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 3

post #81 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Let us know what you find.
Just to be clear, you are talking about FCP 7.x, not FCE, right?

Yep, it is the full Final Cut Studio 2 upgrade box with 9 DVD disks that requires the serials from the original disks as well as the one for the update installer. The box weighs in at about 12 pounds thanks to all the manuals.

That second link says it all. However, I have had running in Lion flawlessly from an SL update to Lion. So for me this is worth the hassle to get it in ML.

Oooops! My bad ... it's been years since I dug out the boxes for FCP .... I had the previous box by mistake... this was FCP 6 in the Studio 2 pack not 7/ I just found the 7 pack which is a far smaller pack and has universal install ... /shoots self

BTW ... I had FCPro 6 running fine in ML just for the record! Even if it took 6 hours to achieve.
Edited by digitalclips - 7/12/12 at 2:08pm
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #82 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas View Post

He he.. Makes me wonder.. Are iOS versions named after birds?

 

Good question.  I wonder what code names Apple uses for iOS releases.  I've always thought they should use small cats (tabby, calico, persian, etc.), since it is OS X running on a smaller hardware platform.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

I wonder what the limitations are that prevent the older Macs from running ML?? Does ML require THAT much horsepower just to haul it around?

 

As I understand it, the big issue is the presence of 32-bit EFI firmware.  Since ML isn't shipping a 32-bit kernel, it can't be booted from 32-bit firmware.  At least not without changing their boot loader mechanism.

 

Of course, they could fix this in any number of ways if they wanted to.  They could issue EFI updates to put 64-bit firmware on those Macs.  They could create a 2-stage boot loader (a-la what Grub does to boot 64-bit Linux on PCs with 32-bit firmware.)

 

Some pundits are pointing out that there are also GPU capability requirements.

 

But ultimately, the reason is that Apple doesn't want to support those older machines, for whatever their reason may be.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn View Post

Forced to upgrade? You mean Apple is holding a gun to your head or your 5+ year old Mac will suffer a seizure and stop working on the day ML comes out?

 

No, but as Apple stops releasing security updates and app developers drop their support, it becomes increasingly risky to connect old systems to the internet.

 

My 2002-era PowerMac G4 and 2005-era iBook G4 are both still fast enough to be useful to me, but with no security updates available for Mac OS, Java, Flash, Safari and Firefox, there are a lot of security holes that have already been exploited.  I wouldn't want to rely on the fact that PPC systems are rare these days and hope that malware authors don't bother porting their stuff to the platform.

 

I will admit that the modern systems I replaced them with are much much more faster and much much more fun to use, but I really would have preferred to upgrade on my own schedule (when the hardware actually dies or I run across a must-have app that I can't run) instead of because Apple and others decided to drop support.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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.

 

There's plenty malware can do without self-propagating.  Security holes in web browsers can allow all kinds of stuff to auto-install and run, even if it can only be contracted from a compromised web server.

 

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...

 

It's not the size of the shipping code that's the big cost.  It's the support costs.

 

If you ship two kernels, then you need compile them both, you need to test them both, and you need to provide ongoing support (including security patches and bug fixes) for both.  These costs are far far greater than the cost to put an extra 15MB in the installation image.

 

Apple's got (I assume) customer usage demographics.  They've probably concluded that a large enough percentage of customers have systems capable of booting the 64-bit kernel that it's no longer worth the expense of continuing to maintain the 32-bit one.  You and I may disagree about their decision, but I'm sure it wasn't simply for the purpose of screwing over customers.

post #83 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?


Usually its the other way around, remember!? You need to wait a year before some apps are capable of running on the new operating system. Even if the differences are miniscule. And they get to sell you an upgrade for just 150$.

post #84 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerMach View Post


Not quite:

 

  • Mac mini (Early 2009 or newer)
  • Xserve (Early 2009)


Well this is probably due to architetural stuff that just needs to be cut of sometimes. I myself would still would have made snow leopard still get security updates because of this upgrade issue. Im disagree with those that say that apple does not force users to upgrade are wrong if you consider having the hardware connected to the internet. It maybe so only for users that dont surf the web with that kit. How many are those? Not many? I believe it is the primary usage of that older kit.

 

Probably now that people really upgrade to full 64 bit I hope there will be a longer timeframe for support and upgrades from apple.

 

I hope apple would still apply security patches for even older os:s....

 

We are evidently going to see more mac botnets consisting of older machines/os:s. as people arent going to throw away that mac mini 2008 / mac pro 1.1/ imac 2008? that arent fully 64 bit compatible from the beginning.

 

Its just a shame. But hey, its reality.

 

on the 64 bit/32 bit efi isssue. Selling hardware toating full 64-bit architecture on machines like the mac pro 1.1 seems to have the ingredients of deception if you ask me (now arguing thats its not fully 64-bit compatible) The consumer makes buying descisions based on things like that for longer support and may pay more in the end but if their left in the cold in situations like this. Its bad.


Edited by habi - 7/13/12 at 12:09am
post #85 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by habi View Post

on the 64 bit/32 bit efi isssue. Selling hardware toating full 64-bit architecture on machines like the mac pro 1.1 seems to have the ingredients of deception if you ask me (now arguing thats its not fully 64-bit compatible) The consumer makes buying descisions based on things like that for longer support and may pay more in the end but if their left in the cold in situations like this. Its bad.

Still waiting for someone to show where Apple was deceptive. Instead of making your own assumptions, please tell us what Apple said that was incorrect - or even deceptive.

AIR, their ads said that the computers would run 64 bit apps - which is true.
"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 #86 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by habi View Post

...

 

on the 64 bit/32 bit efi isssue. Selling hardware toating full 64-bit architecture on machines like the mac pro 1.1 seems to have the ingredients of deception if you ask me (now arguing thats its not fully 64-bit compatible) The consumer makes buying descisions based on things like that for longer support and may pay more in the end but if their left in the cold in situations like this. Its bad.

 

Here's where I continue to struggle to understand the points being made....  To my recollection, no one in this thread has truly defined "fully 64-bit compatible" (and maybe there isn't a definition) but there's been some kind of extrapolation to assume that it must mean OS X 10.8 should install and run on any Mac declared as "64-bit" by Apple.  Why that extrapolation?  Apple has been making 32-bit computers for seemingly forever but the latest 32-bit OS sure won't install and run on the vast majority of them.  Does that mean an Apple computer made 10 years ago isn't "fully 32-bit compatible"?  Of course not.

 

Apple has always drawn lines when deciding which computers they are willing to make compatible with future operating systems.  No doubt a factor they consider is the fact that the older the machine, the less likely the owner is to upgrade any of its software, OS included.  The real question in this case is whether they drew the line on the correct side of the Mac Pro 1,1 -- not that they had to include that model. 

post #87 of 95
13" MacBook Pro 2010 with 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD... COME TO PAPAAAA!
post #88 of 95
I hear Windows 8 is fully 128-bit compatible.
post #89 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1 View Post

 

Here's where I continue to struggle to understand the points being made....  To my recollection, no one in this thread has truly defined "fully 64-bit compatible" (and maybe there isn't a definition) but there's been some kind of extrapolation to assume that it must mean OS X 10.8 should install and run on any Mac declared as "64-bit" by Apple.  Why that extrapolation?  Apple has been making 32-bit computers for seemingly forever but the latest 32-bit OS sure won't install and run on the vast majority of them.  Does that mean an Apple computer made 10 years ago isn't "fully 32-bit compatible"?  Of course not.

 

Apple has always drawn lines when deciding which computers they are willing to make compatible with future operating systems.  No doubt a factor they consider is the fact that the older the machine, the less likely the owner is to upgrade any of its software, OS included.  The real question in this case is whether they drew the line on the correct side of the Mac Pro 1,1 -- not that they had to include that model. 

 

There are two different things here. Industry standard practices on security issues and the sellers obligations for the hardware/software accompanied.

 

Atleast here in Finland the seller has obligations for some time even after the apple warranty runs out. This is evaluated regarding an industry standard of harware of the same kind of how long its supposed to be used. For an expensive computer you could argue that atleast 4 years is what the customer should be expected for the equipment to work like new. If it does not, the seller is obligated to repair the device anyway (even after warranty) or if they cant they may be forced to compensate. If I CANT keep a 4 year old machine connected to the internet then it sure as hell is not up to industry standards.

 

This shure as hell brings apple sellers that sell products eg to/in Finland in an awkward position.

 

Then there is the cpu architecture issue. Is the mac pro not fully 64-bit. I think that is really is so what the F is Apple crying about? Do you really expect the consumer or even expert had any possibility asses/evaluate how truly 64-bit that kit was (eg. mac pro 1.1 which cost thousands of dollars) when it was advertised as _fully_ 64-bit. It was more advanced and expensive architecturaly than other macs of that same era so you could argue that the life-expectancy would be longer not the oposite.

 

Im just saying that Apple maybe up for rough patches ahead if they keep up this model of putting up security updates only for the 2 latest releases and at the same time slashing 3-4 year old harddware from the upgrade path. Especially since the kit is NOT low end hardware that acer/hp are dishing out. Its life expectancy is really higher than compared to equipment that is half cheaper.

 

One could argue that a computer (yes the os is part of the purchase) is to be expected to get its security flaws fixed atleast 5 years. Even if you couldnt make any upgrade to new features. This is where apple seems to REALLY fall short compared to all the other computer OS:s in the world. This is something that apple is sliding into quite reasently = they area really tightening up abortion schedule for whats considered "old" computers.

 

On a sidenote...

Even the mac software side is seemingly becomming more of a hazard possibility for older mac os users. How long can we expect developers supporting older releases if they make large architectural moves on the mac app store and application layer stuff. I have allready been bit by this on IOS when developers dont support other than the current and the previous major releases. Eg. touchpad app worked on older hardware with ios 2.0-> newer versions do not even support 4.2. This has made me almost totally stop upgrade IOS apps. We have old IOS hardware and new IOS hardware in the family so this really is a problem. I hope this problem will not plage the macs in ou r family aswell. We have new hardware and old harsware.

 

Apple sets a standard that other apple platform developers follow, thats reallity!!!

post #90 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Still waiting for someone to show where Apple was deceptive. Instead of making your own assumptions, please tell us what Apple said that was incorrect - or even deceptive.
AIR, their ads said that the computers would run 64 bit apps - which is true.

 

Well if you market equipment as 64-bit and when an upgrade comes along and then you say that machine is not fully 64-bit. THEN we have a problemo. IT IS fully 64-bit and its just something you can work around but apple doesnt want to, even if Apple posponed the problem several years to really move to 64-bit arch, but one could argue that there was atleast a promise of this at the time of purchase. Remember that apple computers come with a bundled os. (eg phystar lawsuit made that pretty clear) so you cant argue that what the hardware has different responsibilities than the software operating system that accompanies. Now atleast apple is claiming that the mac pro is cut because of the EFI isnt it? Am i missing something in this calculation?

 

Apple needs to set up its mind on architechtures that is supports instead and not on the date ot the design. If they keep doing more of this IOS policy on the mac they will loose atleast me as a customer. They started going the wrong way with Lion (policy wise) already but it seems just to worsen. Now everybody understands the issues with powerpc arch but the cost of eg EFI workaround and apple developing for powerpc is pretty different. We are talking really different platforms in the previous issue but the later issue is beanuts for Apple = artificial arguments.

 

And where is apples goodwill towards old customers? It got lost somewhere in the Cayman islands I guess (corporate greed/maximisation of profits). Yes windows 7 looks better and better these days where apple is going, sad to say. Atleast you can expect the security updates almost as long as the kit functions (XP still a year to go).

 

Please dont give any suggestions on installing windows, because os x is primarily why I chose the platform in the first case. Hardware was just a good consolation prize.

post #91 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Still waiting for someone to show where Apple was deceptive. Instead of making your own assumptions, please tell us what Apple said that was incorrect - or even deceptive.
AIR, their ads said that the computers would run 64 bit apps - which is true.

 

I said it "sounds like" that doesnt mean it ultimately is, rather that it depends on the circumstances that I dont know about. Maybe some mac pro owners can comment on those?

 

I have never owned a mac pro myself but is it (1.1) really capable of running windows 7 64-bit like the wiki says? If it does then it doesnt look good...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_Pro


Edited by habi - 7/15/12 at 5:11am
post #92 of 95

I'm pretty sure my 13" MBP (Mid 2009, 2.26GHz C2D) is out of the running........system profiler says 'no' to "64 bit kernel and extensions" .......my Mac Mini on the other hand (Mid 2011, 2.3GHz i5) looks good to go.  Might up the RAM to 4GB in the interim here though.

post #93 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by habi View Post

Then there is the cpu architecture issue. Is the mac pro not fully 64-bit. I think that is really is so what the F is Apple crying about? Do you really expect the consumer or even expert had any possibility asses/evaluate how truly 64-bit that kit was (eg. mac pro 1.1 which cost thousands of dollars) when it was advertised as _fully_ 64-bit. It was more advanced and expensive architecturaly than other macs of that same era so you could argue that the life-expectancy would be longer not the oposite.

 

I've been following your comments for some time now.  You keep on emphasizing that Apple advertized the original Mac Pro as fully 64-bit (emphasis yours) but you have yet to produce one piece of evidence of advertising where Apple ever used that phrase.

 

All I remember is that they advertised a 64-bit processor and the ability to run 64-bit applications.  Which is absolutely true, and still is true.  They never advertised anything (one way or another) about the bit-width of the EFI, nor the kernel.  Nor did they ever promise that it would be able to run any particular release of the system software aside from the one it shipped with.

 

I think you are treating your assumptions as facts and are trying to hold Apple responsible for advertising claims that were never made.

 

As for whether it should support Mac OS X 10.8, although it would be nice, it's hardly to be expected.  That model was discontinued in January 2008.  Do you seriously think Apple has an obligation to provide new generations of system software for a machine that hasn't been manufactured for over 4.5 years?

 

Security updates and bug fixes are one thing (and it is likely that at minimum security updates for 10.7 will continue at least until 10.9 is released,) but to demand anything beyond this is simply being petty.

post #94 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by ontheinside View Post

The MacPro1,1 and MacPro2,1 do not have integrated Intel graphics and cannot run Mountain Lion. The problem is primarily the 64-bit kernel needing 64-bit EFI. Apple has stated this and has not stated it having anything to do with specific GPU's.

If the problem with upgrading is 64-bit EFI, then why isn't the Late 2008 Xserve included on the compatibility list? Like the 2009 version, it has 64-bit EFI. However, the integrated graphics chip in the 2008 model is an ATI Radeon X1300 (with only 64MB video RAM), while the 2009 model has a NVIDIA GeForce GT120 (with 256MB video RAM). Perhaps it has something to do with graphics after all :-)

 

I want to know how to disable the on-board ATI Radeon graphics and use a new NVIDIA graphics card in one of the empty PCIe slots. Is this possible?

post #95 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scandalous View Post

If the problem with upgrading is 64-bit EFI, then why isn't the Late 2008 Xserve included on the compatibility list? Like the 2009 version, it has 64-bit EFI. However, the integrated graphics chip in the 2008 model is an ATI Radeon X1300 (with only 64MB video RAM), while the 2009 model has a NVIDIA GeForce GT120 (with 256MB video RAM). Perhaps it has something to do with graphics after all :-)

 

I want to know how to disable the on-board ATI Radeon graphics and use a new NVIDIA graphics card in one of the empty PCIe slots. Is this possible?

 

I would expect it to work.  According to this article, the big deal with Mountain Lion on a Mac Pro 1,1 is 64-bit EFI (needed for the boot loader) and the video card.  The article's author used a package called Chameleon to get it to boot without 64-bit EFI, and he installed an updated video card in order to get one compatible with Mountain Lion.

 

I would assume that you could do something similar with your Xserve.

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