Apple Event: May 7th at 7 am PT
I have 2 Mac Pros bought one in August 2006 and the other in December 2006. I have read a lot about why they do not support Mountain Lion, but also I have read that Apple could make it possible. My complain is that my 2 machines are wonderful and never failed. And as much as I love Apple, I'm not going to buy new machines because I'm 71 years old, retired and poor. So Apple, why not to make a little effort for people like me?
PLEASE!!!
Beltran
Those machines can't boot in 64-bit mode, which is why they're not supported. They've given you six years of service and will not stop working just because they can't run a new OS version.
All the posts that came after I began the discussion are right or close to it but, one of the most important point in this matter is that the only thing real new are the laptops, the Mac Pros are mostly the same as are mine, and expend $4000.00 to have a machine that for what I see in my MBP is slower than my current one, does not make any sense. The people that use Mac Pro machines are at the high end of computer needs. Professional photographers as myself, architects, musicians and many other professional people that don't really care about communicating in a new fashion. We need lots of power, hard drives, applications (real ones, like Photoshop, not iPhoto) and the list is infinit. And I insist, when a really powerfull Mac Pro comes out, I'll buy it, but the ones that Apple has now don't make me change just for having a new iCloud or a clear sky. That's why it make a lot of sense to ask Apple to allow great machines to be current for the OS Mountain Lion.
Beltran
And by the time a new Mac Pro 6,1 hits the light of day the bugs in 10.8 and the game of catchup should be behind. No compelling reason other than finally support for say GTX 670.
What there is now though is support for 96GB RAM and 64-bit mode and mature plus it still runs 10.6.8 or later. Tomorrow's "6,1" will not. And 12-core 3.3 GHz if you "want."
Unified EFI was adopted on 64-bit platform in late 2007. Not before.
The car analogy is stupid. Name me ONE car manufacturer which will knock on
your door in 3-4 years...and remouve/cripple some features of your car?
You can easily install a GPS in a 1995 F-150, whereas you cannot run new apps
on a Mac that's 3-4 years old.
Apple is using "Forceware" tactics to force us to buy new systems every couple years,
it's stupid.
No one is crippling or taking away. You just can't use fuel injection with your older carberator.
Rather than waste time on an issue, just spend your effort and turn your mac into a hackintosh or stay with Lion until you need ML.
CompuServe users balked at the CompuServe Information Manager because it didn't run well on Mac Plus and app used 2.5MB and really needed 68030 or better. No different.
Actually they are crippling your machine. OSX 10.7 was supposed to get iClould support, which is still doesn't have, instead ML got it only. If they add some of the features they where supposed to add to 10.7 and not force developers to stop supporting it (which they haven't yet but there are a few apps that don't support 10.6 in App store). The issue wont be so bad. iCloud for Pages, Numbers, and Keynote where all stated would be coming to 10.7. Would like to see iMessage, Notes, and Reminders. Notifications is ok to have, but Growl actually works better.
Your comment about CompuServe is just lame, as has been stated before unless you buy a new Mac Pro, the old ones are faster than anything else under $2500. So speed, RAM, Video is not an Issue as your CompuServe comment is about.
Also we are talking about Apple's Flagship business product, not the bottom of the line lets replace every two years machines. Most people who have iMacs and Macbook Pros don't care about this issue as much, but the Mac Pro people do as their machines are 2x-4x more pricey. Can be upgraded easily, parts replaced, etc.
Since you guys like to bring cars into the mix, if Ferrari put out a car with a sub-par controller for its fuel injection, they would recall it and put in the right one for free. Same goes for the EFI32, sub-par part for a touted 64bit machine.
Some of this is missing the point. There are early Mac Pros that are physically capable of receiving the ML update. I have one of those. There are some computers that aren't physically capable. I have one of those too.
I am relaxed about the latter. It can't be done. But the former CAN be done. There are hacks that would allow me to upgrade if I chose to go that route.
Apple has decided not to bother. I am really struggling to understand why. They could write the software which allows us to upgrade. It's a software only upgrade. Why wouldn't they? There are some Mac Pros which don't have sufficiently powerful GPUs. The software can check this first. I tried to upgrade my non-upgareable machine just to see what happened. Even before downloading a byte of 10.8 it told me it couldn't be done. Apple would not leave a mess behind them where it had tried to upgrade incapable machines.
This is purely and simply a decision not to do something that could be done. For me, it has made me ******. I haev a coupel of machines I can collaborate over iCloud with, and now one that can't and that has a different UI/workflow. Because Apple couldn't be bothered.
Will it make me buy a new Mac which can run 10.8? No. Will I still recommend Apple to friends? No. This is so reminiscient of Microsoft and its OS upgrades and why, many many years ago I swirched to Apple. Success makes companies lazy. Those of us who are here complaining will not make a jot of difference.
This is the new Apple.
Where is Steve Jobs and his spirit of fairness? I thought that Steve planted the seed that made Apple great, but it looks like someone is forgetting too quickly. That someone would be inmidiately fired, and if that person is untouchable sure Steve spirit will send the pink slip.
Remember supply and demand? that will be Steve hand.
Beltran
Well I am going back to Lion on my 2 machines that can install it simply because there are too many things wrong with ML and the other reason is, if all machines cannot have it, stick with the latest that they all can have until I have no choice. Once forces I will have to decide if I ever want to buy another Apple product or just make Hackintoshes that are cheaper and will always work.
Hackintoshes that always work. I find that statement very funny.
Lord Of The Weirdos wrote:
Well I am going back to Lion on my 2 machines that can install it simply because there are too many things wrong with ML and the other reason is, if all machines cannot have it, stick with the latest that they all can have until I have no choice. Once forces I will have to decide if I ever want to buy another Apple product or just make Hackintoshes that are cheaper and will always work.
Why 10.8 is not supported on 2006 Mac Pros?
