X and if yearly releases continue you would get security update support for a new OS release for 2 years - which needs to be fixed.

 

Snow Leopard needs security updates for longer than the 3 years its had them, but at this point - its updates end over the next couple of weeks (when Mountain Lion is released).

post #74 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Remember you can right-click the installer and show the package contents. Hopefully that will led you to the app or installer that will work without using Pacifist.

With most things that would work. The problem with Final Cut Pro Studio is, it is a very complex install that requires a script to put things all over the place. It is that script that seems to be requiring Rossetta. There is no way in hell to know where to put everything without hours of detective work. This problem must have been around since Lion but I never did a fresh install of FCP 7 on Lion, just updated Snow Leopard so I never hit the issue. It's probably well documented in the FCP blogs. Aperture on the other hand is a silly situation since it is readily available on line unlike FCPro 7 yet no way to install that with an existing license I can see. I've solved the FPC Studio by simply installing in a fresh SL and converting that to the newer OS. Only took most of the day!
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #75 of 95

I wasn't planning to be bothered if my early 2008 MBP wouldn't be able to handle Mountain Lion, but isn't the only difference between the early and late 2008 MBPs the unibody design? I guess early '08s are some of the last MBPs to have dedicated graphics, but surprised at the seemingly arbitrary cut off.


I'm still happy running Snow Leopard, so no real worries.

post #76 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

With most things that would work. The problem with Final Cut Pro Studio is, it is a very complex install that requires a script to put things all over the place. It is that script that seems to be requiring Rossetta. There is no way in hell to know where to put everything without hours of detective work. This problem must have been around since Lion but I never did a fresh install of FCP 7 on Lion, just updated Snow Leopard so I never hit the issue. It's probably well documented in the FCP blogs. Aperture on the other hand is a silly situation since it is readily available on line unlike FCPro 7 yet no way to install that with an existing license I can see. I've solved the FPC Studio by simply installing in a fresh SL and converting that to the newer OS. Only took most of the day!

You have a Universal app that has a PPC-only installer. I'd come down on Apple for that. I'd call them, with proof of purchase, and demand assertively request they resolve the issue by sending you a disc or download that will work on Mountain Lion. There will surely be more than one person with this issue.

"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 #77 of 95

You can install 10.8 Mountain Lion on a Mac Pro 1,1. Search the internet. It can be used as a 'hackintosh' using a bootloader. I don't believe the 7300 GT video card is supported.
 

post #78 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You have a Universal app that has a PPC-only installer. I'd come down on Apple for that. I'd call them, with proof of purchase, and demand assertively request they resolve the issue by sending you a disc or download that will work on Mountain Lion. There will surely be more than one person with this issue.

Yeah, If that is the case I will call, I spent a small fortune over the years on every FCP upgrade there ever was. Proof of purchase is easy, I bought it direct from the Apple corporate department. I'll try an install with Lion rather than ML and see if it's true first it still might be something else. My bet is I'll be told to use FCPX lol. Which I do by the way, I just like having both.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #79 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Yeah, If that is the case I will call, I spent a small fortune over the years on every FCP upgrade there ever was. Proof of purchase is easy, I bought it direct from the Apple corporate department. I'll try an install with Lion rather than ML and see if it's true first it still might be something else. My bet is I'll be told to use FCPX lol. Which I do by the way, I just like having both.

Let us know what you find.

Just to be clear, you are talking about FCP 7.x, not FCE, right?

"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 #80 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elijahg View Post

...
But you for the fourth time still haven't answered my question, why was it okay for Apple to advertise 1,1 Mac Pros as fully 64 bit, when they weren't?
 

 

My vague recollection is Apple claimed the 1,1 Mac Pros would run 64-bit applications.  Or was it something else?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Mountain Lion update page confirms incompatibility with older Macs