Mountain Lion update page confirms incompatibility with older Macs

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 94
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    lfmorrison wrote: »
    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?

    elijahg wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 42 of 94
    hudson1hudson1 Posts: 800member

    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.

  • Reply 43 of 94
    lfmorrisonlfmorrison Posts: 697member

    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.

  • Reply 44 of 94
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    lfmorrison wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 45 of 94
    sensisensi Posts: 346member

    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...

  • Reply 46 of 94

    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)

  • Reply 47 of 94
    lfmorrisonlfmorrison Posts: 697member

    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.

  • Reply 48 of 94
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member

    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....

  • Reply 49 of 94

    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.

  • Reply 50 of 94
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 756member
    jragosta wrote: »
    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?
    hudson1 wrote: »
    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?


    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 ;)

    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.
  • Reply 51 of 94
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    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?
  • Reply 52 of 94
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,998member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    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!
  • Reply 53 of 94
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    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.

  • Reply 54 of 94
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    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.
  • Reply 55 of 94
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,743member
    extrema wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 56 of 94
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,998member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    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?
  • Reply 57 of 94
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    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?
  • Reply 58 of 94
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    elijahg wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 59 of 94
    srangersranger Posts: 469member


    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)

  • Reply 60 of 94
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,998member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    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!
Sign In or Register to comment.