Why is my mac pro not compatible with Mountain Lion?

[ActionableMango]

The machine itself however, not being a true 64-Bit Workstation,

No PC workstation I'm aware of is completely 64-bit throughout. For example, on the MP 5,1 the SATA bus is 16-bit and the 5870 video output is 8-bit. Certainly no reasonable person would expect every single aspect of a workstation to be 64-bit.

You seem to be really stuck on the fact that the entirety of the MP 1,1 is not 64-bit, but as I just pointed out, it is ridiculous to expect every aspect of a workstation branded as 64-bit to be in fact 64-bit.

So that begs the question, what is a 64-bit workstation? I think most reasonable people would say that a 64-bit workstation is capable of running 64-bit apps and 64-bit operating systems. The MP 1,1 does that. It runs 64-bit OSX, 64-bit Windows, and 64-bit Linux. Show me a 32-bit workstation that does that. Furthermore, Wikipedia's entry for "64-bit" states that 64-bit is "a term given to a generation of computers in which 64-bit processors are the norm". The MP 1,1 has a 64-bit processor.

In fact, since people have hacked around ML's limitation and are running it on the MP1,1, this only goes to prove even further that the hardware is 64-bit by all reasonable definitions.

I just don't see how you have a leg to stand on with the "64-bit is a lie" argument.

I'm not defending Apple here, I'm defending the truth. Apple in fact are being a bunch of bastards, but not in the way you state.

The actual valid complaint I see here is that Apple can't have it both ways. They advertised the MP 1,1 as 64-bit then explain that ML doesn't support the MP 1,1 because it only supports 64-bit computers. These two statements from Apple contradict each other.

Apple did lie, but the lie is not that the MP 1,1 is 64-bit. The MP 1,1 is 64-bit. This is an absolute fact by any reasonable definition.

Apple's lie is that they aren't supporting the MP 1,1 because it's not 64-bit. The MP 1,1 is 64-bit, therefore ML isn't supported on the MP 1,1 because Apple doesn't want it on there.

You HAVE pointed out Apple's hypocrisy, but your lawsuit that "64-bit is a lie" has no merit.

 

[deconstruct60]

I'm sorry, but your math is incorrect.

January 8, 2008 + 5 years ≠ April 2012.

Only you are asserting that equation. I didn't. I stated that some 1,1 configurations were discontinued with the 2,1. In math terms, that means set of configurations before and after the introduction ( set difference ) is non zero. I didn't say all. The fact the 1,1 wasn't completely discontinued isn't a 'get out of jail free" card.

In pragmatic terms though this midstream tweaks are a red flag that the hardware is . If used for planning purposed back in 2007,2008, or 2009 that midlife bump of only configs and very minor firmware isn't going to contribute much to stretching OS lifetime. The constraints hardwired into the machine aren't changing.

Apple only need to cover with some OS. There are usually at least two active ones in flight at any one time. There is absolutely nothing in the policy that Apple must cover with the latest bleeding edge version of the OS. Frankly, the demographic that tend to cling to old hardware also tend to cling to older software too.

The only thing that the 3.0GHz octo-core 2,1's superseded were the 3.0GHz quad-core 1,1's.

Here, you confirm what I said. No math error.


I also stated that the 5 months left really wasn't enough to to give the 2,1 a reprieve. Again now + 5 months is effectively January 2013. ( If you are nitpcking about days left in July between Mountain Lion launch and August those aren't significant digits. )

Again no math errors.

Apple's internal documentation considers them essentially the same. And more importantly, Apple's 'discontinuation date' for both the 1,1 and 2,1 Mac Pros is January 8, 2008; the day the 3,1s were announced.

That's for hardware support. What people are yelping about is new software.

With the software end dates of

10.6 ~ July 2012
10.7 ~July-Aug 2013 *
10.8 ~July-Aug 2014

The math problem of which date is closest to and also greater than January 2013 is the one associated with 10.7; not 10.8.

That is the primary issue. Once a Mac Model is included in a QA testing support for an software version it is stuck there. Commiting the Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1 to 10.8 means keeping those machines around for 10.8's lifetime too. The 18+ month gap between 10.8 end and a the initial set of Mac Pros represents a problem rather than a solution.



If Apple had released 10.8 on January 2 , 2013 and 1,1's ended on January 8. 2013 it wouldn't get covered. There has to be enough of an overlap to make the inclusion make sense. If the overlaps are too short that means OS coverage will fall the previous OS which still is has some updates coverage to provide.


Apple supporting 10.7 (Lion) allows 1,1 and 1,2 users who had planned to align with Apple's support polices to get off between the Mountain Lion intro and the de-support date. Those folks are primarily looking at hardware rather than software upgrades. In fact, a major OS upgrade would just get in the way of the way of preparing for and executing that process.

Most of the commentary about 1,1 support is extremely indicate of folks who want to ignore Apple's policy windows and roadmaps and have their own plan. That's a bad math problem. That is a mismatched expectations problem.

The only reason 10.8 is even close the January 2013 de-support date is because Apple has switched to 12 month cycles for OS X. If OS X had remained on 18-24 month cycle 10.8 would not have been anywhere near that date. 10.7 Lion would have stretched to around April-July of 2013 and would be in the same position as what is present now. Support stops at Lion.


* Lion The fact Apple just dropped a developer release of Lion is a good sign that bug fixes won't totally disappear immediately. Eventually it will transition to security only patches but evidence points to it at least having a 24 month long cycle. Maybe a bit (3-6 months) longer.

Just because Apple is going to a 12 month OS upgrade cycle doesn't mean all users have to or even should. Those with more complex software tool stacks probably won't.

 

[GermanyChris]

No PC workstation I'm aware of is completely 64-bit throughout. For example, on the MP 5,1 the SATA bus is 16-bit and the 5870 video output is 8-bit. Certainly no reasonable person would expect every single aspect of a workstation to be 64-bit.

You seem to be really stuck on the fact that the entirety of the MP 1,1 is not 64-bit, but as I just pointed out, it is ridiculous to expect every aspect of a workstation branded as 64-bit to be in fact 64-bit.

So that begs the question, what is a 64-bit workstation? I think most reasonable people would say that a 64-bit workstation is capable of running 64-bit apps and 64-bit operating systems. The MP 1,1 does that. It runs 64-bit OSX, 64-bit Windows, and 64-bit Linux. Show me a 32-bit workstation that does that. Furthermore, Wikipedia's entry for "64-bit" states that 64-bit is "a term given to a generation of computers in which 64-bit processors are the norm". The MP 1,1 has a 64-bit processor.

In fact, since people have hacked around ML's limitation and are running it on the MP1,1, this only goes to prove even further that the hardware is 64-bit by all reasonable definitions.

I just don't see how you have a leg to stand on with the "64-bit is a lie" argument.

I'm not defending Apple here, I'm defending the truth. Apple in fact are being a bunch of bastards, but not in the way you state.

The actual valid complaint I see here is that Apple can't have it both ways. They advertised the MP 1,1 as 64-bit then explain that ML doesn't support the MP 1,1 because it only supports 64-bit computers. These two statements from Apple contradict each other.

Apple did lie, but the lie is not that the MP 1,1 is 64-bit. The MP 1,1 is 64-bit. This is an absolute fact by any reasonable definition.

Apple's lie is that they aren't supporting the MP 1,1 because it's not 64-bit. The MP 1,1 is 64-bit, therefore ML isn't supported on the MP 1,1 because Apple doesn't want it on there.

You HAVE pointed out Apple's hypocrisy, but your lawsuit that "64-bit is a lie" has no merit.

You need to stop or the Mac Pro 1,1/2,1 people are going to cry..

 

[michael_aos]

I've been running Mountain Lion on my Mac Pro 1,1 since 7/12.

No issues at all.

 

[GermanyChris]

I've been running Mountain Lion on my Mac Pro 1,1 since 7/12.

No issues at all.

That means you have an old slow hackintosh congratulations!

 

[michael_aos]

Yes, Geekbench around 5935.

Similar to a Macbook Air.
--

 

[El Awesome]

Then I guess performance is your biggest issue.

@GermanyChris: Lol wir wohnen in der selben Region

 

[michael_aos]

I could nearly double the Geekbench score with quad-core CPU's for $100 off eBay.

Or nearly triple for $2759+tax for the "current" (2010) 6-core Mac Pro.

With 16GB of RAM, ATI 5770, 2x 240GB OWC SSD's, and a couple Thecus NAS on LACP gigabit, my old Mac Pro 1,1 doesn't FEEL slow.

I will sure be looking at the next generation Mac Mini when they're released though.
--

 

[deconstruct60]

Apple's lie is that they aren't supporting the MP 1,1 because it's not 64-bit. The MP 1,1 is 64-bit, therefore ML isn't supported on the MP 1,1 because Apple doesn't want it on there.

That isn't what Apple has said. The finger is pointed at EFI64; not at the general notion of 64 bit. What Apple is not supporting is a "efi.boot" that will launch into a 64 bit kernel state from a 32-bit EFI set-up environment.
That is a OS feature (efi.boot) that has been in place for a while.

What Apple is dropping is the 32-bit kernel that boots from the EFI32 state. Apple can drop features when they want in future products. The "classic OS9" emulator got dropped. PPC got dropped. Rosetta got dropped. Carbon is being phased out. Frankly, older substantive components get dropped on a regular basis on major OS version number boundaries.

None of those are 'lies'. It isn't significantly different than Apple not porting and supporting over 10.8's service lifetime graphics with a OpenGL1.2 (or 2.1 ) limitation.

 

[ActionableMango]

That isn't what Apple has said. The finger is pointed at EFI64; not at the general notion of 64 bit. What Apple is not supporting is a "efi.boot" that will launch into a 64 bit kernel state from a 32-bit EFI set-up environment.
That is a OS feature (efi.boot) that has been in place for a while.

What Apple is dropping is the 32-bit kernel that boots from the EFI32 state. Apple can drop features when they want in future products. The "classic OS9" emulator got dropped. PPC got dropped. Rosetta got dropped. Carbon is being phased out. Frankly, older substantive components get dropped on a regular basis on major OS version number boundaries.

None of those are 'lies'. It isn't significantly different than Apple not porting and supporting over 10.8's service lifetime graphics with a OpenGL1.2 (or 2.1 ) limitation.

Good point, I take that part back.

I do think however Apple should support a computer more than 4* years with their new OS release, especially when it is completely hardware compatible of running said OS and has no performance issues running the OS.

(* If you bought a brand new MP on January 7, 2008, less than 5 years later you are barred from the new OS.)

I wonder, will my Nehalem be dropped from the new OS in only two more years?

 

[deconstruct60]

Good point, I take that part back.

I do think however Apple should support a computer more than 4* years with their new OS release, especially when it is completely hardware compatible of running said OS and has no performance issues running the OS.

Depends upon the compromises. It should have been extremely obvious that the Core Solo Intel Macs with zero 64-bit capability would "dead end" well below the 4+ year limit given the focus Apple was putting on the long term transition to 64 bit applications.

Likewise the laptops that came with Intel integrated graphics with "do something with the extra left over silicon die space" era. Those graphics lagged even worse on OpenGL than Apple did. Again that's way Macbook , mini , MBA with those got axed well under a 4 year window.

I wonder, will my Nehalem be dropped from the new OS in only two more years?

Close but will probably squeak in. By 2015 almost certain, but it will take 3 years to get there ( on the current 12 month release cycle). Apple's relatively slow adoption of OpenGL will likely mean they haven't retired OpenGL 3.3. in two years. [ OpenGL 4.0 come out in 8/2010 so it likely will take several more years before the pre- 4.0 base falls to a very small size. ] Similarly, high likely would not have OpenCL 1.2 minimums either. The Nehalem + GT 120 config will likely still be in the "slower than newer stuff, but still supported zone".

What I would not count on is a "get out of jail free" card because the Nehalem and Westmere models only different in firmware and that there were Nehalem models in the Mac Pro 2010 configs.

It would also be dubious to count on the abnormally long 2010 service lifetime to track on software updates. Coverage to 2018? maybe, maybe not. [ Assuming there are 3 to 5 Mac Pro updates in the interim that are substantially faster than the pre Mac Pro 2013. I think Apple is going to expect people to get off the 2009-2010 models on a faster than average pace if the product line continues. That would be yes.
If the Mac Pro 2013 is a bust because there is no upgrade bubble and sales continue to fall , then no. That would probably make the 2013 model the last Mac Pro and the sole focus of updates by 2018. ]

 

[Eric S.]

Well I just have to laugh at all the people complaining that "my Mac Pro 1,1 (or whatever) system isn't supported any more." Didn't they see this coming, given that Apple has been dropping support for systems while they were still viable for years now just for business reasons? And I wonder how many users now moaning about "no ML support" were the same ones telling G5 owners a few years ago to "move on" and "get a modern system."

 

[goMac]

Well I just have to laugh at all the people complaining that "my Mac Pro 1,1 (or whatever) system isn't supported any more." Didn't they see this coming, given that Apple has been dropping support for systems while they were still viable for years now just for business reasons? And I wonder how many users now moaning about "no ML support" were the same ones telling G5 owners a few years ago to "move on" and "get a modern system."

People buy faster computers thinking they are going to last longer. But faster computers are just faster computers, no more.

It's like me buying a V8 car because I think the extra cylinders is going to make it last longer.

Needless to say salespeople don't exactly stop people from believing this.

Five years from release isn't uncommon for support dropping. When Mac OS X shipped, computers under 4 years old couldn't run it.

(That was actually a big deal. Apple claimed in 96 any computer they were currently shipping would run OS X. Oldest computer that could run OS X shipped in Nov 1997. You think the Mac Pro 1,1 is bad, imagine how livid people were who dumped a ton of money on a Power Mac 9600 in 1996 because they thought it was futureproof.)

 

[jamojamo]

Dont worry 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...

+1 Seriously, if you consider the purchase of a computer an investment vs. an expense you should have earned your ROI by now and move on. Especially true if you really feel kicked to the curb by Apple.

 

[Luis Ortega]

Here are my specs:

Processor Name: Quad-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed: 3 Ghz
Number of Processors: 2
Total number of Cores: 8
L2 Cache (per Processor): 8MB
Memory: 4GB 667 MHz DDR2 FB-DIMM
Bus Speed: 1.33 GHz

Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT Slot-1
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT Slot-2
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT Slot-3
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT Slot-4

Thanks!

They're actually doing you a favor. No osx after Snow Leopard is worth anything.
It's all being dumbed down into ios-level gimmickry.

 

[kevink2]

In my case, I bought a faster Mac 4+ years ago thinking it would last longer. If I had bought an iMac or Mac Mini for my own use back then, it would not have been upgradable past 4GB of RAM. It would have still been useful, but I would have handed it down to someone by now.

Instead, I was able to upgrade past 4, and up to 14GB now. Which is overkill, but the last 8GB was cheaper than I had expected.

 

[gnasher729]

Because you were sold a machine represented as "64-Bit" that was not really "64-Bit". Read this thread for more info.

The OP was sold a proper 64 bit computer by every definition of the word. However, the requirements for Mountain Lion are not just "64 bit computer". Mountain Lion does not run on every computer that is "really 64 bit".

 

[G51989]

As hardware gets older it stops being supported by newer Operating Systems. These boxes haven't been sold for 4.5 years. This isn't anything new in the PC industry. What is the legal requirement for Apple to provide support on a new OS with a machine that they stopped selling 4.5 years ago.

Actually this does not happen in the PC world, windows xp has been supported for 10 years, still gets support, and runs on machines from the 90s. Windows 7 will be supported till 2020, windows 8 will run on hardware from the early 00s.

This is purely an apple thing.