(NEWS) Mountain Lion Mac Pro 1,1

[deconstruct60]

Really? Is there something thats comes to mind similar to this? I can't think of anything.

The PowerMac Cube. Sold for little over a year. That's an example of a short term product.

Over half of the Mac line up that Steve axed when he took over officially as CEO. [ as an example of applying the axe to a whole product line up . ]

The PowerMac G5 (and every other PowerPC Mac out there ) after the Intel transition which was less than the time before the machine was due to go on the Vintage/Obsolete list. It was dropped by Snow Leopard.

The dropping of Rosetta (PowerPC) a little over 5 years after the transition from Intel in Mac OS X.


Steve said "No" to a large number of Apple products (and potential products). There are a sizable number of these if you actually look for them.

Steve also probably had a hand in setting Apple's Vintage/Obsolete policy that has largely been the same for at least a decade:

"Vintage products are those that were discontinued more than five and less than seven years ago. Apple has discontinued hardware service for vintage products with the following exception: .. "
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1752

It has been 6 years since the Mac Pro 1,1 came out. (yes the policy technically triggers on being discontinued but if most Macs are on a 12 month cycle the 'rule of thumb' is that Apple is giving you a 6 year window to get off. )

If anything Steve appears to be one of the principle contributors here. The characteristically rapid transition to x86( Intel) from the PowerPC in less that 12 months. One of the high priority criteria was to do that quickly. The EFI was 32 bit based because most of the Mac line up was 32bit based. The initial Mac Pro picked up that "Version 1.0" constraint along with the rest of the transitional line up. The 2,1 was minor tweak so it kept the constraint.

Bluntly, all this distress over the EFI32 is largely either fraudulent or willful ignorance or both. This limitation has been present since the Mac Pro 3,1 appear and reviewers outlined EFI64 was a new feature. Previously most folks didn't care and continued to run 64 bit apps at will. A large number of people got 64 "work" done on their workstation. The whole cry that it is somehow a crippled machine now is a farce. Almost no one was complaining before and those that had a deep need for EFI64 (e.g., very large physical RAM configurations) upgraded instead of whining about it. The newer Mac Pro are overwhelmingly better in the vast majority of those contexts.

Most of the "angst " here is not about features or usefulness as a workstation running 64 bit apps. It is about sunk costs. "My $xxxxx investment in this now vintage/obsolete Mac Pro is being negative impacted". The machine is vintage/obsolete whether Mountain Lion appears or not. It is just old.

If you task it with running non bleeding edge software it works just fine. It is not bleeding edge hardware though.

 

[SilverTard]

The PowerMac Cube. Sold for little over a year. That's an example of a short term product.

Over half of the Mac line up that Steve axed when he took over officially as CEO. [ as an example of applying the axe to a whole product line up . ]

The PowerMac G5 (and every other PowerPC Mac out there ) after the Intel transition which was less than the time before the machine was due to go on the Vintage/Obsolete list. It was dropped by Snow Leopard.

The dropping of Rosetta (PowerPC) a little over 5 years after the transition from Intel in Mac OS X.


Steve said "No" to a large number of Apple products (and potential products). There are a sizable number of these if you actually look for them.

Steve also probably had a hand in setting Apple's Vintage/Obsolete policy that has largely been the same for at least a decade:

"Vintage products are those that were discontinued more than five and less than seven years ago. Apple has discontinued hardware service for vintage products with the following exception: .. "
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1752

It has been 6 years since the Mac Pro 1,1 came out. (yes the policy technically triggers on being discontinued but if most Macs are on a 12 month cycle the 'rule of thumb' is that Apple is giving you a 6 year window to get off. )

If anything Steve appears to be one of the principle contributors here. The characteristically rapid transition to x86( Intel) from the PowerPC in less that 12 months. One of the high priority criteria was to do that quickly. The EFI was 32 bit based because most of the Mac line up was 32bit based. The initial Mac Pro picked up that "Version 1.0" constraint along with the rest of the transitional line up. The 2,1 was minor tweak so it kept the constraint.

Bluntly, all this distress over the EFI32 is largely either fraudulent or willful ignorance or both. This limitation has been present since the Mac Pro 3,1 appear and reviewers outlined EFI64 was a new feature. Previously most folks didn't care and continued to run 64 bit apps at will. A large number of people got 64 "work" done on their workstation. The whole cry that it is somehow a crippled machine now is a farce. Almost no one was complaining before and those that had a deep need for EFI64 (e.g., very large physical RAM configurations) upgraded instead of whining about it. The newer Mac Pro are overwhelmingly better in the vast majority of those contexts.

Most of the "angst " here is not about features or usefulness as a workstation running 64 bit apps. It is about sunk costs. "My $xxxxx investment in this now vintage/obsolete Mac Pro is being negative impacted". The machine is vintage/obsolete whether Mountain Lion appears or not. It is just old.

If you task it with running non bleeding edge software it works just fine. It is not bleeding edge hardware though.

The problem is going to come down to how Apple decided to market the platform. It is not the customers responsibility to have to open a machine and examine it down to a board level. If Apple says it is a "64-Bit Workstation" then any "reasonable" consumer should be able to take what they say at face value.

I have purchased a lot of hardware from many companies over the years and if I was buying a "64-Bit Machine" I would automatically assume it would be able to run 64-Bit OSs written for said platform. Windows & Linux are two simple examples.

Problem here is Apple, who FORCES you to purchase their hardware forcing you to be dependent on them exclusively, marketed their highest end system as a "64-Bit Workstation" without disclosing to people that in fact that had engineered the platform with 32-Bit limitations.

What they simply did here was make a policy decision to move their new OS to 64-Bit only, I understand that. The problem is that they didn't really think through that they had marketed a select few machines as 64-Bit platforms, which were not, that they decided to abandon with their very first 64-Bit ONLY OS. See, there are a LOT of features that are now only available in ML. They have basically EOLed the 1,1 & 2,1 machines because there are now going to be features ONLY available in ML going forward. The cloud features are a good example.

Apple had a couple choices that would have been fair.

#1: Offer a software solution to 1,1 & 2,1 users by providing a work around, an OFFICIAL SUPPORTED SOLUTION, that would allow them to still be able to boot this 64-Bit OS on their Apple 64-Bit Workstation.

#2: Offer a hardware upgrade, at their cost, to those 1,1 & 2,1 owners that request it. They could offer a hardware exchange program.

Companies do this all the time when they make mistakes. I don't fault Apple for making a mistake ... I just expect them to fix it and make it right.

They will have individual consumers to worry about but what they should really be concerned with is that if a Animation house or other large business that bought a LOT of these platforms decides to do something about it they might just find out that they wish they stepped forward and addressed it themselves before they find themselves in a huge quagmire that gets tons of exposure in the media.

For Apple to offer a hardware exchange program would buy them a TON of goodwill with their customer base and save them a lot of money in the long run.

If not me (which is still to be determined) but SOMEONE will end up taking Apple to court over this issue, I guarantee it, if they don't address it. For a company to turn this into a class action would be very within their legal budgets and could very well be worth their time.

I actually think Apple is going to address it. Based on copies of email responses I have read to others coming from a number of Apple employees (some high level) I know they are very aware of this and are not really that happy about it.

Given the right exposure this has the potential to give Apple some really really bad PR.

Not to mention, I have not even mentioned another problem they might run into here..... government agencies both in US and Europe.

We will see.

 

[mustang_dvs]

"Vintage products are those that were discontinued more than five and less than seven years ago. Apple has discontinued hardware service for vintage products with the following exception: .. "
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1752

It has been 6 years since the Mac Pro 1,1 came out. (yes the policy technically triggers on being discontinued but if most Macs are on a 12 month cycle the 'rule of thumb' is that Apple is giving you a 6 year window to get off. )

So, then, by Apple's own policy, the 1,1 and 2,1, which were discontinued on January 8, 2008, are not "vintage products."

Hem and haw all you want, the introduction date is immaterial. All that matters is the discontinuation date.

 

[amoulay]

T

Given the right exposure this has the potential to give Apple some really really bad PR.

Not to mention, I have not even mentioned another problem they might run into here..... government agencies both in US and Europe.

We will see.

What bothers me also is the number of appleboys here and elsewhere who cheer apple, no matter how greedy and deceiving Apple is. Most of them are not hurt by the 1,1 issue, because their so called "new" machines are supported; but hey: maybe your turn will come soon when your "new" machine will be declared obsolete by Santa Apple. We will see then how you will react.

I said it before and I say it again: if the so called "obsolete machines" can be hacked into launching ML, that means they can launch ML, and consequently, Apple MUST implement the hack code into ML. PERIOD.

 

[SilverTard]

What bothers me also is the number of appleboys here and elsewhere who cheer apple, no matter how greedy and deceiving Apple is. Most of them are not hurt by the 1,1 issue, because their so called "new" machines are supported; but hey: maybe your turn will come soon when your "new" machine will be declared obsolete by Santa Apple. We will see then how you will react.

I said it before and I say it again: if the so called "obsolete machines" can be hacked into launching ML, that means they can launch ML, and consequently, Apple MUST implement the hack code into ML. PERIOD.

You are right, if their machines were not supported they would be pissed.

A "Professional" machine that cost $8000.00 should not be obsolete in 6 years, that is crazy.

I think we are going to see this resolved as people inside Apple are now starting to openly acknowledge that the things were not really 64-Bit (at least totally).

This will not be an issue that just "goes away".

 

[amoulay]

You are right, if their machines were not supported they would be pissed.

A "Professional" machine that cost $8000.00 should not be obsolete in 6 years, that is crazy.

I think we are going to see this resolved as people inside Apple are now starting to openly acknowledge that the things were not really 64-Bit (at least totally).

This will not be an issue that just "goes away".

I hope so. You have no idea how motivated I am to go against Apple. What they have done to us is beyond reason. I have every intention to rip their a$$ off until they acknowledge their mistake and act accordingly. No matter how they wil react now, they already lost me as a customer who bought macs, iphone and software, and for sure lost many other customers like me. They may not be interested anymore in selling desktops as they have found a lucrative $$$ appleboys niche in iphones and ipads. But before they close the desktop shop, they MUST deal with us.

With the nowadays economic hardship, the Era of "let's just get a new Mac" is OVER. How boorish of Apple not to have thought this off: people are suffering and hurting, why should we add to that suffering and humiliate them with more expenses and obsolescence statements?

Do you realize how hard I worked and others worked to save the money to buy 1,1 mac? WHy do I have to suffer more so that Apple can put extra $$$ to their $$100 billion reserves? If people do not understand this, then $*crew the dark side of capitali$m, which con$ume con$ume and con$ume.

Also, I looked into the several online tuts on how to hack 1,1 into launching ML. It's for the hobbyists, so be careful, if you go that route, you may mess up with /destabilize ur machine, granted it will start LM. But you may not get updates, and several of ur current softies may not work anymore, also, risk of losing data on the master HD. Bottom line: we need a better solution, and that can only come from Apple: we want that because we are entitled to it.

 

[Rog210]

Bottom line: we need a better solution, and that can only come from Apple: we want that because we are entitled to it.

Woah there. We're not entitled to anything.

The best case scenario is that Apple fixes this because they're interested in keeping their customers happy so they'll buy a new MP when one arrives that's worth spending money on.

I wouldn't hold my breath though. Apple got too big, the desktop market and the people who supported them all these years don't mean much to a company Apple's size. They're all about iOS, phones, tablets and cloud storage now. Just take a look at the current MP offering if you don't believe me. No next gen connectivity on their premier workstation? That's a joke.

Phone and tablet users are much more fickle than desktop users though. It'll be interesting to see where the company is at in 10 years time.

 

[thekev]

So, then, by Apple's own policy, the 1,1 and 2,1, which were discontinued on January 8, 2008, are not "vintage products."

Hem and haw all you want, the introduction date is immaterial. All that matters is the discontinuation date.

I personally anticipate stuff like this. The G5s were not supported that long (security updates ended long before 5 years post discontinuation). A couple machines that didn't make it were sold into 2009. The way users should take this is to factor it into how much they're willing to budget for the use of a mac. There are certain factors that can lock you into specialized hardware/configurations. If you aren't constrained by such things I'd never suggest buying a beefier configuration for some small amount of future proofing.

 

[mcnallym]

I have purchased a lot of hardware from many companies over the years and if I was buying a "64-Bit Machine" I would automatically assume it would be able to run 64-Bit OSs written for said platform. Windows & Linux are two simple examples.

Problem here is Apple, who FORCES you to purchase their hardware forcing you to be dependent on them exclusively, marketed their highest end system as a "64-Bit Workstation" without disclosing to people that in fact that had engineered the platform with 32-Bit limitations.

Now if it was me ( and I am not a lawyer, or an Apple employee, and only replaced my Iphone 3G as I used MobileMe and now iCloud for my mail, and I don't see why iCloud couldn't have come to the 3G) I would argue that the Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1 runs ALL of the OS'es 64bit or otherwise developed for the platform.

On that argument you will need evidence that Apple intended to develop Mountain Lion for the Mac Pro 1,1, 2,1 platforms and couldn't. I have seen plenty of speculation as to why Apple haven't supported them, but no statements from Apple regarding this. One site even said that they asked apple and received no reply.
At best I would expect to get something along the lines of minutes from a meeting along the lines of

Q"Do we want to support the Mac Pro 2006 platform with Mountain Lion"
A"No we don't"

Ok is simplified but you get the gist of it.

If Apple intended to write Mountain Lion to work on the Mac Pro 1,1 2,1 then it would have done so. The Internet has tutorials on how to make work so it is possible if Apple WANTED to make it work. I believe the early Developer Previews even worked on them, so it clearly is possible to make it work if you develop for the Platform.

And from the reply that the thread starter got indicates that from an engineering point of view no reason that can't be done, so the engineers know how to do so if Apple wanted too.

Why are you FORCED to buy Apple Hardware. Pystar already tried to argue that the Mac is a separate market to the PC market and that as such it is an illegal monopoly and failed. It has already been determined in a court that Apple sells into the general PC market, and that there are alternatives such as Windows, and Linux which you can choose to run instead of OSX. You therefore CHOOSE to run OSX and buy Apple Hardware. You are not FORCED to run OSX and thus buy Apple Hardware, and Apple have already successfully won that one in court.

I said it before and I say it again: if the so called "obsolete machines" can be hacked into launching ML, that means they can launch ML, and consequently, Apple MUST implement the hack code into ML. PERIOD.

Why MUST Apple implement a fix to add support for older hardware that they have determined they are not going to support with Mountain Lion which launched 4 years after the model was replaced.

I am not sure what the legal position is regarding how long a company has to support new releases of software on older hardware but would be surprised if the law says that they have to do so. I am however more then happy to be corrected.

I am not having a go at anyone, but having been reading ALL of the threads regarding this then people need to start looking at it rationally with their head's rather then there hearts.

 

[poobah]

Sheesh... is this "OMG Apple lied and i'm suing" stuff still going on?

- Apple never marketed the 1,1 and 2,1 as 64 bit systems, but rather as Xeon 64 bit. I find zero references to 64bit without the Xeon in there. All their specs and literature are very careful to note exactly what parts of the system are 64 bit (cpu, and some busses).

- Speaking of the Xeon, are you going to argue that intel lied, and the Xeon isn't 64 bit because it only has 48 bits with which to access memory???

- Being 64 bit has nothing to do with ML. Apple has *zero* obligation to make ML run on a 1,1 regardless of the specs or requirements. No promise was made at purchase of 1,1 that it would run anything other than the OS provided with it.

- '64 bit' ML not running is irrelevant. a 1,1 won't run 64 bit Solaris for SPARC either....

- Define 64 bit, I don't think it means what you think it means. What matters is what Apple said it means. Apple did define it, if you bothered to read their literature, and they can easily prove that in court.

- The premise that you were misled tortures the definition of Xeon 64 bit. Any decent lawyer will produce a 1,1. Ask you to identify a 64 bit application, and then run said application. The lawyer will then politely inquire just how it is possible for a system that isnt 64 bit to run said app.

Sadly, Apple will probably send him a new machine or a check, or just not bother to show up. Then again, maybe they've already archived the locked thread that has the OP saying it was only a ploy to get a new machine from Apple.... I'm sure a judge will *love* that.

 

[SilverTard]

Sheesh... is this "OMG Apple lied and i'm suing" stuff still going on?

- Apple never marketed the 1,1 and 2,1 as 64 bit systems, but rather as Xeon 64 bit. I find zero references to 64bit without the Xeon in there. All their specs and literature are very careful to note exactly what parts of the system are 64 bit (cpu, and some busses).

- Speaking of the Xeon, are you going to argue that intel lied, and the Xeon isn't 64 bit because it only has 48 bits with which to access memory???

- Being 64 bit has nothing to do with ML. Apple has *zero* obligation to make ML run on a 1,1 regardless of the specs or requirements. No promise was made at purchase of 1,1 that it would run anything other than the OS provided with it.

- '64 bit' ML not running is irrelevant. a 1,1 won't run 64 bit Solaris for SPARC either....

- Define 64 bit, I don't think it means what you think it means. What matters is what Apple said it means. Apple did define it, if you bothered to read their literature, and they can easily prove that in court.

- The premise that you were misled tortures the definition of Xeon 64 bit. Any decent lawyer will produce a 1,1. Ask you to identify a 64 bit application, and then run said application. The lawyer will then politely inquire just how it is possible for a system that isnt 64 bit to run said app.

Sadly, Apple will probably send him a new machine or a check, or just not bother to show up. Then again, maybe they've already archived the locked thread that has the OP saying it was only a ploy to get a new machine from Apple.... I'm sure a judge will *love* that.

It is not a ploy for *ME* to get a new machine, it is a valid claim. Furthermore, ANYONE that purchased one of these machines under the impression that it was a true 64-Bit Platform and now have found out it is not I think should be entitled to either

(1) A new replacement motherboard that is true 64-Bit.
(2) A refund of the original purchase price.

Simple. I did NOT receive what I believed I was purchasing.

I can NOT BELIEVE you are actually trying to justify their actions because they happened to put the word Xeon in the statement. I say Xeon was added because this was important for people considering a high end purchase to know what processors they were using. I mean it was their FIRST release of an Intel Based Mac Pro after all, right?

Doesn't matter -- I honestly don't care what you do or do not believe. I am not going away and I will become an advocate for everyone that got screwed if they try to just sweep this under the rug. I WILL create a huge stink with the FTC and send them copies of all the materials they produced as a starter and forward it also to whatever appropriate European agency serves the similar purpose as our FTC.

Think the Fed Govt won't look into it? Just ask Microsoft and other companies that have had to deal with them.

Consumers that spent a lot of money have been hurt here.

 

[derbothaus]

Consumers that spent a lot of money have been hurt here.

That's the catch. You have not spent in 5 years. You are dead to them. If you have not heard they have a phone business that is doing fairly well and a new knack for making HW even more un-upgradable. It will be iToy's soon enough and after your 3 year extended warranty the product will no longer work for updates. Just watch it happen. If it becomes too unbearable I will move to other things and if enough people vote with their dollars maybe they will change their minds but Apple is a little drunk on power right now.

 

[paulrbeers]

Dont worry everyone about silvertard. He has a doctorate in computer science, his brother is a high powered attorney with 40+ attorneys under him, and he invests heavily in silver. He knows what he is talking about (although I'm still confused why if all of the above is true why he cares so much about an investment made 6+ years ago).... Just saying...

 

[SilverTard]

Dont worry everyone about silvertard. He has a doctorate in computer science, his brother is a high powered attorney with 40+ attorneys under him, and he invests heavily in silver. He knows what he is talking about (although I'm still confused why if all of the above is true why he cares so much about an investment made 6+ years ago).... Just saying...

It is the principle of it.

Furthermore, I have been honest about everything I said. If this does move forward to a suit you will know the name of the firm specifically.

 

[amoulay]

Dont worry everyone about silvertard. He has a doctorate in computer science, his brother is a high powered attorney with 40+ attorneys under him, and he invests heavily in silver. He knows what he is talking about (although I'm still confused why if all of the above is true why he cares so much about an investment made 6+ years ago).... Just saying...

I don't get it: those of you appleboys who own a 1,1 and don't feel they got screwed by apple with the ML and 64 bit issues, why dont you just step aside and leave us alone? Why do you feel the need to spit in our efforts to get justice done? why do you need to spoil our rights? Unless you are implants of apple here, appointed to poison the debate.

You guys are the epitome of junky consumers and slaves of non sense consumerism. It's a shame you have no respect for your hard earned $$$. We have respect, and we know what to expect when we invest our money in something, so leave us alone. We don't run like you with drools after every new apple product.

But when our cause meets justice, and it will, you are welcome to join in and get justice, if you know what justice means at all, because a happy slave like you guys, will never seek freedom. Hey: someone steals from you, you don't bend over ask for more theft. You rise up and bring the thief down, by any means, and believe me, that's what being american means.
....
....just saying too

----------

Woah there. We're not entitled to anything.

.

I cannot accept your fatalistic approach.. Never UNDERESTIMATE your rights.

 

[SilverTard]

I don't get it: those of you appleboys who own a 1,1 and don't feel they got screwed by apple with the ML and 64 bit issues, why dont you just step aside and leave us alone? Why do you feel the need to spit in our efforts to get justice done? why do you need to spoil our rights? Unless you are implants of apple here, appointed to poison the debate.

You guys are the epitome of junky consumers and slaves of non sense consumerism. It's a shame you have no respect for your hard earned $$$. We have respect, and we know what to expect when we invest our money in something, so leave us alone. We don't run like you with drools after every new apple product.

But when our cause meets justice, and it will, you are welcome to join in and get justice, if you know what justice means at all, because a happy slave will never seek freedom. Hey: someone steals from you, you don't bend over ask for more theft. You rise up and bring the thief down
....
....just saying too

On another forum I have made a contact with someone about as angry as I am. We have been talking on the phone. In an interesting twist he is located in Florida like me in Orlando area which is about 3 hours South of where I am located. He has already talked with his attorney of many years who works at this firm. My brother knows this firm very well and from what he tells me if this guy retains them it will be beyond awesome as they are a huge and well respected firm. The attorney is talking about taking it on a cost only basis. I think he sees a large target and would rather take a percentage.

I think people around here have greatly underestimated the potential of this matter.

This is the firm BTW:

http://www.gray-robinson.com/

 

[derbothaus]

These are "assumed" rights people. Not constitutional rights or anything. I blame Sears and Roebuck, really. But as asked I will stand aside as this matter does not directly concern me. Common sense concerns me. Entitlement concerns me as a gauge of societal competence but I don't own or feel slighted by the 1,1 Mac Pro fiasco. Have fun y'all.

 

[amoulay]

On another forum I have made a contact with someone about as angry as I am. We have been talking on the phone. In an interesting twist he is located in Florida like me in Orlando area which is about 3 hours South of where I am located. He has already talked with his attorney of many years who works at this firm. My brother knows this firm very well and from what he tells me if this guy retains them it will be beyond awesome as they are a huge and well respected firm. The attorney is talking about taking it on a cost only basis. I think he sees a large target and would rather take a percentage.

I think people around here have greatly underestimated the potential of this matter.

This is the firm BTW:

http://www.gray-robinson.com/

If there are people around New York City who are as angry as we are, please let's meet and see what we can do. Trust me, union makes strength. Besides, Apple is facilitating a lot to build this case. They screwed big time. We will bite and won't let go until justice is done. I hope the Apple honchos are reading forums here and elsewhere.

----------

These are "assumed" rights people. Not constitutional rights or anything. I blame Sears and Roebuck, really. But as asked I will stand aside as this matter does not directly concern me. Common sense concerns me. Entitlement concerns me as a gauge of societal competence but I don't own or feel slighted by the 1,1 Mac Pro fiasco. Have fun y'all.

Well said mate! I you can't join them, leave theme alone.

Has nothing to do with "assumed", these are Consumer Rights. If these rights are not in the books, well, they will be now. I hate the word entitlement, but in this issue, our entitlement stems from the fact that we were cheated, lied to, violated, and humiliated, disrespected.

It over with passive attitudes, watch and incur and undergo. It's this kind of passive attitude that led to the infamous bailout in 2008, the biggest bank robbery in the history of mankind..

 

[SilverTard]

If there are people around New York City who are as angry as we are, please let's meet and see what we can do. Trust me, union makes strength. Besides, Apple is facilitating a lot to build this case. They screwed big time. We will bite and won't let go until justice is done. I hope the Apple honchos are reading forums here and elsewhere.

----------



Well said mate! I you can't join them, leave theme alone.

Has nothing to do with "assumed", these are Consumer Rights. If these rights are not in the books, well, they will be now. I hate the word entitlement, but in this issue, our entitlement stems from the fact that we were cheated, lied to, violated, and humiliated, disrespected.

It over with passive attitudes, watch and incur and undergo. It's this kind of passive attitude that led to the infamous bailout in 2008, the biggest bank robbery in the history of mankind..

Yup, sure did... and wait until the next scam crash they pull off which is right around the corner.

In any event, yeah I will work with you on this matter. I am knocking off for the night but I am sure we will catch up here tomorrow. We need to get a phone call setup... G-Nite.

 

[mcnallym]

I don't get it: those of you appleboys who own a 1,1 and don't feel they got screwed by apple with the ML and 64 bit issues, why dont you just step aside and leave us alone? Why do you feel the need to spit in our efforts to get justice done? why do you need to spoil our rights? Unless you are implants of apple here, appointed to poison the debate.

You guys are the epitome of junky consumers and slaves of non sense consumerism. It's a shame you have no respect for your hard earned $$$. We have respect, and we know what to expect when we invest our money in something, so leave us alone. We don't run like you with drools after every new apple product.

But when our cause meets justice, and it will, you are welcome to join in and get justice, if you know what justice means at all, because a happy slave like you guys, will never seek freedom. Hey: someone steals from you, you don't bend over ask for more theft. You rise up and bring the thief down, by any means, and believe me, that's what being american means.
....
....just saying too

----------



I cannot accept your fatalistic approach.. Never UNDERESTIMATE your rights.

Probably because they are actually helping you by showing some basic arguments that Apple will likely use! As you don't seem to have spotted them yourselves!

Mountain Lion is not just a 64 bit issue, look at the Graphics Cards that Apple Officially Support in a 2006 Mac Pro

Nvidia 7300GT
Ati X1900XT
Nvidia 8800GT
Nvidia Quadro FX4500

Do all of those have Mountain Lion Drivers in the ML Release that you buy in the Apple Store?

An Apple engineer has been quoted as saying no reason the 1,1 and 2,1 cannot run ML, so clearly Apple can make ML run if they wanted too. The early developer previews did as well so, they have chosen to not support ML on the 2006 model, not that they couldn't make it work as it only has a 32bit EFI.

Even when people have used Chameleon to install ML they still have to use Chameleon to get those graphics cards to work as well, or use non-supported cards that do work. This shows that ML is not just about 64 bit ness in the EFI. There is also the fact that do Apple want / have to spend resources on a product that they stopped selling 4.5 years ago. They don't support the 5770 and 5870 cards in a Mac Pro 2006 last I saw.

So even if you had your 64bit EFI then you wouldn't necessarily get ML support would you?

Is there a legal requirement that Apple have to provide support for a new Operating System on a piece of Hardware that they stopped selling 4.5 years previously. I don't know, so is worth finding out. I believe that that they are still supporting the system officially with 10.7 so it isn't as if the product is completely chopped overnight when the replacement product launched.

Make an argument as to why Apple has to currently legally provide support for a system that was bought from Apple a minimum of 4.5 years ago in there new OS, otherwise it just comes across as "I can't upgrade to the shiny new OS from Apple on my 4.5 to just shy of 7 year old computer and I have to have it." ( who has to have the latest Apple product here )

With regards to 64 bit ness, when a 2006 Mac Pro is shown running OSX and Applications in 64 bit mode Handbrake is a good one as if you have booted in 64 bit mode then as you know the Application runs in 64 bit and displays a little 64 in the icon to indicate that is running in 64 bit mode, make sure you have a good argument to give the Judge as to why the system isn't 64 bit, or as to why this is irrelevant to your case with it clearly and visibly demonstrated running 64 bit software. If the system is't 64 bits then how is it running 64 bit application?
Easy visual for Apple Lawyer to demonstrate that the system runs 64 bit software to the Judge.

Are there any 64bit OS out there developed for the Mac Pro 2006 with Apple that can't run on it?

This isn't being negative or an Apple plant or fanboy or sheep!, but providing you with some basic information that you and your legal team will need to sort out before you go into the courtroom! as you don't seem to have realised these basics yet.

If I can think of these then I suspect Apple will have as well!

I have plenty of respect from my hard earned pounds thank you.

It is why I am still running with a mac mini 2009, mbpro unibody 2008, an iPad 1 and an AppleTV 1 and plan to do so for another 2 years at least. My TV is only a 26" 720P screen and in a 1 bedroom flat 1080p is wasted and dominates the room totally, so absolutely no point in upgrading to a mac mini 2012 (when out) , ipad3 and apple tv3 just because I can. i only changed from the iPhone 3G to the 4S as I used MobileMe and Apple decided not to make iCloud available on the 3G.

I also refuse to pay the obscene price of the Mac Pro compared to a PC, so use a Hackintosh instead for my heavy work.

I am even going to run on 10.7 to save changing the RAID card as there is no sign of an ML driver for it and the RAID card is working perfectly well as it is, so no need to replace it at £400-500 to change it. I respect my money that much not even spending the £14 it is is to upgrade the mini and laptop to 10.8, just because they can run it.

Please explain to me how this makes me the epitome of junky consumers and slaves of non sense consumerism. I not only don't want new Apple products for further 2 years I don't even want the ML upgrade that you do.

I for one would genuinely like to know how you get on with this, as I think it could have a big implications for the IT industry as a whole, regarding how long vendors have to continue to support products with new software versions as opposed to just bug fixes etc. Could one of you setup a website or start a thread regarding specifically how your legal case is going so that we an see how this progresses.

 

[poobah]

I for one would genuinely like to know how you get on with this.

As would I, though I can guarantee it is one of two outcomes, the first being likely if its just silvertard, and the second being most likely if they manage to find a lawyer and a judge to give it class status:

1) Despite no wrong doing, and admitting none, Apple writes ST's lawyer a nice check. ST buys a new Mac and rants on the forums how he brought down the evil Apple.

2) Apple goes to court and BBQs ST. He has no damages, and has zero proof that Apple lied. We never hear back from ST, as that's a lot of crow to eat.

In either case Apple will have expenses, and all the rest of us who purchase any further Apple products will be paying a portion of said expenses, and in the end, that's the only part of this that makes me angry. I have no problem with someone with a clear entitlement mentality ignorantly ranting in a forum, however, when their actions cost me money, a line has been crossed.

- A 1,1 can run 64 bit apps, and is "64 bit" by any reasonable definition of the term
- inability to run ML does not imply it is not 64 bit (is a macbook2,1 not 64 bit? it does have 64 bit EFI, but is not supported in ML)

As time and tech advances, Apple has to continually draw a line as to what will be supported. ML is smaller, faster and leaner without having to support these earlier machines, just as Snow Leopard was much improved because it shed support for PPC.

I have a 3,1 and I know that it is getting long in tooth and probably won't be supported soon. However, when it no longer can do what I need, I'll sell it and buy a new one, instead of expecting society to provide me with one.

 

[Rog210]

Yes, with the cost of this litigation, I can see Apple's prices going through the roof.

 

[SilverTard]

As would I, though I can guarantee it is one of two outcomes, the first being likely if its just silvertard, and the second being most likely if they manage to find a lawyer and a judge to give it class status:

1) Despite no wrong doing, and admitting none, Apple writes ST's lawyer a nice check. ST buys a new Mac and rants on the forums how he brought down the evil Apple.

2) Apple goes to court and BBQs ST. He has no damages, and has zero proof that Apple lied. We never hear back from ST, as that's a lot of crow to eat.

In either case Apple will have expenses, and all the rest of us who purchase any further Apple products will be paying a portion of said expenses, and in the end, that's the only part of this that makes me angry. I have no problem with someone with a clear entitlement mentality ignorantly ranting in a forum, however, when their actions cost me money, a line has been crossed.

- A 1,1 can run 64 bit apps, and is "64 bit" by any reasonable definition of the term
- inability to run ML does not imply it is not 64 bit (is a macbook2,1 not 64 bit? it does have 64 bit EFI, but is not supported in ML)

As time and tech advances, Apple has to continually draw a line as to what will be supported. ML is smaller, faster and leaner without having to support these earlier machines, just as Snow Leopard was much improved because it shed support for PPC.

I have a 3,1 and I know that it is getting long in tooth and probably won't be supported soon. However, when it no longer can do what I need, I'll sell it and buy a new one, instead of expecting society to provide me with one.

Actually a number of posts from a few here have pointed out to us that there is a better way to deal with this matter.

We are not even going to argue the ML point. We will simply point out that it exposed a flaw in the design of the 1,1 & 2,1. With the prior OS's someone "non-technical" could have bought one of the new 64-Bit OSs and installed it. During the install it would never come up and say "Hey you are really running in 32-Bit because your machine can not support 64-Bit". Because it would quietly load a 32-Bit version of the kernel (supported by all the prior OS's) the consumer never knew.

Now come ML. Will not run on the 1,1 & 2,1. What is ONE of the reasons? 32-Bit EFI. Simply means the "64-Bit Workstation" is not a true 64-Bit Workstation. Apple did not disclose this important fact at the WWDC 2006 conference, in magazine advertising or on their webpage. NOWHERE did they ever say "Hey, we did add the Xeon 64-Bit processor so now you can just run 64-Bit Apps but keep in mind we engineered this machine with 32-Bit code so it is not really native 64-Bit top to bottom".

It should have been called "32-Bit Workstation with Xeon 64-Bit Processors"

THAT would have been more honest.

Instead they advertised it everywhere AND even printed it on the outside of the box that the Mac Pro was shipped in: "Xeon 64-Bit Workstation".

The ML argument will not even be brought into the scope of the claim because it is not important now and would just introduce a lot of arguments and nonsense in an attempt to confuse a jury.

Case, if it has to go that far, will come down to if it is really a "64-Bit Workstation". Well a machine with 32-Bit limitations is not a 64-Bit WORKSTATION.

Any reasonable definition of WORKSTATION (online & in engineering books) will define it as a computer and its components and parts.... not just PROCESSORS. Everything in print supports my position not those that try to claim it is just a reference to processors. The parts Apple built (including the motherboard) are NOT fully 64-Bit. Truth in advertising would dictate that you would advertise the machine with the lowest limitations not the highest number you can squeak out because some part in the machine had greater capabilities.

If Ford was to manufacture a truck with 8 cylinders and sell it to you advertised as a "F150 8 Cylinder Truck" you would expect that the truck was manufactured as such and had 8 functioning cylinders. If it was found out later that it was really a "8 cylinder F150 with 6 functioning pistons" ... that it was really OPERATING as a 6 cylinder even though 8 cylinders exist... they just failed to disclose the hidden limitation inside... the fact that it would only fire on 6 cylinders due to the fact they only installed 6 pistons and plugged the two remaining cyliders.

The amazing thing here is their "64-Bit machine" was actually never able to run in 64-Bit for *ANY* of their operating systems... forget just ML... NONE OF THEM... they always ran in 32-Bit..... and were quiet about it.

Yeah, hell of a "64-Bit Workstation" you sold us there Apple.

If you think a jury will just say "oh well, Apple hid this material fact from the purchaser but the purchaser should have known better" is either a fanboy or has not ever stepped inside a court room to see how things really work.

 

[SilverTard]

As would I, though I can guarantee it is one of two outcomes, the first being likely if its just silvertard, and the second being most likely if they manage to find a lawyer and a judge to give it class status:

1) Despite no wrong doing, and admitting none, Apple writes ST's lawyer a nice check. ST buys a new Mac and rants on the forums how he brought down the evil Apple.

2) Apple goes to court and BBQs ST. He has no damages, and has zero proof that Apple lied. We never hear back from ST, as that's a lot of crow to eat.

In either case Apple will have expenses, and all the rest of us who purchase any further Apple products will be paying a portion of said expenses, and in the end, that's the only part of this that makes me angry. I have no problem with someone with a clear entitlement mentality ignorantly ranting in a forum, however, when their actions cost me money, a line has been crossed.

- A 1,1 can run 64 bit apps, and is "64 bit" by any reasonable definition of the term
- inability to run ML does not imply it is not 64 bit (is a macbook2,1 not 64 bit? it does have 64 bit EFI, but is not supported in ML)

As time and tech advances, Apple has to continually draw a line as to what will be supported. ML is smaller, faster and leaner without having to support these earlier machines, just as Snow Leopard was much improved because it shed support for PPC.

I have a 3,1 and I know that it is getting long in tooth and probably won't be supported soon. However, when it no longer can do what I need, I'll sell it and buy a new one, instead of expecting society to provide me with one.

poohbah, you can poke fun at me all you want but it is not going to change my position or the material facts at hand.

Apple DOES make mistakes and Class-Action suits do get filed, for example:

http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/10/cl...-apple-to-replace-frayed-magsafe-power-cords/

Like I said, depending on how Apple responds to me is going to determine how I proceed forward. I can promise you one thing however, I am sure my brother will contact the firm that handled this prior Class-Action suit to discuss possible coop on a new suit. They have obviously already collected from Apple once and would already have gone the distance with them.

And think... this last one was just over a PART with a frayed connector.... can you imagine the can of worms over THEIR TOP OF THE LINE MACHINE (Read: Thousands $$$$$$$) which was a machine advertised as a 64-Bit Workstation that was in fact really a 32-Bit Workstation with some 64-Bit capabilities?

Going to get interesting is it not?

Poke fun at me all you want because in the end you will have nothing valid to laugh at me about. As a matter of fact all the harassment, insults and poking from various people actually motivates me more.

 

[minifridge1138]

...As a matter of fact all the harassment, insults and poking from various people actually motivates me more.

Then here comes some more motivation.

Yes, Apple advertised the Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1 as a 64 bit workstation. I won't argue that.

But where do the Mountain Lion specifications say that it will run on a 64 bit machine?
All it provides is a list of supported hardware.

It doesn't say:

• 10.6.8 or later
• 2 GB of Ram
• 64 bit processor*

If it did, then you would have a good argument.

What it does say is:
It works with these models

• Mac Pro (Early 2008 or newer)

Which some people don't have.

Apple doesn't have to justify WHY they make their decisions. The just have to keep their promises (which include warranty). I don't see any broken promises by Apple.


What I find personally interesting isn't the angry nerd rants going on here (whoa are there plenty from both sides), but the fact that people have gotten the 1,1 to work with ML. It takes a boot loader to fake a 64 bit EFI and a modern graphics card.

From Apple's point of view, they could make a 1,1 or 2,1 work. But it would be a support nightmare. They could release a firmware update to provide 64bit EFI. But how many people would install it on a machine with a 32 bit only graphics card and brick their uber expensive, 63 1/2 bit, workstation that should last for decades? Imagine the outcry from that.

And I was personally affected by Mountain Lion.
My Mac Pro is ML capable, but some features do not work (Air Play Mirroring) even though I paid extra for 'the good' graphics card.
And my Mac Book won't boot Mountain Lion at all.

I'm not happy about it, but I'm too much of a realist to be surprised.