OS X 10.8 (Mountain Lion) Won't Support Some 64-bit Macs With Older GPUs
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."
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.
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.
http://saveie6.com/
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..
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.
Not anymore. A 6 year old machine might not be able to run the latest games, but it can run the latest Windows or Linux OS, the latest work processing and productivity software, and the latest browsers. I have a 2006 Core 2 machine with 4 GB RAM and a nice big harddrive in it. It runs Ubuntu 12.04, Windows 7, and Windows 8, runs Office 2010, runs Google Chrome and Opera 12.... this is a machine that does what most people need it to. This is very different from say 1996, where a computer from 1990 was laughable.
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.
In before the haters, just think back to the release of Vista and signed vs. unsigned drivers. In this case, we're talking about drawing a very clear line between four year old Mac hardware which will not be supported, and everything else, which will be fully supported. There is no gray area.
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.