OS X 10.8 (Mountain Lion) Won't Support Some 64-bit Macs With Older GPUs 417
MojoKid writes "Apple is pitching Mac OS X 10.8 (Mountain Lion) as the cat's meow, with over 200 new features 'that add up to an amazing Mac experience' — but that only applies if you're rocking a compatible system. Some older Mac models, including ones that are 64-bit capable, aren't invited to the Mountain Lion party, and it's likely because of the GPU. It's being reported (unofficially) that an updated graphics architecture intended to smooth out performance in OS X's graphics subsystem is the underlying issue. It's no coincidence, then, that the unsupported GPUs happen to be ones that were fairly common back before 64-bit support became mainstream."
Just buy new hardware! (NOT) (Score:5, Insightful)
10.7 dropped support my 1st gen $2000 MacBook Pro, which otherwise still runs perfectly (but with only 10.6).
Apple's hardware isn't just pricey, but they like you to buy new hardware on a regular basis.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Just buy new hardware! (NOT) (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always been baffled at people buying Mac, hardware to me it's a bit like console gaming, which also baffles me these days, as it's got all the hassles PC gaming has these days with none of the flexibility.
Really? Last I heard console gaming had no configuration issues, drivers, etc which a PC does..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
hmm I guess all those reports of certain games not working correctly if you had a different (older) hardware revision of the console were just false then and that no such thing ever happened.
Would love to see a citation on this claim....
HDMA freeze on early SNES (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/05/18/new-xbox-360-update-incompatible-with-some-models-ms-offering-r/2 [joystiq.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That said it's down more to rushed / cost cutting hardware design for most of their problems so even if the system were more open it wouldn't really have helped.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ummmm....different people like different things?
Just because you don't like Macs doesn't mean I can't like Macs.
I'm baffled at all the people that stuck with Windows in its various stages of shit. With one exception it NEVER got stable until Windows 7 and that exception is Windows XP with the service packs.
Re:Just buy new hardware! (NOT) (Score:4, Insightful)
I've always been baffled at people buying Mac, hardware to me it's a bit like console gaming, which also baffles me these days, as it's got all the hassles PC gaming has these days with none of the flexibility.
Even more baffling is your grammar and choice of punctuation.
Re:Just buy new hardware! (NOT) (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just buy new hardware! (NOT) (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there any company that doesn't like you to buy their product as frequently as possible?
Re:Just buy new hardware! (NOT) (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Coffin makers. Generally a one time purchase aside from stage props.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just recently replaced mine because the plastic case was decaying beneath where my hands rested; loving the aluminum.
But...but...I upgraded my own GPU! (Score:2)
I stuck a much more modern GPU into my 2006 Mac Pro 1,1, but I bet the 32-bit firmware won't be supported by Mountain Lion anyway. A pox on them all. For the first time I'm seriously considering gutting a Windoze box I don't use any more and turning it into a Hackintosh. Anything future editions of OS X don't like about THAT box, I can upgrade away from piecemeal. Including the mobo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who knows, someone may find a way around that. It could be that your machine will support it but it's not ideal so they refuse to support it properly but it'll work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? You're complaining that a 6 year old computer isn't up to running modern stuff? Really?
Seriously, if you're that concerned about having to buy new machines, sell it after 3 years. Pour $2000 MacBook Pro would almost certainly have fetched $16-1800, and you'd have got a new one, capable of running more modern OSes for effectively $2-400.
Re: (Score:2)
argument from antiquity.. there's no reason the machine can't run the new os. it's artificially restricted.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
WHAT MACBOOK PRO DO I HAVE? (Score:5, Informative)
If you are uncertain of the date from which your Mac was produced, I suggest the CoconutID freeware. [coconut-flavour.com]
It ID's your MacBook (or other model) and pegs the manufacture date within a few days of precision. Clever - it can also perform a lookup and see if a Mac with your ID has ever been reported as stolen. Interesting, for some eBayer's. ;-)
If you ARE on and Mac portable, look at their Coconut Battery app, at the same location. Great for managing battery age, charge history and cycles. It got me free replacement batteries at the Apple Store, on two different machines/occasions. I haven't ever managed that with Sony or Lenovo...
Re: (Score:3)
Wow. My July 2008 was ID'd correctly - and runs Lion well, too. (4GB RAM)
Re:Just buy new hardware! (NOT) (Score:5, Interesting)
I intended to keep my macbook until it falls apart or the battery dies. There's no need to buy new hardware just for the sake of it if you don't need it. Unless you buy rubbish low-end Dells or Acers which then you'll be lucky to get 3 years out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
says who? there's no reason for this arbitrary lockout.. the gpus can handle it. apple is just choosing not to ship the driver. it's assinine.
Re: (Score:3)
The GPUs are exactly the reason Apple isn't supporting these older machines. Apple has a new graphical subsystem in 10.8 designed for retinas which is increasing the complexity of CPU/GPU communication. The older GPUs can't run the new graphical subsystem. So no they can't handle it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just buy new hardware! (NOT) (Score:5, Informative)
First gen MBPs are 6+ years old... so fans can still brag about the 5+ year life...
Math is hard.
Re:Just buy new hardware! (NOT) (Score:4, Insightful)
And his 6 year old computer could run both the OS it came with (would that be 10.4?) and the version of Mac OS X available when Windows 7 was released in 2009 (10.6, Snow Leopard).
Plus, it runs last year's OS X, 10.7, Lion.
In other words, it's roughly the same.
Re: (Score:3)
Chrome supports 10.5 [wikipedia.org](sidebar)
Firefox supports 10.5 [wikipedia.org]
Safari supports 10.5 [wikipedia.org]
I did read an article the other week that Chrome is thinking about dropping 10.5 support in a few months.
Is this a ppc Mac? I just looked it up, and that was announced 7 years ago [wikipedia.org]. It looks like they were selling them until Aug 06 (6 years ago), but if you purchased one in that time you can't really expect newer software to work.
Re:Just buy new hardware! (NOT) (Score:4, Informative)
I have a 5yo Vaio that is perfectly capable of running Ubuntu with XP and Win7 VMs (for testing websites in IE7-9). My (web designer) colleague has a 5yo Mac that he can't even run any 2yo browsers on NATIVELY!?!
And when X Windows or Wayland requires OpenGL 3.x throughout the OS to run then we can talk. OS X 10.8 baseline profile for OpenGL is 3.2. That means system-wide Quartz Extreme is accelerated via that baseline profile. Seeing that GNOME and KDE latest are just now sucking hind tit with OpenGL ES 2.0 bits which is a subset of OpenGL 2.x it is rathers clear that older GPUs will be supported on those DEs. If they don't complain when KWin and GNOME's equivalent requires OpenGL 3.x accelerated GPUs tells me they'll have grown up.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a 1999 G4 Mac that runs just fine (but only supported up to 10.3 or something). It's a freakin' 13 year old computer that runs better than most 5 year old commodity grade PCs running WinXP so I fail to see any "smack in the face".
Re:Just buy new hardware! (NOT) (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Just buy new hardware! (NOT) (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just buy new hardware! (NOT) (Score:5, Insightful)
But we're not even talking about 6 year old machines here; where talking about machines you might have bought in 2008/2009. That's 3-4 years old! I have a quad core machine that old that can even run some of the latest games at decent resolution and FPS, and of course runs the latest Windows and Linux OS. It's unacceptable that a 3 year old mac could not run the latest Mac OS.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? I have a 2000 laptop with P4, 1 Gig RAM, loads and runs Fedora perfectly
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why is it unacceptable. What do you want to do that you can't do with Lion?
Re: (Score:2)
The OS still installed. The computer still worked. The webcam was cheaply and easily replaced with another slightly less shitty one.
The difference is that Apple is yet again telling their customers "FUCK YOU!"
Win7 runs on 1ghz Pentium 3's for christ sakes (released in 1999)
Re: (Score:2)
it's artificial and not due to hardware limitations. this is different than expecting not existent functionality.
Re: (Score:2)
I happily work some days on a 2006 ThinkPad T60. The 2GB memory limit is the only part that really limits its ability to function as a basic business laptop. MacBook Pro models from 2006 with 2GB of memory are equally fine for routine work, just can't have too many applications running at once.
Overhyped? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It appears that any Mac purchased within the last 3.5 years is ok, judging by the list on that site. I'd say that it's not too horrifying that a computer 4 years old may not run the latest upcoming system. It's a tough balancing act deciding between supporting older equipment, but nobody should be surprised that Apple only looks forward in that regard. That's how they've always been.
And in previous years, Apple had more time between releases. If 10.8 were released one year from now, then it would have been 4.5 year old machines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if the hardware simply can't, that's one thing.. if it's arbitrarily locked out, that's another.
Re: (Score:3)
The upgrade treadmill (Score:2)
I wonder if anybody dreamed it would be this successful.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if anybody dreamed it would be this successful.
Well, given that the turnover seems to be about 6 years, a very slow but successful one?
How often do people turn over their primary machines anyway?
More of a reason to laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
At watching all those experiencing nerd rage that Microsoft is ending XP support after a mere 14 years, and how they are so angry at Microsoft they are going to buy a Mac next rather than upgrade to Windows 7. Then we read stuff like this.
Only a little nerd rage here on slashdot from XP loyalists, but wired.com and CIO magazine's website was filled with them and they were somewhat serious about using a Mac next to avoid planned obscelence in their minds.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like my $6000 3 year old Mac Pro barely... (Score:3, Insightful)
...scrapes by.
That's reedonkulous.
Unmitigated success for Apple has been bad for us.
Re: (Score:2)
...scrapes by.
My $2200 4.5-year old Mac Pro scrapes by handily. Why did you spend $6000 on a computer again?
Re: (Score:2)
You can run Mountain Lion on your 4.5 year old Mac Pro?
When we bought this OSX box we needed a lot o' cores and memory because the box was replacing several dell servers in a rack we wanted to be rid of (we use the monster mac to run a lot of virtualization environments and it is much simpler to debug on one physical machine in this fashion.) We did this with a Mac Pro instead of a WinTel box because it killed several birds with one stone (testing our .mono codebase under stress on OSX, Linux, Win 7, and W
Re: (Score:2)
You bought the upgrades from Apple? Blame no one but yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, though my Macbook C2D will not be supported.
Apple has become hooked on planned obsolescence via the iPod, and more so with the iPhone, to the point where they are now worse than Microsoft and their clonemaker army. At this point I would be open to something laptop-centric based on Android.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a dual hex core, 24 hardware thread, 26GB monster machine running OpenSUSE, OSX, Win7, and WS2008.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you're using it in a business environment, it should be fully depreciated by now.
Further, 10.7 should run just fine for a number of years - it doesn't self destruct when 10.8 roles around.
And further further, anyone up upgrades at 10.8.0 is either insane, hopelessly naive, or into BDSM. Never, ever run an Apple OS until it gets to the .3 revision. So you have some time to ignore the issue and just keep working.
AGAIN? (Score:3, Informative)
Holy upgrades Batman!
If they make the next version of X-Code support only Mountain Lion like they made the current version only support Lion - I'm going to scream! Because my clients wanted to support features of the latest iOS, I had to upgrade to a new Mac because my older model couldn't run Lion - which is required for the latest X-Code.
Re:AGAIN? (Score:4, Insightful)
You have clients ... charge a little more and absorb the cost of new hardware. What's so hard about that?
Re: (Score:3)
You have clients ... charge a little more and absorb the cost of new hardware. What's so hard about that?
Its hard to do so when iOS app success is a "lottery": 60% (or more) of developers don't break even [arstechnica.com]
I'm in the same boat as the OP. I was forced to upgrade my iMac to Lion in order to continue doing iOS development (and for which I am only breaking into).. What this move does is increase the Apple Tax for iOS development from $100 per year to $350 a year minimum (say a new mac mini every 3 years at $800 a pop). If you're not making money in the first place then you can't bill your customers more.
Re: (Score:2)
You have clients ... charge a little more and absorb the cost of new hardware. What's so hard about that?
Sure, but he is a MAC developer.
1) Not that many mac-only clients out there
2) World recession means that clients actively look for better deals. It's not too hard to switch Windows + Bootcamp and find a PC-only software provider. No mac premiums there. Not often that you hear clients saying "hey, you know, we're going to switch our userbase to macs we don't already own", so the switch to the PC should be more elastic.
3) Note how he says "I" and not "my company." This is a small shop business where there are
Gasp! (Score:4, Funny)
I, for one, am totally shocked at this completely unexpected turn of events.
Re: (Score:2)
Use that cash, hire driver writers (Score:5, Insightful)
Mountain Lion apparently doesn't play nice with 32-bit GPU drivers, and while Apple could spend time and resources bringing older models up to par, the Cupertino company decided it was better off dropping support altogether.
If this were a true hardware limitation, it would still be bad. But not wanting to update drivers? While you are sitting on $100 billion cash? How many driver writers do you need for the limited selection of tightly controlled hardware?
Ugh.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Use that cash, hire driver writers (Score:4, Insightful)
also the ati / nvidia cards are not that differnt (Score:2)
also the ati / nvidia cards are not that differnt from other ati / nvidia and on the windows side they have 64bit drivers for all the video chips found in macs.
Re: (Score:2)
You can make a huff about it but really they just don't care about you and your old computer.
Maybe. You are speculating about their motives. I'm speculating about an internet rumor on their reasoning. Let's call it a draw.
Remember Vista? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now think back to the debut of mandatory driver signing with Windows Vista - where individual components in your computer would cease to function after an upgrade for no reason other than Microsoft wanted your manufacturer to pay extra for the privilege. Even worse, there really was no way to know before the upgrade if your system would function entirely. At least Apple's upgrade paths are clearly defined, and always have been - from Classic to OS X, PowerPC to Intel, and now Lion to Mountain Lion. You knew what you were getting into when you bought the Mac, and that's a very rigid upgrade cycle of roughly three years (right after your warranty expires) if you want to remain on the bleeding edge.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but you can STILL get security updates for XP, let alone Vista or Win7.
It sounds like Apple only supports one previous version.
That means that if you run windows you STILL get completely official security updates for a computer 12 years old, though you should be saving up to replace it now as that will end TWO YEARS from now, when your computer is 14 years old.
It sounds like with OSX you're going to be on shaky ground in 5-6 years. I don't think that is terrible for personal use, but for a corporate
Subsidies (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's still a better deal given the hardware is still usable with it's latest OS or Linux and it beats having an dell that you'd be lucky to see last 4 years.
An interesting dichotomy (Score:4, Insightful)
As a software company, it's in Microsoft's best interest to prevent "new hardware" from being a barrier to entry for buying their software. (Remember the "Vista Capable" mess?)
As a hardware company, Apple mostly uses their software to try to entice you into buying new hardware.
You aren't Microsoft's customer (Score:3)
As a software company, it's in Microsoft's best interest to prevent "new hardware" from being a barrier to entry for buying their software.
That's because you are not really Microsoft's customer. Relatively few of us actually buy any version of Windows directly from Microsoft. Mostly it is purchased through OEMs. You are not Microsoft's customer. HP, Dell, Asus, Acer, etc are Microsoft's customers. They sell a license to them and those companies resell it to you. The result is that Microsoft has a hard time paying attention to their users and it shows in the experience of using their products.
As a hardware company, Apple mostly uses their software to try to entice you into buying new hardware.
Actually Apple is fundamentally a software com
Re: (Score:2)
I bought a MacBook for the HARDWARE. It mostly runs Linux
Well played Sir!
However I have to ask... "Mostly runs Linux"? What else might you be hiding on that hard drive? Hmmm... I suppose it doesn't matter. Run along and play with the 3 other people who traded in OS X for Linux on a Mac.
older Mac Pro with EFI 32 bit likely locked out as (Score:2)
older Mac Pro with EFI 32 bit likely locked out as well. And the flash is to small to take EFI 64.
Now they have 64 bit cpus and can run 64bit code as well windows 64 so why can't apple work around that?
Re: (Score:2)
Now they have 64 bit cpus and can run 64bit code as well windows 64 so why can't apple work around that?
Because they want you to buy new hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
ok I can buy my own hardware and hack mac os on it or just go windows 7.
but the mac pro is a no go right now 2010 hardware and video card at the same 2010 price.
Hackintosh your Macintosh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes I have had the machine for 6 years and I could upgrade. But the current hardware is not that much of a performance upgrade for the cost.
Xeon based systems of this generation like the Dell 2900, 1950, are still a viable system and still well supported and will be for years into the future.
Apple decided to stop supporting this machine a few years back by not allowing it to run a 64 bit kernel with the lame excuse that a 32bit boot loader can not boot a 64 bit os.
Solution that works great.
Hackintosh your machintosh.
Install cameleon and boot the mac in legacy mode as a hackintosh. With Snow Leopard, the machine runs the 64 bit kernel and is noticeably faster. There is no reason that Mountain Lion will not work well also since the macpro1,1 is the same hardware as the 2,1 and most of the 3,1.
By doing this you can now run any video card that you want and still maintain a legal right to use the software.
I was starting to decide on upgrading to a current mac pro, but to be honest, there is no reason to drop that kind of change on a machine that Apple will drop within a 5 year period.
Re: (Score:2)
Looked at the Chameleon website, hasn't been updated since 2009. And it specifically states
Chameleon is developed to boot Darwin/Mac OS X on PCs, it doesn’t work on Macs.
Is there something else here that isn't apparent?
Re: (Score:3)
MOD PARENT UP!
I've been doing the same thing for years with a similar Macpro1,1 that I use as a dev box for 10GbE ethernet drivers. When 10.6 previews offered a 64b kernel, I was majorly pissed that I had a less than 2 year old $3000 machine that I could not use to test my drivers in 64-bit mode. So I did what you did & turned my MacPro into a hackintosh.
EFI32 (Score:4, Informative)
I tought that the advantage of closed hardware (Score:2)
was no compatibility issues.
Re: (Score:3)
was no compatibility issues.
Apple Marketdroid:There's no compatibility problem between the software/hardware if you buy the latest and greatest hardware. It works like a charm!
Re:Fast Retina Display MBP (Score:5, Informative)
First Post because my graphics card is awesome!
Actually, the GPU in the Retina MBP is not all that awesome - the huge pixel density is pushing the Nvidia 650M in the retina Macbook Pro to its limits, causing some performance issues compared to the equivalent desktop on the non-retina version. Examples include rapid scrolling on webpages and so on.
Re:Fast Retina Display MBP (Score:4, Interesting)
Incidentally (and not surprisingly) you have the same issue with the retinal iPad displays.
The next time you see a display at your favorite big box store (or wherever you have iPads on display), walk up to it, go to the Home screen and flick the icons back and worth, and watch the image tear like crazy.
Assuming it has web access, try opening a webpage and do the same thing - the tearing is probably more noticeable in Mobile Safari.
If you wondered how on earth they managed to get a graphics processor capable of dealing with a 2048x1536 display into a tablet, the answer is simple: they didn't.
Re: (Score:3)
Really you are full of shit, it has nothing to do with the precious MBP display
AMD Eyeinfinity and Nvidia Optimus can drive 5 displays at 1920 × 1080 and the technology is 3 years old already.
The graphics cards have no fucking issue driving the pixel desity that the MBP.
Also here is the specs on the 650M http://www.nvidia.in/object/geforce-gt-650m-in.html#pdpContent=2 [nvidia.in] .
See the max resolutions are higher the MBP display.
Shit fucking look at the story from
Re:Still haven't gotten an answer (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What pisses me off is that, even if I had the cash to update my Mac Pro, firstly I don't want to, it's still a great machine and secondly, there are no new Mac Pros available anyway.
Yeah, the Mac Pro issue is pretty annoying. I have a 3,1 from 2008. It's had memory and hard drive updates and is within 30% of the speed of a new Mac Pro. It's also a pretty expensive machine. Now, I can update my graphics card and I should be 10.8 capable, but earlier versions like the 3,0 machines - which are just as fast - won't be upgradable.
So, you decide to bite the bullet and get a new Mac Pro - then you realize that they've barely been upgraded in the past 6 years and you wonder why you'd want
Re: (Score:2)
ARTIFICIAL_LOCKOUT != FUNCTIONAL_LIMITATION
why are so many people demanding we throw away perfectly good hardware that can run the software, yet are locked out by the OEM? if a dell pulled this, people here would be bitching, but since it's apple, they get a free pass?