(NEWS) Mountain Lion Mac Pro 1,1

[mcnallym]

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.

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.

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.

Would this be the same Courts that allowed the TV industry to get away with the 720P HD Televisions then when HDTV services were launched said and the TV industry went sorry what you actually need is a 1080P screen which is Full HD. If you have a 720P screen you are out of luck. Before that lots of people were sold 720P screens as HD and would be ready for HD TV services.

I really hate the Car analogies. If an 8 cylinder engine has 2 faulty pistons then it has a physical fault with hardware failure, and you would get a replacement engine with 8 working cylinders.

You will be hard pushed to argue that the Mac Pro 2006 cannot run 64 bit code, and that 32bits/half of the system is faulty.

If you boot into Legacy Mode with the EFI then you can even boot a 64 bit kernel. This is what you are doing to get ML to install with Chameleon, although you can use to boot 10.6 and 10.7 as well. Go read over at netkas forums.

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/

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?

Again this is clearly a physical hardware failure issue, where the actual magsafe adapters not up to the physical job designed for. Is a simple case of arguing that reasonable usage causes the product to fail.

Fraying like that with exposed wires is dangerous, and Apple rightly were made to replace them for the users. I serious doubt anyone on the forum, unless a real idiot would argue that Apple were hard done by with that case.

Apple could either hand over money or rectify the situation. Strangely they chose the cheaper option.

IF you manage to persuade the court that machine is not a 64 bit Workstation then what are you going to argue that it is preventing you from doing

Upon launch then the Mac Pro 2006 supported 16Gb RAM only, later upped to 32Gb of RAM.
A 2008 Mac Pro with a 64bit EFI only supports 32Gb still.
My unibody 2008 mbpro has always had a 64 bit EFI and only supported 4Gb at launch and that after an EFI update 8Gb
Applications written with 64bit support will still be able to run in 64 bit mode on a 2006 Mac Pro and use more then 4Gb RAM even when running on a 32 bit


http://gizmodo.com/5343443/snow-leopard-currently-restricts-64+bit-booting-to-newer-macs

Taken from the above article from 2009.

Our Apple contact explained:

The 32-bit kernel fully supports 64-bit applications, all system libraries that 64-bit applications use are fully 64-bit, and 64-bit applications have a full 64-bit virtual address space of 16 exabytes available to them on Mac OS X. The primary benefit of a 64-bit kernel is to improve the efficiency of accessing over 32GB of RAM.

Prepare an argument how for a machine that at launch supports 16Gb and later upgraded to support 32Gb is restricting / limiting you with a 32 bit kernel.
Apple can show how a 64bit Kernel would not affect the machine you have.

A 2008 model only has 32Gb support and it has a 64bit EFI, so clearly the 64bit EFI is not adding benefit to a 2008.

I know you have said not going to pursue the ML support angle but there are 64bit EFI machines out there that Apple aren't supporting with ML so ML support couldn't be used as an argument for what you are losing out on.

Hopefully this stuff is useful for you and the lawyers as well.

 

[SilverTard]

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.

You are right, they have not said why. However, if you read my last set of posts you will see that I said this is not even about ML itself anymore it is that they marketed the machine as a 64-Bit Workstation which it is not. It was a machine manufactured with a 32-BIT EFI which according to Apple can not be upgraded. Therefore, it was a 32-Bit Workstation because it can not boot (nor ever has) Apple's OS into a 64-Bit Kernel and ran a 32-Bit kernel with the ability to do some 64-Bit computations using the functionality of the processors.

Most people never noticed because the past versions of the 64-Bit OS would quietly load the 32-Bit kernel and go happily on its way. You going to tell me most consumers would have even known? I have already talked the past few days with a lot of people that had no idea but once they realized the scope of things they were not happy at all.

Simple enough.

"Workstation" is to a computer like "Truck" is to a vehicle, it refers to the item as a whole, not the processors only, not the motherboard only, not the drives only, not the motor only or not the tires only.

A 64-Bit Workstation it was not.

 

[SilverTard]

.

I know you have said not going to pursue the ML support angle but there are 64bit EFI machines out there that Apple aren't supporting with ML so ML support couldn't be used as an argument for what you are losing out on.

Hopefully this stuff is useful for you and the lawyers as well.

ML is not going to be the argument anymore.

Sure, a 64-Bit machine with 64-Bit processors and 64-Bit EFI is a 64-Bit Platform.

A 64-Bit machine with 64-Bit processors and a 32-Bit -Non Upgradable- EFI is NOT a 64-Bit System.

The latter is what those of us with Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1 machines actually ended up purchasing unaware of the limitations hidden inside.

The consumer is not expected to be an expert to the board level. Do you really think 95% of the people that purchased one of these even knows what an EFI is to begin with?

Just ask yourself this... can a Mac Pro 1,1 or 2,1 boot into *ANY* Mac Operating system with a 64-Bit Kernel without being HACKED? Even if you upgraded video cards can it boot into ANY Apple OS with a 64-Bit kernel without being hacked? Having to hack a machine is not something that can be reasonably expected of a consumer either.

NO <---- This is my point. The choice to drop ML support could potentially be argued as a "policy decision". Lion however was available for the machine but could not run a 64-Bit kernel again due to the same hidden and crippling 32-Bit EFI.

If this ever does go to court I believe they will have a real tough time explaining to a jury how it was ok to market their machines as a 64-Bit Workstation (they NEVER stated in any advertising otherwise) that has 32-Bit hardware/firmware limitations.

People are growing less and less understanding and tolerant of large corporations doing whatever the hell the want and stepping all over people.

You have to understand something. I am not suggesting Apple, with malicious intent, purposely hid this from consumers with the intent some day of screwing them over. I do think they got a product to market as quickly as they reasonably could and overlooked the fact of how engineering did something in the design that would have unintended consequences at a later day. Engineering and Marketing work together but their levels of understanding are worlds apart.

I do however expect Apple, a Multi Hundred Billion cash in the bank corporation, to acknowledge their mistake and stand behind their marketing. It is not ok for them to simply walk away from this with the attitude of "oh well, they either buy new equipment or go away". People bought these machines after being told DIRECTLY, no word play, that this was a 64-Bit Workstation.

I for one did not purchase a 64-Bit workstation to really end up with a piece of equipment with ENGINEERED IN 32-Bit limitations.

This is now the issue, not Mountain Lion in and of itself. Apple just unintentionally exposed the hardware limitation when they made the policy decision to drop 32-Bit kernels. THEN people looked into what was causing the problem because the wanted to stay current with Apple features and.... now here we are.

 

[Rog210]

ML is not going to be the argument anymore.

Sure, a 64-Bit machine with 64-Bit processors and 64-Bit EFI is a 64-Bit Platform.

A 64-Bit machine with 64-Bit processors and a 32-Bit -Non Upgradable- EFI is NOT a 64-Bit System.

The latter is what those of us with Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1 machines actually ended up purchasing unaware of the limitations hidden inside.

The consumer is not expected to be an expert to the board level. Do you really think 95% of the people that purchased one of these even knows what an EFI is to begin with?

Just ask yourself this... can a Mac Pro 1,1 or 2,1 boot into *ANY* Mac Operating system with a 64-Bit Kernel without being HACKED? Even if you upgraded video cards can it boot into ANY Apple OS with a 64-Bit kernel without being hacked? Having to hack a machine is not something that can be reasonably expected of a consumer either.

NO <---- This is my point. The choice to drop ML support could potentially be argued as a "policy decision". Lion however was available for the machine but could not run a 64-Bit kernel again due to the same hidden and crippling 32-Bit EFI.

If this ever does go to court I believe they will have a real tough time explaining to a jury how it was ok to market their machines as a 64-Bit Workstation (they NEVER stated in any advertising otherwise) that has 32-Bit hardware/firmware limitations.

People are growing less and less understanding and tolerant of large corporations doing whatever the hell the want and stepping all over people.

You have to understand something. I am not suggesting Apple, with malicious intent, purposely hid this from consumers with the intent some day of screwing them over. I do think they got a product to market as quickly as they reasonably could and overlooked the fact of how engineering did something in the design that would have unintended consequences at a later day. Engineering and Marketing work together but their levels of understanding are worlds apart.

I do however expect Apple, a Multi Hundred Billion cash in the bank corporation, to acknowledge their mistake and stand behind their marketing. It is not ok for them to simply walk away from this with the attitude of "oh well, they either buy new equipment or go away". People bought these machines after being told DIRECTLY, no word play, that this was a 64-Bit Workstation.

I for one did not purchase a 64-Bit workstation to really end up with a piece of equipment with ENGINEERED IN 32-Bit limitations.

This is now the issue, not Mountain Lion in and of itself. Apple just unintentionally exposed the hardware limitation when they made the policy decision to drop 32-Bit kernels. THEN people looked into what was causing the problem because the wanted to stay current with Apple features and.... now here we are.

I think you have a chance with this argument. Time to start collecting every bit of "64 bit" evidence you can find.

 

[Flood123]

ML is not going to be the argument anymore.

Sure, a 64-Bit machine with 64-Bit processors and 64-Bit EFI is a 64-Bit Platform.

A 64-Bit machine with 64-Bit processors and a 32-Bit -Non Upgradable- EFI is NOT a 64-Bit System.

The latter is what those of us with Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1 machines actually ended up purchasing unaware of the limitations hidden inside.

The consumer is not expected to be an expert to the board level. Do you really think 95% of the people that purchased one of these even knows what an EFI is to begin with?

Just ask yourself this... can a Mac Pro 1,1 or 2,1 boot into *ANY* Mac Operating system with a 64-Bit Kernel without being HACKED? Even if you upgraded video cards can it boot into ANY Apple OS with a 64-Bit kernel without being hacked? Having to hack a machine is not something that can be reasonably expected of a consumer either.

NO <---- This is my point. The choice to drop ML support could potentially be argued as a "policy decision". Lion however was available for the machine but could not run a 64-Bit kernel again due to the same hidden and crippling 32-Bit EFI.

If this ever does go to court I believe they will have a real tough time explaining to a jury how it was ok to market their machines as a 64-Bit Workstation (they NEVER stated in any advertising otherwise) that has 32-Bit hardware/firmware limitations.

People are growing less and less understanding and tolerant of large corporations doing whatever the hell the want and stepping all over people.

You have to understand something. I am not suggesting Apple, with malicious intent, purposely hid this from consumers with the intent some day of screwing them over. I do think they got a product to market as quickly as they reasonably could and overlooked the fact of how engineering did something in the design that would have unintended consequences at a later day. Engineering and Marketing work together but their levels of understanding are worlds apart.

I do however expect Apple, a Multi Hundred Billion cash in the bank corporation, to acknowledge their mistake and stand behind their marketing. It is not ok for them to simply walk away from this with the attitude of "oh well, they either buy new equipment or go away". People bought these machines after being told DIRECTLY, no word play, that this was a 64-Bit Workstation.

I for one did not purchase a 64-Bit workstation to really end up with a piece of equipment with ENGINEERED IN 32-Bit limitations.

This is now the issue, not Mountain Lion in and of itself. Apple just unintentionally exposed the hardware limitation when they made the policy decision to drop 32-Bit kernels. THEN people looked into what was causing the problem because the wanted to stay current with Apple features and.... now here we are.

Very well articulated.

 

[mcnallym]

The latter is what those of us with Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1 machines actually ended up purchasing unaware of the limitations hidden inside.

The consumer is not expected to be an expert to the board level. Do you really think 95% of the people that purchased one of these even knows what an EFI is to begin with?

The choice to drop ML support could potentially be argued as a "policy decision". Lion however was available for the machine but could not run a 64-Bit kernel again due to the same hidden and crippling 32-Bit EFI.

If this ever does go to court I believe they will have a real tough time explaining to a jury how it was ok to market their machines as a 64-Bit Workstation (they NEVER stated in any advertising otherwise) that has 32-Bit hardware/firmware limitations.

You have to understand something. I am not suggesting Apple, with malicious intent, purposely hid this from consumers with the intent some day of screwing them over. I do think they got a product to market as quickly as they reasonably could and overlooked the fact of how engineering did something in the design that would have unintended consequences at a later day. Engineering and Marketing work together but their levels of understanding are worlds apart.

I for one did not purchase a 64-Bit workstation to really end up with a piece of equipment with ENGINEERED IN 32-Bit limitations.

This is now the issue, not Mountain Lion in and of itself. Apple just unintentionally exposed the hardware limitation when they made the policy decision to drop 32-Bit kernels. THEN people looked into what was causing the problem because the wanted to stay current with Apple features and.... now here we are.

If 95% of the people buying a Mac Pro don't know what EFI is, what percentage will know what a Kernel is? What they will be bothered about is can my Mac Pro run the applications I want to use, and will it be fast enough.

The helpdesk at works gets users that can't even say what OS they are running, or the version of the applicatioon having an issue with! So I would be amazed if as high as 5% of Mac Pro users know ( or even care ) about EFI and Kernels and 32/64bit ness.

If you are going to boldly claim crippling limitations on your Mac Pro 2006 by only being able to run a 32 bit kernel, then what are these limitations, as I can't find any actual limitations being mentioned in the thread.

What would be changed in terms of this machine if it had an EFI64 implementation?

Having made a statement that the hardware is cripplingly limited by EFI32 then you need to be able to argue what those limits are.
Saying it is cripplingly limited somehow without saying what those limitations are won't get you far.

http://gizmodo.com/5343443/snow-leopard-currently-restricts-64+bit-booting-to-newer-macs

Our Apple contact explained:

The 32-bit kernel fully supports 64-bit applications, all system libraries that 64-bit applications use are fully 64-bit, and 64-bit applications have a full 64-bit virtual address space of 16 exabytes available to them on Mac OS X. The primary benefit of a 64-bit kernel is to improve the efficiency of accessing over 32GB of RAM.

So please taking a Mac Pro 2006 machine state these crippling limitations you are believe are there that are caused by only booting a 32 bit Kernel?

Note that a 2008 Mac Pro with an EFI64 and 64bit kernel still only supports the same 32Gb as a 2006 model does.

 

[amoulay]

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.

.

So what are you going to do now? drop iphone 4S because it can't support LTE and buy the soon iphone 5 which supports it? As I said before, happy slaves never seek freedom. Apple is in your system because you chose so. You remind me of the victims the sweepstakes and Reader's digest scams.

by the way, the investments I made on my 1,1 since the time I bought it are: substantial RAM upgrade, better mouse and keyboards and also, 2 years ago, bought the radeon 5770 graphic card, since the XT1990 card that came with 1,1 just melted after 4 years of use >>> another scam by apple, and I am not complaining here... I think I have a good solid machine to run ML, but Apple says otherwise, and throws me to Obsolete Land..., and wants me to just accept reality, move on and buy a new $$$$$$$$$$$ machine. NO WAY, and I am not ranting....



----------

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.

Sure.

perhaps we should also set up a youtube account where we can upload short videos (1 min testimony) of 1,1-2,1 owners who feel they have been cheated by apple, and whet they expect from apple, just an idea to build a solid case... People can email me the video and I will upload it to the youtube account...

I suggest also everyone wishing to join this class action suit, prepare your paperwork, the invoice for 1,1 purchase that you received from apple in 2006-2007. I may have lost mine but I will look further in my emails....

 

[PowerPCMacMan]

Although my 1,1 Mac Pro is long gone, I will do everything in my power to back you all 300 percent. Apple has been getting away with stuff one too many times now and its time for action. Tim Cook, if he is a sincere person and cares will acknowledge that the 1,1 and 2,1 Mac Pros were falsely advertised as being true 64-bit when in fact they can't support booting a 64-bit kernel based OS.

I am sorry, but Apple has mislead pro users for too long and now its gotten out of hand. While I own a 5,1 Mac Pro(was a 4,1 until I bought the 5,1 boards - long before the firmware tool came out), you have my support.

Count me in!


QUOTE=amoulay;15361866]So what are you going to do now? drop iphone 4S because it can't support LTE and buy the soon iphone 5 which supports it? As I said before, happy slaves never seek freedom. Apple is in your system because you chose so. You remind me of the victims the sweepstakes and Reader's digest scams.

by the way, the investments I made on my 1,1 since the time I bought it are: substantial RAM upgrade, better mouse and keyboards and also, 2 years ago, bought the radeon 5770 graphic card, since the XT1990 card that came with 1,1 just melted after 4 years of use >>> another scam by apple, and I am not complaining here... I think I have a good solid machine to run ML, but Apple says otherwise, and throws me to Obsolete Land..., and wants me to just accept reality, move on and buy a new $$$$$$$$$$$ machine. NO WAY, and I am not ranting....



----------



Sure.

perhaps we should also set up a youtube account where we can upload short videos (1 min testimony) of 1,1-2,1 owners who feel they have been cheated by apple, and whet they expect from apple, just an idea to build a solid case... People can email me the video and I will upload it to the youtube account...

I suggest also everyone wishing to join this class action suit, prepare your paperwork, the invoice for 1,1 purchase that you received from apple in 2006-2007. I may have lost mine but I will look further in my emails....[/QUOTE]

 

[mcnallym]

So what are you going to do now? drop iphone 4S because it can't support LTE and buy the soon iphone 5 which supports it? As I said before, happy slaves never seek freedom. Apple is in your system because you chose so. You remind me of the victims the sweepstakes and Reader's digest scams.


----------

I was making the point that I don't just blindly upgrade to the latest shiny Apple product, just because it was available. I upgrade when I need to upgrade.

When you had mentioned that people not respecting there hard earned money, I was showing that I do respect my money which is pounds. The clue there is don't live in the US so LTE is irrelevant too me as is everything else sofar rumoured with an iPhone5, why would I want to waste my money just to have the new shiny.

I also mentioned about my mini 2009 and mbpro 2008 ipad1 and atv1 and how not changing those. They work for me and ML /ipad3 / atv3 gives me nothing so why upgrade. I can continue working in 10.7 quite happily. I don't spend my money just to have a new shiny, I spend it when it gives me something usefull for my money.

Perhaps you misunderstand me! I wasn't upset/disappointed about having to change. I was using it to illustrate that the situation with the mac pro 2006 isn't anything new with Apple dropping older hardware.

If people are going to goto/threaten court over this then they had better have a good well thought out argument to put across.

At the moment it is just not coming across that way.

It starts off regarding Apple not supporting 4.5 year old hardware with the ML OS.
It then moves across to the alleged 64bit workstation is cripplingly limited ( not my words ) by having a 32bit EFI implementation.

However so far no-one seems prepared to list out what the crippling limitations are that the EFI32 makes to the system.

The system an still run 64bit apps, with a 32bit kernel. And the hardware along with a mac pro 2008 which can boot a 64bit kernel so presumably isn't limited in the same way is still limited to 32Gb.

As a person not involved/affected with this, then I seem to be able to look at this a bit more clearly and provide potential counter thoughts that hopefully are useful to be the people determined to push on with this. I am not out to run down anyone just try to help them build a reasoned case. Like I said it doesn't affect me.

 

[MacVidCards]

Someone call the Waaahhhmbulance

 

[foidulus]

ML is not going to be the argument anymore.

Sure, a 64-Bit machine with 64-Bit processors and 64-Bit EFI is a 64-Bit Platform.

A 64-Bit machine with 64-Bit processors and a 32-Bit -Non Upgradable- EFI is NOT a 64-Bit System.

The latter is what those of us with Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1 machines actually ended up purchasing unaware of the limitations hidden inside.

The consumer is not expected to be an expert to the board level. Do you really think 95% of the people that purchased one of these even knows what an EFI is to begin with?

Just ask yourself this... can a Mac Pro 1,1 or 2,1 boot into *ANY* Mac Operating system with a 64-Bit Kernel without being HACKED? Even if you upgraded video cards can it boot into ANY Apple OS with a 64-Bit kernel without being hacked? Having to hack a machine is not something that can be reasonably expected of a consumer either.

NO <---- This is my point. The choice to drop ML support could potentially be argued as a "policy decision". Lion however was available for the machine but could not run a 64-Bit kernel again due to the same hidden and crippling 32-Bit EFI.

Do you ever get sick of being absolutely wrong? Because you are wrong pretty much 100% of the time, and yet that doesnt seem to stop you. Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1 can boot into a 64 bit kernel using SL or Lion. That would have taken you all of 10 seconds to look up, but you didnt even bother(you claim to have a Doctorate in computer science, which is a complete lie)

Furthermore you keep on stating "64-bit workstation" without actually pointing to anything Apple has ever released stating that the Mac Pro is a "64-bit workstation"(which it is, EFI only affects what bootloaders you can use)

I hope you do sue Apple and they put the video online, it will be hilarious when their lawyers ream you a new one for knowing absolutely nothing.

 

[adream]

Furthermore you keep on stating "64-bit workstation" without actually pointing to anything Apple has ever released stating that the Mac Pro is a "64-bit workstation"(which it is, EFI only affects what bootloaders you can use)

erm.... they wrote it all over the boxes for a start


https://www.facebook.com/AppleBringMountainLionSupportToEarlyMacPros

 

[SilverTard]

erm.... they wrote it all over the boxes for a start


https://www.facebook.com/AppleBringMountainLionSupportToEarlyMacPros

Please... stop using truth as it is banned around here.

----------

Do you ever get sick of being absolutely wrong? Because you are wrong pretty much 100% of the time, and yet that doesnt seem to stop you. Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1 can boot into a 64 bit kernel using SL or Lion. That would have taken you all of 10 seconds to look up, but you didnt even bother(you claim to have a Doctorate in computer science, which is a complete lie)

Furthermore you keep on stating "64-bit workstation" without actually pointing to anything Apple has ever released stating that the Mac Pro is a "64-bit workstation"(which it is, EFI only affects what bootloaders you can use)

I hope you do sue Apple and they put the video online, it will be hilarious when their lawyers ream you a new one for knowing absolutely nothing.

I do have a D.Sc in CS, it is no lie... not that I honestly care if you believe it or not... I mean seriously, how will it change my life in the slightest bit? LOL

I am running one of these "32-Bit, oh I mean 64-Bit Workstations" running Lion... check this out...

Darwin Macintosh-2.local 11.4.0 Darwin Kernel Version 11.4.0: Mon Apr 9 19:33:05 PDT 2012; root:xnu-1699.26.8~1/RELEASE_I386 i386


Yup... 64-Bit all the way genius.

 

[Draeconis]

I too would like to see ML run on the 1,1 and 2,1; the implementation of a 32bit EFI in the early models is clearly part of planned redundancy, and there is no technical reason beyond this why the 1,1 would be unable to boot ML and run it well.

However, I have a feeling any legal action against Apple wouldn't work; Apple have already established a precedent against Psystar who tried to argue that Apple couldn't restrict what hardware their software could run on. Psystar lost, and rather badly.

Besides, on a software engineering level, whilst I don't agree blocking the 1,1 and 2,1 from ML makes sense, in general, Apple is a company that moves rapidly. Most/all products they sell see 6 years of support, 3 if their mobile devices (though the 3GS ruined that rule recently!), and to this end, ensuring you only support a limited number of devices ensures more time is spent on them. Apple doesn't have a software development team the size of Microsoft (not that it seems to help them much of the time ), so having a small team focused on delivering the experience we all really appreciate helps this ecosystem retain the performance and stability we've come to expect.

As a minor addendum, even if they did agree to make an exception in the case of the 1,1 and 2,1, since the limitation is hardware based, it'd require the logic board being swapped out, since the EFI on these boards is soldered on, and since machines from this era are out of any warranty, they'd probably *at least* charge you the cost of replacing it, which would probably be quite a lot.

 

[toke lahti]

Tiger was 32-bit OS.
Leopard was 32-bit OS.
Snow Leopard was 32/64-bit OS but Mac Pro 1.1 was unable to boot into 64-bit.
Lion is 32/64-bit OS but Mac Pro 1.1 is unable to boot into 64-bit.
But I haven't really seen pissed off people.

Then, all of a sudden, after 6 year of its release, people think "labeled as 64bit" is misleading and think of a class action? just because Apple won't support Mac Pro 1.1 anymore?
Wow, amazing

First G5 was 64bit, with no use for it.
2. Then you could run 64bit unix apps.
3. You could run 64bit osX apps.
4. You could have 64bit kernel.
5. You could have 64bit EFI in your computer.
6. You could have 64bit EFI in your GPU card.

So far we have 6 different types of "64-bit" things.
Maybe Apple should have defined a bit more specifically what they are talking about in each occassion?

That was your first mistake. No machine will stay current/last/keep getting updates for 10 years. Ever.

All a Mac Pro is is a machine that will run faster for the 4 years that it is current. Faster machines do not mean machines that last longer.

This is the same lesson learned by everyone who bought a high end G5 and thought they were going to be supported for 10 years.

Apple itself lists computers over 5 years (7 in California) as vintage. You know that you could buy new MP2,1 from Apple 4.5 years ago. Now they don't support something that isn't vintage in their own terms.

No machine 10 years? Hmmm, buy a new MP today; it's already 3 years old, so you need only 7 years wich is the supported time for Apple in California. There's your 10 years.

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.

What if Apple would have launched big campaign "Upgrade your old MP"? New GPUs (with 64bit EFI) and more memory and hdd/sdd with affordable prices?
They could keep repeating how green they are and it would be PR victory against everybody that say they don't care about pro's anymore.

I would be happy with SL installed in my mp1,1 if they offered all software and services they offer for as old windows. iCloud for Vista, but not for SL? WTF?
Now I can't even upgrade to Lion, thanks Apple for doing everything in macs wrong for last couple of years! You should sell macs and osX to somebody that cares for them!

 

[amoulay]

I found these threads elsewhere:

Petition: http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Apple_please_enable_support_for_older_Macs_in_Mountain_Lion/?launch

More Ranting and whaaaambulancing and 911 calling: ): http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/143747/mountain-lion-signals-end-of-os-x-support-for-older-macs/80

I think people should hold on selling their 1,1, because in the end, Apple, whether they like it or not, will be forced to do something.

 

[GermanyChris]

I found these threads elsewhere:

Petition: http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Apple_please_enable_support_for_older_Macs_in_Mountain_Lion/?launch

More Ranting and whaaaambulancing and 911 calling: ): http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/143747/mountain-lion-signals-end-of-os-x-support-for-older-macs/80

I think people should hold on selling their 1,1, because in the end, Apple, whether they like it or not, will be forced to do something.

No they won't..

Most likely you'll be luck to have your shirt left after this.

Apple has continually stared down multibillion dollar corporations a complaint from a few hundred dissatisfied folks on the internet won't even blip on their radar.

 

[amoulay]

No they won't..

Most likely you'll be luck to have your shirt left after this.

Apple has continually stared down multibillion dollar corporations a complaint from a few hundred dissatisfied folks on the internet won't even blip on their radar.

You forgot to mention that Apple is what it is thanks to us the Customers who buy their products.

Maybe it will take a fit such as "Occupy Apple" to jam their radars.

 

[GermanyChris]

You forgot to mention that Apple is what it is thanks to us the Customers who buy their products.

Maybe it will take a fit such as "Occupy Apple" to jam their radars.

Apple is what it is because people buy iThings...

Another unintended consequence might just be the discontinuation of the line if you annoy them enough. That'd be great huh your temper tantrum can cost other people a computer that feeds them, just so you can put the newest OS on your elderly computer. Good call

**edit** By the way the elderly computer is about as fast as a modern i3 with no higher RAM ceilings

 

[Rog210]

Apple is what it is because people buy iThings...

Another unintended consequence might just be the discontinuation of the line if you annoy them enough. That'd be great huh your temper tantrum can cost other people a computer that feeds them, just so you can put the newest OS on your elderly computer. Good call

**edit** By the way the elderly computer is about as fast as a modern i3 with no higher RAM ceilings

Oh get a grip.

If Apple aren't imterested in putting serious development time into their Pro line, maybe they should drop it. At least pro users would know where they stand and can plan accordingly.

 

[amoulay]

Apple is what it is because people buy iThings...

Another unintended consequence might just be the discontinuation of the line if you annoy them enough. That'd be great huh your temper tantrum can cost other people a computer that feeds them, just so you can put the newest OS on your elderly computer. Good call

Well then I should add that Apple is what it is because of iPeople like you, the appleboys.

How can it continue feeding people when the next FinalCutPro, or next Office, or next LogicPro, or next Adobe CS Master will requires ML? I can easily see that you know nothing about investments, amortization sinking costs, profits and losses. All you care about is playing with you lil iThings and jiving about when the next lil iThings will be out

 

[bearcatrp]

erm.... they wrote it all over the boxes for a start


https://www.facebook.com/AppleBringMountainLionSupportToEarlyMacPros

Looks like false advertisement to me. Last time I checked, still against the law in the USA. Most likely in other countries too.

 

[amoulay]

Can anyone please explain what is going on here?

http://swegen.blogspot.de/2011/07/bo...-lion-and.html

will the patch (x64patch-10.8-dp1.tbz) for ML make 1,1 64it EFI? what is the difference with Chameleon?

thanks in advance.

 

[GermanyChris]

Well then I should add that Apple is what it is because of iPeople like you, the appleboys.

How can it continue feeding people when the next FinalCutPro, or next Office, or next LogicPro, or next Adobe CS Master will requires ML? I can easily see that you know nothing about investments, amortization sinking costs, profits and losses. All you care about is playing with you lil iThings and jiving about when the next lil iThings will be out

Really because I use a g5 quad. runs cs3 and FCS 7 just fine. My quad is at most a year older than you MP. My work flow doesn't get more difficult because time moves on I do the same things now I did years ago. Your workflow has obviously not gotten more difficult because you still using your same old system.

----------

Oh get a grip.

If Apple aren't imterested in putting serious development time into their Pro line, maybe they should drop it. At least pro users would know where they stand and can plan accordingly.

What development time are we talking about here?

New socket 2011 Logic board from Foxconn with a Z79 chipset housed in the same case? This is some complex stuff I'm telling you. Now you want to know what it needs no R&D and it's already being made it;s called the EVGA SR-X they just need to give specifications and make a run of it.

 

[cryingrobot]

Really because I use a g5 quad. runs cs3 and FCS 7 just fine. My quad is at most a year older than you MP. My work flow doesn't get more difficult because time moves on I do the same things now I did years ago. Your workflow has obviously not gotten more difficult because you still using your same old system.

Here is the thing. Its not a legacy thing as people have proven over and over again. The 1,1 has been crippled so that you need to upgrade to a new machine. Problem is that the 2006 MP is still a great machine. High quality sever chips and parts and ocotocore CPU power and up to date GPU. It cost me 6k to buy my MP and I am not going to spend 20k to get a new one when the old one works fine just so I can airplay. I am not alone on this. I have bought my wife a galaxy pad and am ready to make the change. I know when I am being taken for a ride and denying a patch for the 1,1 is a scam.