Mountain Lion update page confirms incompatibility with older Macs

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 94
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,743member
    jragosta wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 62 of 94
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member

    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...!?
  • Reply 63 of 94
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    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.

  • Reply 64 of 94
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    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.
  • Reply 65 of 94
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    quadra 610 wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 66 of 94
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 756member
    jragosta wrote: »
    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.
    jragosta wrote: »
    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?
    jragosta wrote: »
    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.
    jragosta wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 67 of 94
    jollypauljollypaul Posts: 328member

    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.

  • Reply 68 of 94
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 756member
    jollypaul wrote: »
    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 ;) Or maybe OS XI: Moggy.
  • Reply 69 of 94
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,012member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 70 of 94
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    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.
  • Reply 71 of 94
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    elijahg wrote: »
    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.
    elijahg wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 72 of 94
    sasparillasasparilla Posts: 121member

    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).

  • Reply 73 of 94
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,012member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    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!
  • Reply 74 of 94


    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.

  • Reply 75 of 94
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    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.
  • Reply 76 of 94


    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.

     

  • Reply 77 of 94
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,012member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 78 of 94
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    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?
  • Reply 79 of 94
    hudson1hudson1 Posts: 800member

    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?

  • Reply 80 of 94
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,012member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.