Mountain Lion incompatible with older Macs

Mountain Lion may be the new code name for the next major upgrade to Apple's OS X, but for some older Mac machines the name might as well be mud. According to the TUAW web site, an anonymous developer has sent out a list of which Macs won't be able to run Mountain Lion.

The list includes the first version of the Macbook Air, which was launched just over four years ago. Yes, that means all of those early adopters to the thin and light notebook are going to have to be satisfied with the current Lion version of OS X.

Mountain Lion also can't be used on iMacs made in late 2006, all Macbook Pros made prior to July 2007, nearly all of the Macbooks with the plastic body casing and the Xserves machines made in late 2006 and early 2008.

As we previously reported, the release of Mountain Lion sometime this summer will come just one year after the release of Lion for Mac owners. Apple has decided to launch major OS X updates every year from now on via a download only business model. That means in 2013 you can expect to see a 10.9 update that will send another batch of older Macs to the update phantom zone.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

LG Miracle caught on video via YouTube

Next Story

TechSpot: HTML 5 Gaming Showcase, Old Classics and Modern Titles You Can Play for Free

165 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I set up an old system for my daughter recently. Motheboard was made in 2004 and it had 1gig of ram. My first thought was to install windows xp but the other 4 pcs in our house were all windows 7. So I gave windows 7 a go and installed it and am happy I did. I was astounded that an operating system runs on a desktop computer which is 6 or more years old. And I have to say it runs fast for what my daughter does. She plays music, watches online tv, youtube etc, wordprocessing and so on. (I would never have installed vista btw).

I'm glad that windows 8 is going for fast and small and will not need more grunt than windows 7.

I was surprised to see that the new Mac OS had such a limited compatibility.

Let's see Lion will cost around $30 plus the hardware meh... around high $2k. It's that time to upgrade what can I say. Mac owners know full well that's how apple does business. You've been warned before.

You know, that's great for Apple that they have 97 billion dollars in cash, but my money's kinda tight, so call me crazy if I want my laptop (that I spent $1800 on) to last more than 4 years before it becomes "obsolete".

Cue the usual rage about people telling us about how Apple are greedy when they want to deprecate hardware, but when Microsoft do it, it's evolution and "the way it has to be" if we want to see new features.

And then cue the Microsoft fanboys crowing on about how it's "only a service pack anyway" - ugh... it was kind of amusing the first few times but it really starts to grate several versions down the line.

And I say this as a non-Macintosh owning, quite content Windows 7 user..

Chicane-UK said,
Cue the usual rage about people telling us about how Apple are greedy when they want to deprecate hardware, but when Microsoft do it, it's evolution and "the way it has to be" if we want to see new features.

How does Microsoft prevent you from installing the newest Windows versions on 4 year old PC's?

Chicane-UK said,
Cue the usual rage about people telling us about how Apple are greedy when they want to deprecate hardware, but when Microsoft do it, it's evolution and "the way it has to be" if we want to see new features.

And then cue the Microsoft fanboys crowing on about how it's "only a service pack anyway" - ugh... it was kind of amusing the first few times but it really starts to grate several versions down the line.

And I say this as a non-Macintosh owning, quite content Windows 7 user..

when was the last time did Microsoft deprecate hardware?

you can run Windows 7 on 2003/2004 PCs provided they have 512MB ram ofc

if they went by apple approach it would be like Windows 8 mandating that your machine have UEFI + DX11+ graphic card or it would refuse to install otherwise
imagine the users rage

If true - I guess I am not sure why people that buy Apple computers would be surprised. How many times did Apple do this by now (broke the backward hardware compatibility)? But it seems like customers just take it and ask for more so... why would they not do it again? (shrug!)

Oddly there is no official announcement by Apple just speculation by one developer. Glad to see that the facts haven't got in the way of a good story.

FYI It runs fine on a 2006 iMac.

Depicus said,
Oddly there is no official announcement by Apple just speculation by one developer. Glad to see that the facts haven't got in the way of a good story.

FYI It runs fine on a 2006 iMac.


^This comment requires attention and follow-up!

In this day and age people expect more than 3 years on a computer. What happens is Apple gives their iOS devices a new cool feature (like iCloud) and then they exclude their older OS from being useful at all with the feature. Apple's iCloud supports Windows Vista, but not OS X Snow Leopard? Come on, Apple. It is clear you are being greedy here. Not everyone can afford (or need) a new computer every 2 years.

This is what makes Windows better than OSX. Typical of apple to to do this to their fans and fans are too blind to see it.
iPad / iPhone has the same fate, kept upgrading new model every year. Face it apple is milking.

minster11 said,
This is what makes Windows better than OSX. Typical of apple to to do this to their fans and fans are too blind to see it.
iPad / iPhone has the same fate, kept upgrading new model every year. Face it apple is milking.

Maybe. But as someone who has jailbroken older iPhones and other iOS devices to put newer, unsupported versions of software on this old hardware, the user experience is awful. It's clunky, slow as molasses, and I'd NEVER offer it as a viable upgrade to users like that. As for the "every year" thing, Samsung has done the same thing (they've also shipped the Note, Ace, Nexus, Infuse, etc.), as has HTC, Motorola, and others. Nothing odd about this. And also, it's important to note that the rate of change regarding game-changing features and speed has been INSANE on mobile devices. Five years ago we had the Samsung Blackjack...remember that? Now we have phones that comb our hair and walk our dogs. No one would think twice about ANY phone from 2007 or 2008 not supporting the full features of a mid-2012 release of that mobile OS. I don't think it's too ridiculous that their OS won't support devices of that age, either.

This is why I stopped buying macs in the early 00's. For the price I would expect them to at least last a long time or have some advantage despite not performing as well as Windows PCs that cost considerably less.

Amarok said,
This is why I stopped buying macs in the early 00's. For the price I would expect them to at least last a long time or have some advantage despite not performing as well as Windows PCs that cost considerably less.

Funny ... my Macbook Pro whips the hell out of every Windows laptop my friends have of the same spec at photoshop etc. Not sure why people have this dumb approach to hardware. It's not ALL about the CPU speed. Jeeeezzzuzzzzz

Amarok said,
This is why I stopped buying macs in the early 00's. For the price I would expect them to at least last a long time or have some advantage despite not performing as well as Windows PCs that cost considerably less.

I agree with you 100%

Spirit Dave said,

Funny ... my Macbook Pro whips the hell out of every Windows laptop my friends have of the same spec at photoshop etc. Not sure why people have this dumb approach to hardware. It's not ALL about the CPU speed. Jeeeezzzuzzzzz

But if it's 4+ years old you'll have to shell out for a new one to get the latest OS.

Amarok said,
This is why I stopped buying macs in the early 00's. For the price I would expect them to at least last a long time or have some advantage despite not performing as well as Windows PCs that cost considerably less.

So you keep your computer for longer than 4-5 years?

laserfloyd said,

But if it's 4+ years old you'll have to shell out for a new one to get the latest OS.

I will upgrade every couple of years or so As I would with a Windows PC too.

Spirit Dave said,

Funny ... my Macbook Pro whips the hell out of every Windows laptop my friends have of the same spec at photoshop etc. Not sure why people have this dumb approach to hardware. It's not ALL about the CPU speed. Jeeeezzzuzzzzz

They must cheap out on their laptops then. Apple lost their edge for designers almost 10 years ago now. They're still widely used in the industry for brand loyalty, not because they actually offer any amazing features that Windows PCs don't. I don't plan to keep a laptop or a desktop for more than 4 years, but my point was that for the vastly inflated price I would expect SOME advantage.

Oh and heya Spirit Dave, I was just thinking about you two the other day as I was cleaning out my Neowin inbox and found those pictures you sent me early-ish last year.

Spirit Dave said,

Funny ... my Macbook Pro whips the hell out of every Windows laptop my friends have of the same spec at photoshop etc. Not sure why people have this dumb approach to hardware. It's not ALL about the CPU speed. Jeeeezzzuzzzzz

Except that Photoshop boots faster on my Windows laptop than it does on the new iMacs my school wasted money on.

Mr Nom Nom's said,

So you keep your computer for longer than 4-5 years?

Yes. I have a Dell laptop from 2005 that came with XP, that I upgraded to Windows Vista and now to Windows 7, that will run Windows 8 just fine later this year... over 7 years from when it was first purchased.

Spirit Dave said,

Funny ... my Macbook Pro whips the hell out of every Windows laptop my friends have of the same spec at photoshop etc. Not sure why people have this dumb approach to hardware. It's not ALL about the CPU speed. Jeeeezzzuzzzzz


Maybe your friends had McAfee running on their machines.

lol, it requires a Mac Pro 2008 or later. So you're telling me a $4000 computer that benchmarks about the same as the current 27 inch iMac can't run essentially the same operating system it came with, plus a few new apps included? Apple just amazes me with this kind of garbage.

Enron said,
lol, it requires a Mac Pro 2008 or later. So you're telling me a $4000 computer that benchmarks about the same as the current 27 inch iMac can't run essentially the same operating system it came with, plus a few new apps included? Apple just amazes me with this kind of garbage.

Would love to see proof of that machine doing what the latest highest spec 27 inch iMac can do. 4 year old processors may sound like the same thing on paper but they're not.

Enron said,
lol, it requires a Mac Pro 2008 or later. So you're telling me a $4000 computer that benchmarks about the same as the current 27 inch iMac can't run essentially the same operating system it came with, plus a few new apps included? Apple just amazes me with this kind of garbage.

Wow, how original - someone pointing out what a massive rip off the Mac Pro is. Take a ticket and stand in line sweet cheeks because it has been a on going gripe by many Mac users for years.

Mr Nom Nom's said,

Wow, how original - someone pointing out what a massive rip off the Mac Pro is. Take a ticket and stand in line sweet cheeks because it has been a on going gripe by many Mac users for years.

You are kidding ? Show me a workstation from Dell, HP,... with similar spec for less $.

Mr Byte said,
OSX has little hardware to support, it is hard to understand why they can't support the older hardware.

Money money money!

Mr Byte said,
OSX has little hardware to support, it is hard to understand why they can't support the older hardware.

More ignorance from the peanut gallery. Apple primarily sells hardware. They only sell software as a means to an end (i.e., selling more hardware). Not that hard to understand for anyone with an IQ over 75.

This is just another reason I've ditched Apple products and moved back to PC. After I wasted money on Mobile Me for a couple of years (yeah I know), they decided to change it into iCloud, which required me to buy a device that can run iOS 5 or buy a new Mac that can run Lion. Since when do you need to buy a new operating system to keep an email address?

Apple will throw you off the bus if you don't buy their latest toys.

This seems like an odd decision for Apple. I imagine a lot of their customers are going to be pretty upset about it. You would think they would develop the OS so that new features just wouldn't be supported on older hardware...

M_Lyons10 said,
This seems like an odd decision for Apple. I imagine a lot of their customers are going to be pretty upset about it. You would think they would develop the OS so that new features just wouldn't be supported on older hardware...

Not odd at all. Go back up and read my post about the difference between Apple and Microsoft. That should help your ignorance.

That's the main thing I don't understand about Mac users. Okay, you don't want to run Windows, but why actually buy overpriced hardware when you can get much better specs for the same amount of cash? We have internet, which makes any possible information available, so actually just buying the retail DVD and installing the OS on a laptop or desktop isn't really that hard.

I've had experiences with Snow Leopard, and it was the only OS I bothered to use, so I can also understand why people can't be bothered with tweaking rigs and specs and bootloaders and drivers and everything that comes with building a Hachintosh, but that doesn't mean they should just empty their wallets to Apple. Ridiculous!

Gornot said,
That's the main thing I don't understand about Mac users. Okay, you don't want to run Windows, but why actually buy overpriced hardware when you can get much better specs for the same amount of cash? We have internet, which makes any possible information available, so actually just buying the retail DVD and installing the OS on a laptop or desktop isn't really that hard.

I've had experiences with Snow Leopard, and it was the only OS I bothered to use, so I can also understand why people can't be bothered with tweaking rigs and specs and bootloaders and drivers and everything that comes with building a Hachintosh, but that doesn't mean they should just empty their wallets to Apple. Ridiculous!

Retail DVD? What's that? Apple is only selling this OS "upgrade" through their App Store. They might release it on a $70 flash drive with an Apple logo if they're feeling good about it.

Gornot said,
That's the main thing I don't understand about Mac users. Okay, you don't want to run Windows, but why actually buy overpriced hardware when you can get much better specs for the same amount of cash? We have internet, which makes any possible information available, so actually just buying the retail DVD and installing the OS on a laptop or desktop isn't really that hard.

I've had experiences with Snow Leopard, and it was the only OS I bothered to use, so I can also understand why people can't be bothered with tweaking rigs and specs and bootloaders and drivers and everything that comes with building a Hachintosh, but that doesn't mean they should just empty their wallets to Apple. Ridiculous!

Whats ridiculous is that you've even bothered to make this statement. Clearly, you don't know anything about Apple hardware beyond what you read on the spec sheet. And you know what? While I am typing this on my far nicer machine than whatever laptop you own, I'll enjoy it, while you sit there racking your brains about why your shonky little laptop that creaks when you move and has dull colour on screen is less expensive than a Macbook Pro

Gornot said,
That's the main thing I don't understand about Mac users. Okay, you don't want to run Windows, but why actually buy overpriced hardware when you can get much better specs for the same amount of cash? We have internet, which makes any possible information available, so actually just buying the retail DVD and installing the OS on a laptop or desktop isn't really that hard.

I've had experiences with Snow Leopard, and it was the only OS I bothered to use, so I can also understand why people can't be bothered with tweaking rigs and specs and bootloaders and drivers and everything that comes with building a Hachintosh, but that doesn't mean they should just empty their wallets to Apple. Ridiculous!

Because Windows, to put it bluntly, is crap which is why I buy a Mac. The heart of a Mac is Mac OS X which is what makes the difference between getting a Wintel PC over buying a Mac. Sorry, I want a computer supported out of the box by Apple - I don' twang to sit around hacking the living crap out of a retail DVD just to save a few dollars.

Btw, if Microsoft actually FIXED their operating system I'd move to the Wintel PC platform but Windows 8 so far has been nothing more than a monumental let down.

Mr Nom Nom's said,
Because Windows, to put it bluntly, is crap which is why I buy a Mac.

Isn't it the other way around? I agree Macs are great pieces of hardware but I'd rather use Windows 7 than OSX. I automatically deduced you know nothing about operating systems the moment you said Windows is crap.

Spirit Dave said,

Whats ridiculous is that you've even bothered to make this statement. Clearly, you don't know anything about Apple hardware beyond what you read on the spec sheet. And you know what? While I am typing this on my far nicer machine than whatever laptop you own, I'll enjoy it, while you sit there racking your brains about why your shonky little laptop that creaks when you move and has dull colour on screen is less expensive than a Macbook Pro

I haven't logged in here in about 2 years but I had to just to reply to this failure of a comment.

This is where the stereotypes about Apple fanboys come from... people like you! You clearly have not done your research and realized that there are many better quality products out there that don't have a half eaten apple stamped on them. Is apple stuff generally pretty good quality? Yes. Is it expensive? Yes. Is there less expensive, but equally good, or BETTER quality alternatives? YES!!! (if you disagree with this, I recommend you pull your head out of your @ss and get out of the house once in a while)

PS I'm typing this one my work laptop, which is not apple, is reasonably priced and the keyboard isn't creaking or flexing at all. = o crazyness!!

Mr Nom Nom's said,

Because Windows, to put it bluntly, is crap which is why I buy a Mac. The heart of a Mac is Mac OS X which is what makes the difference between getting a Wintel PC over buying a Mac. Sorry, I want a computer supported out of the box by Apple - I don' twang to sit around hacking the living crap out of a retail DVD just to save a few dollars.

Btw, if Microsoft actually FIXED their operating system I'd move to the Wintel PC platform but Windows 8 so far has been nothing more than a monumental let down.


If you hate Windows, it means you hate computers

just buy a laptop wityh close enough specs and downlaod the DMG from ur old mac burn to a disk and install on new half price laptop problem solved !!!!

APPLE have and always will be greedy sods !, u can buy the same hardware in a non apple system at half the flipping cost they sell u !!!

gunny2k6 said,
just buy a laptop wityh close enough specs and downlaod the DMG from ur old mac burn to a disk and install on new half price laptop problem solved !!!!

APPLE have and always will be greedy sods !, u can buy the same hardware in a non apple system at half the flipping cost they sell u !!!

Which is a load of crap - the only thing you can bring to the table is some piece of crap from Acer that is 3 inches thick, 15inch low resolution screen and a 2 1/2 hour battery life. Of course Apple computers look expensive when what it is being compared against is a piece of crap - how about comparing a MacBook Pro to a Lenovo Thinkpad then come back spewing your ill-informed bullcrap.

Mr Nom Nom's said,

Which is a load of crap - the only thing you can bring to the table is some piece of crap from Acer that is 3 inches thick, 15inch low resolution screen and a 2 1/2 hour battery life. Of course Apple computers look expensive when what it is being compared against is a piece of crap - how about comparing a MacBook Pro to a Lenovo Thinkpad then come back spewing your ill-informed bullcrap.

Example:

Macbook Pro 15-inch: 2.2 GHz ($1799.00)

1440x900
2.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
4GB 1333MHz RAM
500GB 5400-rpm
AMD Radeon HD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5
Battery (7 Hours)
--

HP Pavilion dv6t 15.6" ($1494.99)

1920x1080
3.6GHz Intel Core i7
2GB AMD Radeon HD 7690M GDDR5
8GB DDR3 1333MHz
750GB 7200-rpm
Battery (6hours)

Your argument is invalid. Next time you're condescending, try comparing your MacBook to a real computer. Even the base model dv6t has higher specs than your MacBook at only $849.99.

Mr Nom Nom's said,

Which is a load of crap - the only thing you can bring to the table is some piece of crap from Acer that is 3 inches thick, 15inch low resolution screen and a 2 1/2 hour battery life. Of course Apple computers look expensive when what it is being compared against is a piece of crap - how about comparing a MacBook Pro to a Lenovo Thinkpad then come back spewing your ill-informed bullcrap.


You just insulted a Lenovo Thinkpad?

The joke's on you, sir.

Mr Nom Nom's said,

Which is a load of crap - the only thing you can bring to the table is some piece of crap from Acer that is 3 inches thick, 15inch low resolution screen and a 2 1/2 hour battery life. Of course Apple computers look expensive when what it is being compared against is a piece of crap - how about comparing a MacBook Pro to a Lenovo Thinkpad then come back spewing your ill-informed bullcrap.

I have a Thinkpad with an i5 nice try, I know if I drop my Thinkpad it will still work, if you drop your Unibody Macbook Pro it could be a really expensive coaster.

manosdoc said,
No worries, Windows 8 can be easily installed without bootcamp on those Macs.

MS should reach out and say "Hey, can't upgrade to Mountain Lion because your hardware is too old? No worries, Windows 8 will pick up where you left off."

laserfloyd said,

MS should reach out and say "Hey, can't upgrade to Mountain Lion because your hardware is too old? No worries, Windows 8 will pick up where you left off."

They should run a macrage campaign, like their droidrage campaigns for WP7!

This is exactly what I was talking about in the previous post about Apple removing updates. This is how they force users to fill their pockets. Greedy insolent *******. Microsoft is doing the same, but a bit more cautiously - they put some extra code into IE9 so it can't be installed on XP, but I'm sure that someone skilled will manage to install it on XP.

And another thought of mine - only insane people will use this MAC OS X. It's made like this, so it probably won't run on different hardware, so no one uses Hackintosh. Just use Windows XP and be sure you wont have troubles for years.

Just look at the big picture - the world is going insane. Big corporations are indirectly manipulating people to waste more and more money on useless things. And stupidly, people do that.

I have nothing more to say. Everyone decides for himself. But, personally, I don't like being manipulated, and I'm glad that I can see it coming.

Saex_Conroy said,
But, personally, I don't like being manipulated, and I'm glad that I can see it coming.

Apple are greedy for removing older support.
Microsoft does the same thing.
You should use Microsoft.
I'm not manipulated like everyone else.

I see.

The thing is XP is 10+ years old now.

I personally think support for XP should be gone, so many times I have people with XP machines having problems or unable to do something, to which I generally tell them they should upgrade their 10 years old PC. There might be some argument in keeping XP for financial reasons... but those same people have access to free Windows 7 Pro through our University.

Frankly a machine that was only released 4 years ago should be upgradeable... in educational institutions they could even still be in 4/5 year Apple Care warranties. If Apple believe after 4 years you should upgrade, then I would argue Apple should replace these machines still in warranty as effectively broken.

Mike Brown said,

Apple are greedy for removing older support.
Microsoft does the same thing.
You should use Microsoft.
I'm not manipulated like everyone else.

I see.

You don't seem to understand what I mean. Calling you names is below my level, I've made my conclusions about you.

lt8480 said,
The thing is XP is 10+ years old now.

I personally think support for XP should be gone, so many times I have people with XP machines having problems or unable to do something, to which I generally tell them they should upgrade their 10 years old PC. There might be some argument in keeping XP for financial reasons... but those same people have access to free Windows 7 Pro through our University.

Frankly a machine that was only released 4 years ago should be upgradeable... in educational institutions they could even still be in 4/5 year Apple Care warranties. If Apple believe after 4 years you should upgrade, then I would argue Apple should replace these machines still in warranty as effectively broken.

Name one Windows 7 feature that is worth upgrading to and wasting money on new hardware and OS.
I've used Windows 7 for so long, I don't see such a thing, except Aero related features, which is not not really a feature, as the server versions of Windows 7 don't even have uxtheme.dll or whatever it was called.. the Themes Service.

Saex_Conroy said,
This is exactly what I was talking about in the previous post about Apple removing updates. This is how they force users to fill their pockets. Greedy insolent *******.

I see that ignorance abounds around here today. Let me say it again (and try to get this through your thick ****ing skull): APPLE IS PRIMARILY A COMPUTER COMPANY, NOT A SOFTWARE COMPANY!!!!!!!!!! They make their profits from selling computers (and other hardware), not operating systems. They just happen to also make the operating system that runs their hardware.

Saex_Conroy said,
This is exactly what I was talking about in the previous post about Apple removing updates. This is how they force users to fill their pockets. Greedy insolent *******. Microsoft is doing the same, but a bit more cautiously - they put some extra code into IE9 so it can't be installed on XP, but I'm sure that someone skilled will manage to install it on XP.

And another thought of mine - only insane people will use this MAC OS X. It's made like this, so it probably won't run on different hardware, so no one uses Hackintosh. Just use Windows XP and be sure you wont have troubles for years.

Just look at the big picture - the world is going insane. Big corporations are indirectly manipulating people to waste more and more money on useless things. And stupidly, people do that.

I have nothing more to say. Everyone decides for himself. But, personally, I don't like being manipulated, and I'm glad that I can see it coming.

xp is ****ing 11years old, get over it allready

[quote=Saex_Conroy said,]This is exactly what I was talking about in the previous post about Apple removing updates. This is how they force users to fill their pockets. Greedy insolent *******. Microsoft is doing the same, but a bit more cautiously - they put some extra code into IE9 so it can't be installed on XP, but I'm sure that someone skilled will manage to install it on XP.[/quote]

Read and repeat: Direct2D/DirectWrite and WDDM - keep repeating it until it burns into your subconscious resulting in stupid posts such as your one become something you refer to as your 'dark days on the internet'.

[q]And another thought of mine - only insane people will use this MAC OS X. It's made like this, so it probably won't run on different hardware, so no one uses Hackintosh. Just use Windows XP and be sure you wont have troubles for years.

Just look at the big picture - the world is going insane. Big corporations are indirectly manipulating people to waste more and more money on useless things. And stupidly, people do that.

I have nothing more to say. Everyone decides for himself. But, personally, I don't like being manipulated, and I'm glad that I can see it coming.[/quote]

Oh how horrible, 5-6 year old computers aren't supported. Observe, this is me playing the world smallest violin for your heart ache that your currently suffering:

http://mexalapotis.files.wordp...sarkozy-smallest-violin.jpg

Saex_Conroy said,
This is exactly what I was talking about in the previous post about Apple removing updates. This is how they force users to fill their pockets. Greedy insolent *******. Microsoft is doing the same, but a bit more cautiously - they put some extra code into IE9 so it can't be installed on XP, but I'm sure that someone skilled will manage to install it on XP.

And another thought of mine - only insane people will use this MAC OS X. It's made like this, so it probably won't run on different hardware, so no one uses Hackintosh. Just use Windows XP and be sure you wont have troubles for years.

Just look at the big picture - the world is going insane. Big corporations are indirectly manipulating people to waste more and more money on useless things. And stupidly, people do that.

I have nothing more to say. Everyone decides for himself. But, personally, I don't like being manipulated, and I'm glad that I can see it coming.

Most idiotic post I've seen on Neowin in a long time, and that's saying something. Windows XP is a decade old OS. No one should be using it except those that absolutely HAVE to rely on legacy software (in which case XP Mode for Win7 Pro/Ultimate/Enterprise works fine), or those with 5+ year old computers, like your grandma. Virtually all modern machines come with at least 4 GB RAM, and many of those get into the 6-8 GB range, if not higher. Windows XP, as a purely 32-bit OS (WinXP x64 is Server 2003 with an XP shell, it's not XP), cannot take advantage of modern day machines, so you can take your little pro-XP arguments which have no basis in reality, and go away forever.

Saex_Conroy said,
blah blah

Nope installing IE9 on XP is not possible for the same technical reasons that DX10 and above aren't available on XP.

There is no " but I'm sure that someone skilled will manage to install it on XP" unless that one person manages to somehow completely rewrite the XP graphics stack to match that of Vista and 7.

Also how do plan to fix all the inevitable security holes that will crop up and NOT be fixed by MS when they eventually drop all support for XP?

Saex_Conroy said,

Name one Windows 7 feature that is worth upgrading to and wasting money on new hardware and OS.
I've used Windows 7 for so long, I don't see such a thing, except Aero related features, which is not not really a feature, as the server versions of Windows 7 don't even have uxtheme.dll or whatever it was called.. the Themes Service.

this is true...and this is why people on Windows XP didn't upgrade to Windows 7.

so Microsoft makes some sweeping changes to Windows in Windows 8, and Windows 8 is going to be a clear upgrade. But people complain. Sigh.

Ironically the ancient 2006 MacBook Pro is compatible (uses an ATI GPU) but newer Macs running Intel GPUs are not. Go figure!
EDIT: Just read the ATI X1600 GPU is not compatible, so that rules out the 2006 MacBook Pro too.

Mateus said,
Ironically the ancient 2006 MacBook Pro is compatible (uses an ATI GPU) but newer Macs running Intel GPUs are not. Go figure!
EDIT: Just read the ATI X1600 GPU is not compatible, so that rules out the 2006 MacBook Pro too.

<dead pan expression> Oh how horrible, a 6 year old laptop isn't supported - what will you do?

Mr Nom Nom's said,

<dead pan expression> Oh how horrible, a 6 year old laptop isn't supported - what will you do?

Install Windows 7 or Windows 8 on it...

no surprise, 10.7 doesnt support anything older than core 2 duo based macs, I tried running it on a macbook pro with a core duo 2.1ghz, and no dice

I have a late 2011 Macbook Pro, so I'm all good, but I do admit, this is a failing on Apple's part for the earlier adopting masses... that said, I guess they just want the experience to be incredibly smooth, and Apple will have market research suggesting how many new machines have been purchased in the last 4 years or so and figured there's enough to suggest the upgrade period is long enough. I for one know that within 2 years I'll upgrade my Macbook Pro to the latest model, and I know most of my friends will be doing the same, within 3 - 4 years at most. So I don't think it'll affect as many people as you'd assume. Plus, Lion is still a fantastic OS, and in fact so is Snow Leopard. I mean, I will be updating to Mountain Lion on day 1, but that doesn't mean I'll feel like the previous two OS's are 'bad'.

The strategy is very simple:

Apple is still a hardware company first and foremost. They don't make any real profit whatsoever from software of any kind, and that includes OS X. The business model is easy to comprehend: force users into buying new computers (that's hardware, you realize) every few years by modifying the underlying operating system so it just won't work on older hardware that's already been purchased - and please note that I'm very specific when I say "it just won't work" instead of "it's not technologically possible for this newer OS to run on that older hardware."

That's where the difference lies. This isn't a PowerPC vs Intel situation where they simply decided to stop writing PowerPC code and truly did force owners and users of the older PowerPC-based hardware to upgrade finally if they want(ed) to run the latest versions of OS X.

But this time, it's simply a money-grabbing issue: they wouldn't make any profit by just dropping Mountain Lion on the iTunes App Store for purchase by current users of said older and fully compatible hardware all the way back to 2006 when the first Intel-based Macs were sold. This is coming from a purely profit standpoint that will effectively screw supporters of Apple who purchased such hardware when it was "new."

This is pretty funny, actually, because at some point in 2012 a first gen MacBook will be able to run Windows 8 without breaking a sweat but it won't even be to run the latest version of the "world's most advanced OS" the company that built the laptop makes.

Hello, forced obsolescence!!! Oh, the irony...

First: ML is at pre-developer status at the moment.
Second: I am sceptical about information received from an "anonymous developer".

It may be that the pre-developer version of ML does not run on older Macs because of the older integrated Intel Graphics Chip. But that does not automatically mean that the final version wont run either.

Yea this seems like something apple would do. Make people upgrade there machines within 2-3 years. Also im interested in how this effect the Hackint0sh people!

lflashl said,
Yea this seems like something apple would do. Make people upgrade there machines within 2-3 years. Also im interested in how this effect the Hackint0sh people!
The newest machine that won't be able to run it (assuming this is still the case in the final version) is over 4 years old. Where did you get 2-3 years from?

virtorio said,
The newest machine that won't be able to run it (assuming this is still the case in the final version) is over 4 years old. Where did you get 2-3 years from?

Probably the iPhone, where they stop giving you iOS updates after about 3 years. I know my iPhone 3GS is nearing 3 years since release (will be 3 years in June), so it probably won't get iOS 6 when it comes out.

MightyJordan said,

Probably the iPhone, where they stop giving you iOS updates after about 3 years. I know my iPhone 3GS is nearing 3 years since release (will be 3 years in June), so it probably won't get iOS 6 when it comes out.

I don't think he was talking about iOS devices. Wish my Android phone would still be getting upgrades after three years. Even one upgrade would have been nice.

lflashl said,
Yea this seems like something apple would do. Make people upgrade there machines within 2-3 years. Also im interested in how this effect the Hackint0sh people!

There are already some people who installed the developer preview on hackintosh... (there are problems with it now, but already works)

The hackintosh people are already running it. Some on hardware that's probably older than the "outdated" Apple hardware that won't be supported.

protocol7 said,
The hackintosh people are already running it. Some on hardware that's probably older than the "outdated" Apple hardware that won't be supported.
The restrictions are not enforced yet (even on real mac hardware)

My late '09 Mac mini just scraps in for the minimum requirements for 10.8. Guess that will be the last OSX update for it then, come next year and I'd say the min will be a '10 Mac mini or higher. To be honest I'm not too bothered, that is 2 major OS updates for it which isn't that bad really.

So the Mac hardware from 5 and 6 years ago won't be supported in an OS that brings only one year of changes. Okay, fair enough…

Apples strategy has no logic because Core 2 Duo still supports 64 bit this is where Microsoft has a better area at least you would still be able to run Windows 8 or still Windows 7 on a 4 yr machine.

shadodemon said,
Apples strategy has no logic because Core 2 Duo still supports 64 bit this is where Microsoft has a better area at least you would still be able to run Windows 8 or still Windows 7 on a 4 yr machine.

Exactly, you can still run Lion on your old machine, the same as you can run SL or Leopard on the older ones. You don't need to upgrade.

shadodemon said,
Apples strategy has no logic because Core 2 Duo still supports 64 bit this is where Microsoft has a better area at least you would still be able to run Windows 8 or still Windows 7 on a 4 yr machine.

Remember though that Apple is in the business (primarily) of selling hardware (i.e., computers and phones/media players), while Microsoft is in the business of selling software. So with that in mind, is it any wonder that Apple would want to encourage customers to buy newer hardware from time to time, while Microsoft would try to support the widest array of hardware possible with their OS?

It all comes down to the fact that Apple and Microsoft are in completely different (although related) business fields. Kind of like comparing Apple (and Dell, Acer, etc.) to a car maker and Microsoft to a gasoline company.

shadodemon said,
Apples strategy has no logic because Core 2 Duo still supports 64 bit this is where Microsoft has a better area at least you would still be able to run Windows 8 or still Windows 7 on a 4 yr machine.

And there are still Core 2 Duo's that are going to be supported with Mountain Lion such as the MacBook Pro that came with the 9400M GPU. The issue isn't with the CPU but the chipset itself.

roadwarrior said,

Remember though that Apple is in the business (primarily) of selling hardware (i.e., computers and phones/media players), while Microsoft is in the business of selling software. So with that in mind, is it any wonder that Apple would want to encourage customers to buy newer hardware from time to time, while Microsoft would try to support the widest array of hardware possible with their OS?

It all comes down to the fact that Apple and Microsoft are in completely different (although related) business fields. Kind of like comparing Apple (and Dell, Acer, etc.) to a car maker and Microsoft to a gasoline company.


kinda true...

Mr Nom Nom's said,

And there are still Core 2 Duo's that are going to be supported with Mountain Lion such as the MacBook Pro that came with the 9400M GPU. The issue isn't with the CPU but the chipset itself.


Some Core 2 Duos isnt enough either all or nothing, this is where Windows has an advantage still. Its a horrible strategy that Apple is doing what was the point of getting 64 bit cpus if it wasnt meant to be long term support? With this type of strategy Id bet that most Mac users would be using still Snow Leopard or Lion or start switching to Windows 7 or 8 full time.

Co-ords said,
Let's face it, try running Windows 7 on a PC from 4 years ago...

I'll bite. I do run Windows 7 quite happily on a Dell Inspiron 6400 from 2006. I have no performance issues with it and it's perfectly good for laptop work.

Co-ords said,
Let's face it, try running Windows 7 on a PC from 4 years ago...
I had Windows 7 running on a mid range computer (2.2ghz pentium 4 with 2gb of ram) from 10 years ago 2002 and I still have it running on low end laptop (1.6 celeron integrated graphics 1 gb ram) and it ran great on the desktop a little sluggish on the laptop but I do have Aero Glass on so that probably doesn't help. The best thing is... Windows 8 has the same requirements as Windows 7.

Glorious said,

I'll bite. I do run Windows 7 quite happily on a Dell Inspiron 6400 from 2006. I have no performance issues with it and it's perfectly good for laptop work.

My mom's *desktop* is even older - a P4 Prescott-based HP DC7600 refurb that originally came with XP Pro; however, despite the mere 512MB of DDR2 and Intel G31 onboard graphics, it makes for a decent 7 x64 light-work desktop. (The memory - the lack thereof - is being fixed in the meantime; a pair of 2 GB PNY Optima DDR2-800 DIMMs are going in later today; the G31 graphics is not an issue, since Web browsing - not gaming - is the raison d'etre.)

Co-ords said,
Let's face it, try running Windows 7 on a PC from 4 years ago...

The oldest machine I installed Windows 7 was a desktop with an Athlon XP 3200+ and 1GB of RAM, I built it in 2004. No problems at all.

Co-ords said,
Let's face it, try running Windows 7 on a PC from 4 years ago...
I've a laptop from 2002 (2.0 Ghz processor, 512BM RAM) and its running windows 7 like a charm!

SouthWest said,

The oldest machine I installed Windows 7 was a desktop with an Athlon XP 3200+ and 1GB of RAM, I built it in 2004. No problems at all.

The pathetic anti-apple crap on Neowin does my head in at times, however, as everyone else has said - Windows 7 is a pretty amazing OS that seems to sometimes run better than XP speed-wise on low spec older machines. Not from the off, but say... 3 months after install, XP has slowed to a crawl, but 7 keeps on running.

So yeah... Co-ords = #fail

Co-ords said,
Let's face it, try running Windows 7 on a PC from 4 years ago...

Haha, I won't bother to refute your ridiculous suggestion, as others already have; however, I will recommend you read up on facts, in future, before you imply something isn't the case

Co-ords said,
Let's face it, try running Windows 7 on a PC from 4 years ago...

I was ready to agree with you until I forgot just how old my current Dell laptop is. I looked it up and have had it for nearly 5 years, I did bump the ram from 2 to 4 GB and threw a SSD in there but had previously used it for years with the stock components. Without sounding too biased it ran and still does run very nicely. I have no problems with HD content or the odd game (Played Crysis/Crysis Wars on it just fine back in the day) and it's only running a C2D @2.0GHz and a Nvidia 8600M GT.

I've never had a Mac but have used the OS before and like to think I keep up to date with the advancements of each version and it definitely seems to lack any new features that require a significant amount of hardware power or at least enough to remove compatibility with the stated models. Seems to be more about forcing Mac users to have the latest and greatest by upgrading completely rather than just the OS. As alexalex stated above, the GMA950 and X3100 seem to be the bottleneck but from my experience with both graphics cards they're more than good enough for W7 and certainly don't show their age on the current Mac OS.

Co-ords said,
Let's face it, try running Windows 7 on a PC from 4 years ago...

Hp Pavilion 6695 EL
Year 2007

And now it's running perfectly windows 8 dev preview

Co-ords said,
Let's face it, try running Windows 7 on a PC from 4 years ago...

I'm running it perfectly on a PC from 2005 that came with XP. I only added some RAMs and changed the graphics card because it broke up.

Co-ords said,
Let's face it, try running Windows 7 on a PC from 4 years ago...

Used to have a Dell laptop from 2006 running Windows 7 without any problem whatsoever.
Core-2 Quad Intel desktop from 2008... Runs Windows 7 and Windows 8 Dev Preview like a Ferrari. You really don't know what you're saying. Windows 7 rules.

SouthWest said,

The oldest machine I installed Windows 7 was a desktop with an Athlon XP 3200+ and 1GB of RAM, I built it in 2004. No problems at all.

Same here. It ran smoothly and without problems at all.

Co-ords said,
....blatant lies...

The sad thing is that even though your FUD was revealed to be a big fat lie, you'll continue to spread it =(

Hollow.Droid said,

I was ready to agree with you until I forgot just how old my current Dell laptop is. I looked it up and have had it for nearly 5 years, I did bump the ram from 2 to 4 GB and threw a SSD in there but had previously used it for years with the stock components. Without sounding too biased it ran and still does run very nicely. I have no problems with HD content or the odd game (Played Crysis/Crysis Wars on it just fine back in the day) and it's only running a C2D @2.0GHz and a Nvidia 8600M GT. =


WTF?! Man. That computer can run even Vista perfectly fine! I have those same specs but with a 2.4 processor. So it shouldn't be a surprise that could run 7 like a new machine

But now that you say it.... Damn, it's going to 4 years my laptop too!

Co-ords said,
Let's face it, try running Windows 7 on a PC from 4 years ago...

Oh, By The Way. You should note that Windows 7 will be 3 years old this year! And it ran better than vista All 2007+ models.

Co-ords said,
Let's face it, try running Windows 7 on a PC from 4 years ago...

Had it running on a P4 2.4B, which is 10 years old, without issues. I would probably still be running it on that had the cpu not died. Thinking about this takes me down memory lane. I was running a p3 800 when I first joined neowin 11 years ago. The p4 2.4B was my subsequent upgrade which I happily used xp on, then vista, then 7.

Edited by linsook, Feb 17 2012, 12:00pm :

Co-ords said,
Let's face it, try running Windows 7 on a PC from 4 years ago...

Windows 7 will run on any PC that can run Vista. Windows 8 will run on any PC that can run 7.

Co-ords said,
Let's face it, try running Windows 7 on a PC from 4 years ago...

try 8 years ago, had windows 7 running on my Toshiba Centrino 1.8 ghz 2gb ram

Co-ords said,
Let's face it, try running Windows 7 on a PC from 4 years ago...

Never could a comment fail so hard as this.

Co-ords said,
Let's face it, try running Windows 7 on a PC from 4 years ago...

i also had windows 7 running on an old celeron 1.5 laptop with 2gig ram, and it ran darn well

Co-ords said,
Let's face it, try running Windows 7 on a PC from 4 years ago...

I've got a trial of windows thin PC here and it runs perfectly fine on a 866Mhz P3. In fact, it runs very smooth.

Enron said,

Windows 7 will run on any PC that can run Vista. Windows 8 will run on any PC that can run XP.


Fixed it for you!

Co-ords said,
Let's face it, try running Windows 7 on a PC from 4 years ago...

Got a copy of it running on an Intel 845 motherboard with a 2.3GHz Celeron single-core and 512MB of memory in my kitchen.

Co-ords said,
Let's face it, try running Windows 7 on a PC from 4 years ago...

P4 1.6GHz with 768MB of ram. Think it's from 2002. Runs 7 perfectly fine. Glass and all.

Co-ords said,
Let's face it, try running Windows 7 on a PC from 4 years ago...

I'll bite too, I have WIndows 7 running on a bunch of old Dell GX260's where I work. Runs fine. At home, my daughter has an old gateway profile 4......wait for it...wait for it...... running windows 7. So that blows your statement out of the water.

Co-ords said,
Let's face it, try running Windows 7 on a PC from 4 years ago...

I run Windows 7 on the desktop I built for myself in my junior year of college...8 years ago. It runs great! Super smooth and does everything. It ran as my primary computer this way for 2 years, and is now connected to my TV in the living room as a media center computer.

All the FUD that Apple people throw around about Macs having a longer lifespan is so ridiculous, and I think the comments on here prove it.

Co-ords said,
Let's face it, try running Windows 7 on a PC from 4 years ago...

Windows 7 will run on platforms from 10 years ago just fine.

512mb of RAM and 800mhz is not 'demanding' resource requirements, when you consider Android needs the same level of specifications on a phone.

How about we put this in a different context...

Windows 8 is literally being tested on WP7 devices, with 512mb of RAM and a 1st Gen SnapDragon processor. The FULL Windows 8 desktop OS. (Bing/Google it)

Apple needs a good godslap for making fun of Vista.

Co-ords said,
Let's face it, try running Windows 7 on a PC from 4 years ago...
Sony Vaio VGN from 2006 with a 1024MB of RAM, 1.66GHz Intel Pentium 4, Intel GMA 950, running Windows 7 Home Premium x64. Your point is invalid.

Co-ords said,
Let's face it, try running Windows 7 on a PC from 4 years ago...

Runs pretty good actually. On hardware that is 7 to 8 yrs old even.

Co-ords said,
Let's face it, try running Windows 7 on a PC from 4 years ago...

I think its safe to say this guy runs a Mac

My motto has always been "If its runs XP, it can run 7 better (mabey with some ram here or there)

Is there actually any reason hardware wise why they chose to do this or have they actually started to get that lazy?!

Mark said,
Is there actually any reason hardware wise why they chose to do this or have they actually started to get that lazy?!
I think if you substitute "lazy" for "greedy" you may be on to something. My money is on it being a marketing strategy, getting people with older generation macbooks to shell out more money if they want to have the latest OS.

Meh, I'm still on Snow Leopard. I had no incentive to buy Lion, and if Mountain Lion is going to require me to change my Macbook then I'll probably just buy a new laptop and install Windows 7.

Mark said,
Is there actually any reason hardware wise why they chose to do this or have they actually started to get that lazy?!

Yes there is (you haven' read the original post). It is due to Intel's graphice GPUs

Dropping support for these models in Mountain Lion appears to have something to do with the Intel integrated graphics processors from that era; no Mac with an Intel GMA 950 or Intel GMA X3100 graphics processor will be supported in Mountain Lion.

Intrinsica said,
I think if you substitute "lazy" for "greedy" you may be on to something. My money is on it being a marketing strategy, getting people with older generation macbooks to shell out more money if they want to have the latest OS.

Goodness, companies are out to make money? What a startling revelation!

alexalex said,

Yes there is (you haven' read the original post). It is due to Intel's graphice GPUs

Dropping support for these models in Mountain Lion appears to have something to do with the Intel integrated graphics processors from that era; no Mac with an Intel GMA 950 or Intel GMA X3100 graphics processor will be supported in Mountain Lion.

Poorest excuse if I ever heard one. Write your drivers and support of the OS to run on older machines and obviously older machines lose out on features that only newer harder can offer. Done, everybody's happy, and obviously if there is enough features on the new hardware, people will still upgrade, rather than being forced the way Apple have been doing with their iPhones and now this OS.

alexalex said,

Yes there is (you haven' read the original post). It is due to Intel's graphice GPUs

Dropping support for these models in Mountain Lion appears to have something to do with the Intel integrated graphics processors from that era; no Mac with an Intel GMA 950 or Intel GMA X3100 graphics processor will be supported in Mountain Lion.

And yet, Vista was called a horrible OS because it did not support 8 year old graphics cards. There were even law suits (that were cheered by a certain group of people) because some computers had a Vista Ready sticker, but did not have all the drivers on ship day that did not support all the bells and whistles. But an Apple computer that is a couple years old, and you can't install the newest version of Mac OS X (er, OS X, sorry, I get confused with all the name changes in this version of the Apple latest, because MS name changes were never criticized) because of a graphics chip, no problem. It is the consumer's fault for buying a computer that does not support Mountain Lion.

Mark said,
Is there actually any reason hardware wise why they chose to do this or have they actually started to get that lazy?!

The correct term is greedy not lazy.

The technical reason is that Mountain Lion will only support machines with a 64-bit EFI (like BIOS). The machines that aren't supported any more have 32-bit EFI even though they have 64-bit CPUs.

No idea why they dropped support for 32-bit bootloaders though.

Intrinsica said,
I think if you substitute "lazy" for "greedy" you may be on to something. My money is on it being a marketing strategy, getting people with older generation macbooks to shell out more money if they want to have the latest OS.

That can easily backfire. Look at Vista.

MASTER260 said,

That can easily backfire. Look at Vista.

I feel like I'm the only person on the planet that never had any problems with Vista.

MASTER260 said,
That can easily backfire. Look at Vista.

But that isn't what happened with Vista. Vista got a bad name because the laptops were being supplied at the beginning as "Vista ready." When people took their laptops home, they found that there either weren't drivers for their devices or that the drivers that were there were buggy. Basically, Vista is irrelevant to this topic.

robinjam said,

I feel like I'm the only person on the planet that never had any problems with Vista.

Nope your not worked great here for me on various computers old and new.

iKenndac said,
The technical reason is that Mountain Lion will only support machines with a 64-bit EFI (like BIOS). The machines that aren't supported any more have 32-bit EFI even though they have 64-bit CPUs.

No idea why they dropped support for 32-bit bootloaders though.

newer secure boot type loader?

Mountain Lion also can't be used on iMacs made in late 2006, all Macbook Pros made prior to July 2007, nearly all of the Macbooks with the plastic body casing and the Xserves machines made in late 2006 and early 2008.

So basically, since nobody's paid Apple for any new equipment, they made the operating system take up so much resources that it won't run on old hardware, so you're forced to upgrade to a new (and still over-priced) computer.

Unless those old machines somehow became non-Turing complete in the past 4-6 years, then Apple is just screwing their customers.

robinjam said,
I feel like I'm the only person on the planet that never had any problems with Vista.

I never had any problems, but I wasn't a huge fan until I vLite'd almost everything out of the OS. Then Win7 came out and everyone realized it was Windows Vista done proper. Come to think of it, I'm glad Vista was the flop it was, because Microsoft really raised the bar afterwards to ensure Win7 was the experience it should have been (and indeed, I think it's a great operating system).

robinjam said,

I feel like I'm the only person on the planet that never had any problems with Vista.

The biggest problem with Vista was the vendors dragging their asses with driver support. Most waited until it shipped to even start working on it.

nohone said,

And yet, Vista was called a horrible OS because it did not support 8 year old graphics cards.
I'm sorry but Vista was called horrible because it was just plain horrible. At the time I built a brand new PC (with the newest parts available, all of them "Vista compatible") and Vista still ran like a dog on it while OSX86 and WinXP ran like champs

Vista started sour and it left many people with the "ew vista" feeling. I went to Vista after it had been out a couple of years and it was flawless IMO. /shrug

robinjam said,

I feel like I'm the only person on the planet that never had any problems with Vista.

Nope, you're not the only one. My only problem was that my printer drivers didn't work and that was HP's fault and my anti-virus scanner didn't work and that was fine because I found a better one.

neufuse said,
newer secure boot type loader?

Doubtful - I'd say the most likely reason would be to simplify the booting process and thus shave a few seconds off so that SSD equipped Mac's can be almost instant one from cold boot up to desktop. There is a lot of crap that the current boot loader goes through that can be avoided once you peer up a 64bit UEFI with 64bit CPU and 64bit chipset where one goes straight into Long Mode rather than the process currently today.

Btw, many of the benefits regarding Windows 8 will only appear on systems that have UEFI which will mean a computer upgrade if one wishes to get those additional features Microsoft is marketing such as instant on boot up etc.

Rudy said,
I'm sorry but Vista was called horrible because it was just plain horrible. At the time I built a brand new PC (with the newest parts available, all of them "Vista compatible") and Vista still ran like a dog on it while OSX86 and WinXP ran like champs

Nope. It wasn't horrible. Invalid argument.

alexalex said,

Yes there is (you haven' read the original post). It is due to Intel's graphice GPUs

Dropping support for these models in Mountain Lion appears to have something to do with the Intel integrated graphics processors from that era; no Mac with an Intel GMA 950 or Intel GMA X3100 graphics processor will be supported in Mountain Lion.

Weird, when people were warning Mac users that Apple was stuffing in the lowest end crappiest video options possible, they didn't seem to care, case of the pretty logo on the back.

Apple STILL shoves low/mid range video cards in all their systems, yet their price range should demand a higher end video card.

Look at the latest MacBook Pro, it is in the 'high' end price range for laptops, yet is stuffed with the cheapest Intel HD 3000 IGP Video Card.

In the non-Apple world, you can shave off $300, and get an better product from HP, which isn't even including the discount computer suppliers. (And bye 'better', I literally mean, more RAM, faster CPU, and 10x faster GPU, and it is also lighter with longer battery life.)

Rudy said,
I'm sorry but Vista was called horrible because it was just plain horrible. At the time I built a brand new PC (with the newest parts available, all of them "Vista compatible") and Vista still ran like a dog on it while OSX86 and WinXP ran like champs

Um, that doesn't say much about your PC building ability.

I ran Vista since the beta on a P4 with 2GB RAM (x86) and immediately upgraded my machine to the first Core2 1.86GHz, 2GB RAM and the x64 release version of Vista with very little headaches. Most were compatibility issues with going from x86 to x64 and not Vista itself.

robinjam said,

I feel like I'm the only person on the planet that never had any problems with Vista.


You and me both. I even ran beta builds and never had issues.