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.
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.
I knew all that but as I said somebody tip that Apple could fix that fairly easily. I also know that my 2 Mac Pros will give me many more years of service. I also have a 2011 Mac Book Pro that will run ML, and I have the new iPad 64, wich will have all the new apps of ML, but I'll have to be changing computers all the time, and that's not the phylosophy of Apple.
Anyway, I appreciate your answer and your attention to my question.
Beltran
I don't see myself buying any more apple products because of this. My Mac Pro was advertised as a 64 bit machine. Now it's suddenly a 32 bit one.
This is a good reason why it won't, there will always be those that will try and enjoy the challenge and experimenting.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=15295924#post15295924
UEFI was not finalized and adopted, the firmware in the Early 2008 Mac Pro, until late 2007, and that machine needed EFI and SMC firmware updates, and those machines also - lately - seem "finiky' even now with sleep, power on, and other things - threads don't ask users if they had the very early, first month or two vs later post-EFI/SMC done at the factory and with new ROM chips.
UEFI (EFI64) is what Intel and Microsoft along with Apple adopted for 64-bit operating systems post Vista SP1 (not sure, Apple did not have a separate path and it has only been 10.6.x that booting a full native 64-bit mode existed. Meaning that the MacPro 3,1 and before were never really proven and tested either.
"We" as a community may not mind buying ATI 5770 to use Lion and beyond but who knows what the rest are doing, having shelled out $279 for Nvidia GTX 8800GT once perhaps already (and maybe seeing that die), or $399 for ATI X199.
2009 was the first time that testing of Snow Leopard and 64-bit mode was really possible.
Take the support for 3TB drives and really pushing to see just how well EFI and GUID support was which was "introduced" and improved (changed and modified) but began in 10.4.6 even though it was mentioned before then.
The Mac Pro 1.1 EFI32 existed in limbo with Intel Skulltrail reference motherboard back in mid-2005 so it was already more than a year old, and is 7 yr old design.
Wasn't the whole point of buying Mac...was so that we wouldn't have to READ
such explanations as above?
Personally not to be rude but I'd like to think of us Mac people to be a bit brither then most. However I think there are two kids of Mac users. Ones that truely understand their technilogical superiorness, and old people who dont know anything and their kid said get a Mac its easier. haha
Linc Davis,
The problem with that theory is Apple has already proved that some apps will not work on older OS versions. For instance, if you are running OSX 10.6 you cannot run iBooks Author. You have to be running 10.7 or 10.8. More and more apps could follow that and you could end up with a machine that you have to buy apps from outside the App store, which Apple doesn't really want.
Apple could, if they wanted, fix those machines. I actually own on of those Mac Pros and it works flawlessly and is faster than any Mac that cost less than $2500. To replace it with an comparable system if bought from Apple would be $2500 for a Single processor newer version, if wanted a dual processor would jump to $3800.
In their recent quote they said "They are not all about making money." Well that seems like a lie and also not good for the enviroment. Get rid of perfectly good machines that run circles around most of their others.
I give them a BAD APPLE for this one.
BTW, My 2006 Mac Pro has 10g RAM, 4.5tb worth of HDs, and an ATI Radeon 5770 (thanks to a bad video card from Apple that didn't fail till after the recall was over).
There is no need to understand or even read the explanation above.
Your Mac from before 2008 is too old to accept the latest and greatest. When it no longer does the work you want to do,
You will need a newer one.
Your CAR and your Television Set from before 2008 may be in a similar situation.
No, I won't be needing a new one. I'll be buying from elsewhere or building my own.
Apple dropped support for a perfectly good machine at a time when their current MP offering isn't worth the upgrade.
Lesson learned.
I don't expect any company to support hardware almost 7 yrs old. I expect a 4 yr life out of desktops 2 from laptops.
Most people don't replace cars for more then 10+ years, so that analogy is wrong. TVs are the same. I know a lot of people who still have tube and projections TVs without and HDMI support and they have no reason to upgrade in their mind.
Guess I will build hackintoshes and stop giving apple money for hardware.
Do you need any really fast SCSI drives? And PCI (not PCIe) cards to run them? They were the fastest drives available, so I got lots. I have a huge collection of them. Big ones too -- sizes up to 32 GB.
Your CAR and your Television Set from before 2008 may be in a similar situation.
Is it just me...or is the notion of buying a brand new car...and throwing it away four years
later...something profoundly wrong with that?
The excuses being made to 'protect' Apple is reaching hysterical levels.
Apple has completely botched their desktops for years and the latest Mac Pro is
the final nail for me: I don't trust Apple anymore.
You can't sell something and then render it obsolete long before it's time is up.
With an older car, if you take care of it...it will run 100% on all roads/highways without hassle.
What Apple is doing is forcing you to ditch your Mac with chronic updates that 'forces' you to
update your apps with updates that are NO LONGER COMPATIBLE.
I am running 10.6.8, and it does everything I need it to do. I only have one drive with 10.7, and that is just for playing around. I have more [supposedly obsolete] AppleTalk printers in use than anyone I have met on the forums.
They do what I need, so I still use them.
You don't have to do the the updates!
Cars are a bit more expensive then computers. I have an 07 iMac and wouldn't have been mad one bit if 10.8 was a no go because it's done it's job for many yrs. Cars also usually have a 3 yr warranty standard compared to a standard one yr on computers. See where I am going with this. Technology changes so fast. If you want the latest and greatest you have to pay to play. The people mad here would be mad even if their Mac couldn't run os 11 when it comes out. Because regardless of when Apple drops support willingly or is forced to to be progressive someone is going to still own a unsupported computer. **** iPhones came out in 07 are original iPhone owners mad they can't run ios6.
Why 10.8 is not supported on 2006 Mac Pros?
