[techweenie1]

I have a mac mini from 2007, I've upgraded the processor to a core 2 duo, maxed out the ram and put in a 500GB Hard Disk. It works really well for what most day to day tasks. I hate to part with it but I want to run the latest version of OS X, so I'm begrudgingly considering getting a new Mini (I really wish Apple offered an expandable mid tower that was somewhere in the iMac price range). Anyway what is a good use for this computer...I'd like to see if anyone figures a way to port the drivers to x64 for GMA950 as well as finding a way to trick Mac OS X into booting the 64bit kernel from an EFI 32-bit machine. Also I hate how the new mini's did away with the optical drive!! I mean I feel that's another reason to keep my mac mini hanging around.

[gooser]

the answer is simple. which would you rather have, mountain lion or a built in optical drive? only you can decide that. my choice would be the optical drive. but that's just me. if you try to trick a machine into believing it's something else eventually you won't get away with it.

this question brings up a never ending point. some people will only be satisfied with the latest and the greatest while others take pride in the things they can do with their antiquated machines. and to be successful that will often involve older operating systems, older programs and older peripherals. i for one just love these differences in people.

[mduell]

Keep running a 1 year old OS on your 5 year old hardware.

[techweenie1]

Hmm how about a nice KVM switch that doesn't cost a fortune? I have a 20" Cinema Display

[CarMechanic]

Snow Leopard is my favorite version of the MAC OS.

[Eug]

[ajprice]

Whenever I get to replacing my 2007 Macbook, I'll keep it and connect the EyeTV stick I've got kicking around and not used, and use it as a PVR.

[cgc]

You could install a light Linux distro (w/ LXDE) and continue to use your Mini indefinately.

[davedecay]

2010 Mac Mini refurb.

[cgc]

I was pondering the same thing. I got a 2006 "64-bit" "expandable" MacPro that isn't 64-bit (EFI = 32-bit) and isn't very expandable other than a couple GPUs. I expect someone to sue Apple for false advertising:

Originally Posted by http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/08/07Apple-Unveils-New-Mac-Pro-Featuring-Quad-64-bit-Xeon-Processors.html

WWDC 2006, SAN FRANCISCO—August 7, 2006—Apple® today unveiled the new Mac® Pro, a quad Xeon, 64-bit desktop workstation featuring two new Dual-Core Intel Xeon processors running up to 3.0 GHz and a new system architecture that delivers up to twice the performance of the Power Mac® G5 Quad*. With advanced performance, greater expansion, higher performance graphics options and unprecedented customization, the newly designed Mac Pro is the ideal system for the most demanding user. The introduction of the Mac Pro marks the completion of a rapid and seamless transition for Apple, with the entire Mac family now using Intel’s latest processors.

I'm contemplating migrating to Linux or Windows when my Mac isn't supported via security updates or I can't do something I need/want to do. I wouldn't want to be tied to BootCamp and have a few questions:

1. Is it possible to install Windows or Linux and single-boot without BootCamp
2. If I boot into Windows or Linux can I use any WIndows or Linux-compatible GPU
3. Can i Install Windows or Linux onto a second internal drive and boot off it now (e.g. dual boot w/ OSX on the other internal drive)

Thanks.

[angelmb]

Originally Posted by cgc 

Can i Install Windows or Linux onto a second internal drive and boot off it now (e.g. dual boot w/ OSX on the other internal drive)

Thanks.

Yes. That's what I used to do. A dedicated internal hard drive for Boot Camp and Windows.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by cgc 

I was pondering the same thing. I got a 2006 "64-bit" "expandable" MacPro that isn't 64-bit (EFI = 32-bit) and isn't very expandable other than a couple GPUs. I expect someone to sue Apple for false advertising.

I can't see that suit getting very far. It clearly has greater expandability than any iMac, MacBook/Pro/Air or Mac Mini.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I can't see that suit getting very far. It clearly has greater expandability than any iMac, MacBook/Pro/Air or Mac Mini.

I meant someone will due because Apple advertised the 2006 MacPro as "64-bit" but it's got a 32-bit EFI which is it's Achilles heel and causes it to be unsupported. Of course, lawyers will get millions and every Mac user with 32-bit EFI will get an Apple coozie.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by angelmb 

Yes. That's what I used to do. A dedicated internal hard drive for Boot Camp and Windows.

How did you do this? Does BootCamp support this or did you install it without BC? Thanks.

[angelmb]

Boot Camp does support this.

You just have to run Boot Camp Assistant (inside Utilities) and once you are asked to 'Create or Remove a Windows Partition', tell the assistant to 'Erase disk and create a single partition for Windows'.

That easy.

[davedecay]

send me any Intel Macs not supported by ML.

i'll make sure a worthy charter school gets use out of them.

[cgc]

@angelmb: Not sure how I missed that, thanks for the info. Do you know if I can use any Windows compatible GPU if I boot into Windows via BootCamp? My nVidia 8800GT failed six months ago and I'm limping along on an nVidia 7300GTX...was waiting for news about ML before upgrading MacPro via Apple's GPU options. Thanks again.

[angelmb]

I can't say for first hand experience, when my nVidia 8800GT died I got the Radeon 5770 Mac from the Apple Store, works great in my 2006 Mac Pro. Barefeats did install a (Windows only) Radeon 7970 in a 2010 Mac Pro. Performance under Windows is said to be jaw dropping.
http://www.barefeats.com/wst10g14.html

I guess it is not that hard to get a Windows GPU working in a Mac Pro under Boot Camp. It might be a matter of downloading the drivers from AMD website and installing them. Requirements for the Radeon 7970 list "PCI Express® based PC is required with one X16 lane graphics slot available on the motherboard "
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/7000/7970/Pages/radeon-7970.aspx#2


Even the 2006 Mac Pro comes with four of those on the main logic board. Please note it might not be up to the performance of PCI Express 2 based Mac Pro models (Early 2008 and later.)
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2838

[cgc]

I just finished installed my only non-OEM Windows, Windows Vista Business 32-bit (yuck) on my extra 640GB HDD. Works great but there's a bout a day's worth of updates to do...miss the combo updates Apple pushes.

Think this won't be cheap though, Lightroom will replace Aperture ($179) and Genie 9 Timeline will replace Time Machine ($59) plus I need a new 1Password license ($49). Ugh... Will dual-boot ans slowly migrate OSX stuff to Windows...luckily I can read/write OSX volumes from the Windows environment so should be easy. Hoping to return to OSX once a reliable hack is found.

[Wickedkitten]

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1325709

[cgc]

Originally Posted by Wickedkitten 

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1325709

Thanks. Knew it was possible to install 10.8 on an unsupported machine (via www.netkas.org) but it's such a kludge I'm not so interested. Some things won't work properly, the system will crash sporatically (e.g. taking screenshots), and who knows if the system will work after each OSX update. I want a system that's supported, it seems it's not terribly difficult to get 10.8 running but until Apple supports this I cannot consider 10.8 my main OS.

[Wickedkitten]

Isn't netkas more for hackintoshes?

[cgc]

Originally Posted by Wickedkitten 

Isn't netkas more for hackintoshes?

I don't know but it has relevant information on OSX 10.8 and how to make it work on my MacPro. BTW, won't all unsupported Macs be considered "Hackintoshes" if they run OSX 10.8?

[Wickedkitten]

Technically no because it's still running on apple hardware, unlike an actual hackintosh which isn't.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by Wickedkitten 

Technically no because it's still running on apple hardware, unlike an actual hackintosh which isn't.

I still think an unsupported Mac made to run unsupported software or hardware would be considered a hackintosh but I didn't come here to argue semantics. If OSX 10.8 cannot be made to run reliably on an older Mac then it's not a good solution. Even if it could run reliably it'd have to run through a software update.

[davedecay]

remember XPostFacto?

allows installing newer versions of OS X on older Mac hardware.

Apple never sent OWC a Cease & Desist, did they?

http://eshop.macsales.com/OSXCenter/XPostFacto/

[OreoCookie]

I don't think XPostFacto will be of any use here: it's not a question of a machine identifier query whether a particular Mac is supported or not, but rather the question of whether it has a sufficiently powerful GPU and a 64 bit EFI.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't think XPostFacto will be of any use here: it's not a question of a machine identifier query whether a particular Mac is supported or not, but rather the question of whether it has a sufficiently powerful GPU and a 64 bit EFI.

It has nothing to do with the GPU...if it did then why would MacPros be omitted? It has to do mostly with the lack of 64-bit EFI although it seems you can boot into OSX 10.8 with a 32-bit EFI. Obviously, there's something going on in the background we don't know about but on the surface the decision to exclude 32-bit EFIs seems arbitrary.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by cgc 

It has nothing to do with the GPU...if it did then why would MacPros be omitted?

I've repeatedly read it's a combination of the requirement to have 64 bit EFI support and a beefy GPU: the 2006 Mac Pro gets disqualified because of the latter, some other machines (e. g. my parents' 2007 Mac mini) do not make the cut, because their GPU is too wimpy.

Originally Posted by cgc 

Obviously, there's something going on in the background we don't know about but on the surface the decision to exclude 32-bit EFIs seems arbitrary.

I'm also curious as to whether this was an engineering problem or not.

[P]

There is apparently one variant of the white Macbook that supports EFI64 but is still not supported due to the weak GPU. In technical terms, it seems that Apple has decided to require a GPU with unified shaders, which means Radeons of generation 2000 and higher and Geforces of generation 8000 and newer. For Intel, the situation is a bit interesting. The X3100 is not accepted, but MBPs with Arrandale CPUs (the first dualcore i5 and i7 used in 15" and 17" MBPs) are OK - despite how the Arrandale graphics are very similar in design to the X3100. All of those MBPs have discrete graphics as well - does this mean that ML will keep the discrete graphics on all the time, or are those extra Mathboxes in Arrandale enough to bring them over the line?

I'm leaning towards the theory that Apple set the requirements for the GPUs and realized that this left a very small number of non EFI64-capable Macs on the right side of the GPU requirements line - namely, first gen Mac Pros with upgraded graphics. At that point, they just decided to cut those first Mac Pros loose to limit their own support burden.

There is a hack that lets ML install on the first gen Mac Pro by emulating EFI64 on top of the BIOS emulation on top of the EFI32. It only works if the MP has had its GPU upgraded to something over the minimum requirements.

[cgc]

I had been using my MacPro in Windows now for the last week and it was working mostly fine until I got some DVDs from the library I wanted to rip to watch on my HTPM which doesn't have a DVD drive. I thought before I ran my Mac at 100% for an hour to rip the DVDs I'd check the temperatures. All CPU cores, memory, and the GPU were between 60C and 72C. That, plus not being able to network my machines, worrying about malware, LightRoom 4 not being an Aperture 3 replacement, cost of software licensing, and general aesthetics, plus WIndows kepy geting herky jerky even with four cores and mad memory made me go back to OSX. Maybe I'll "upgrade" to OSX 10.7 but that'll be the end of the road for this MacPro. Next computer may very well be a Windows or Linux box so I don't have to mess with Apple's idiotic whims.

[OreoCookie]

By the way, it looks like someone found a way to install 10.8 on a 2006 Mac Pro. Seems like it's possible after all.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by cgc 

Maybe I'll "upgrade" to OSX 10.7 but that'll be the end of the road for this MacPro. Next computer may very well be a Windows or Linux box so I don't have to mess with Apple's idiotic whims.

All you'll be is at the whim of some other company/entity, nothing will be fundamentally better.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

All you'll be is at the whim of some other company/entity, nothing will be fundamentally better.

I think MS's business user base provides a foundation and forces MS to not change too much out of fear of backlash. Apple has focused more and more on iOS and mobile users so I'm not sure Apple's as committed to the desktop like MS is...Apple wants to maintain that "cool guy" image as well and that is their own reality distortion field. ANy major Linux distro should be fairly safe...I've used all of them for the last 8 years and have no worries there. OSX is just better but if I'm unsupported my hands are tied.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by cgc 

I think MS's business user base provides a foundation and forces MS to not change too much out of fear of backlash. Apple has focused more and more on iOS and mobile users so I'm not sure Apple's as committed to the desktop like MS is...

What you're posting does not lack a certain irony.
I assume you have heard of Windows 8, right? The new touch-first UI called Metro is central to Windows 8, and Microsoft is pushing it and its underpinnings as the new way to write Windows apps. The desktop has been deprecated to the degree that it will not be available on certain versions of Windows 8 (namely, the ARM version only offers the desktop for the Microsoft Office apps that are included). That sounds a lot like »back to the Mac« on steroids to me. The rationale is that Microsoft is trying to enter the tablet market from the PC end while Apple has entered the tablet market from the phone end. And Microsoft needs to move so quickly and abruptly if it wants to become relevant in the nascent tablet and phone markets -- in large part, because they haven't changed a whole lot during Ballmer's reign.

I'm curious as to why you have such a negative attitude towards the rapid change in the development of operating systems: Apple iterates both, iOS and OS X at a very rapid pace and supports machines for 4+ years. That's more than long enough for almost all users (I change machines every ~4 years), and to the users who keep computers longer, being always up to date is a much lower priority. Apple does not officially support your machine in its next version of OS X, but as P and I have pointed out, you can still install it using a hack.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

What you're posting does not lack a certain irony.
I assume you have heard of Windows 8, right? The new touch-first UI called Metro is central to Windows 8, and Microsoft is pushing it and its underpinnings as the new way to write Windows apps. The desktop has been deprecated to the degree that it will not be available on certain versions of Windows 8 (namely, the ARM version only offers the desktop for the Microsoft Office apps that are included). That sounds a lot like »back to the Mac« on steroids to me. The rationale is that Microsoft is trying to enter the tablet market from the PC end while Apple has entered the tablet market from the phone end. And Microsoft needs to move so quickly and abruptly if it wants to become relevant in the nascent tablet and phone markets -- in large part, because they haven't changed a whole lot during Ballmer's reign.
I'm curious as to why you have such a negative attitude towards the rapid change in the development of operating systems: Apple iterates both, iOS and OS X at a very rapid pace and supports machines for 4+ years. That's more than long enough for almost all users (I change machines every ~4 years), and to the users who keep computers longer, being always up to date is a much lower priority. Apple does not officially support your machine in its next version of OS X, but as P and I have pointed out, you can still install it using a hack.

My angle isn't so much on software compatibility as it is on hardware compatibility. WIndows 8 system requirements are very low by today's standards but the statement that Apple should include is "Additional requirements to use certain features". I'm definately not in love with the thought of moving to a non-OSX OS but Apple <beeped> a few early adopters. The ironic part is they advertised the MacPro as 64-bit but they didn't mean "64-bit", they meant "64-bit*". I feel that Apple is taking the easy/profitable way out by excluding "Pro" machines and it pisses me off (obviously). I shouldn't have to replace a modular computer every four years, maybe upgrade GPU and add an SSD and still go on for another four years. Here's MS's system requirements for Windows 8:

Windows 8 Release Preview works great on the same hardware that powers Windows 7:

Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster

• RAM: 1 gigabyte (GB) (32-bit) or 2 GB (64-bit)
• Hard disk space: 16 GB (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)
• Graphics card: Microsoft DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM driver

Additional requirements to use certain features:

• To use touch, you need a tablet or a monitor that supports multitouch.
• To access the Windows Store and to download and run apps, you need an active Internet connection and a screen resolution of at least 1024 x 768.
• To snap apps, you need a screen resolution of at least 1366 x 768.
• Internet access (ISP fees might apply)

* Not 100% 64-bit

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by cgc 

My angle isn't so much on software compatibility as it is on hardware compatibility.

You did not specify that in your post. But even when it comes to hardware compatibility, I think your claim that Microsoft is »not chang[ing] too much out of fear of backlash« is incorrect ever since it revealed Windows 8. Corporations and many users who want a product that »works as it has always worked« will hate it. Yet, I think it is crucial for Microsoft's survival in the long run.

Originally Posted by cgc 

WIndows 8 system requirements are very low by today's standards but the statement that Apple should include is "Additional requirements to use certain features". I'm definately not in love with the thought of moving to a non-OSX OS but Apple <beeped> a few early adopters.

Early adopters? I don't want to be nitpicky, but OS X was released in 2001, I wouldn't call someone who bought a machine in the 2006-2008 time frame an early adopter. Also, I would not migrate to an OS I don't really like/prefer to what I am using now. Instead, I would work with whatever works now for me (OS X 10.6 or 10.7 perhaps) rather than migrate to an OS I would hate to use (Windows) or one that I constantly have to tinker with (Linux), whether I want to or not.

Originally Posted by cgc 

I feel that Apple is taking the easy/profitable way out by excluding "Pro" machines and it pisses me off (obviously).

They certainly are taking the easy route: Mac Pro users are a tiny, tiny fraction of the overall installed base, and while I think they shouldn't be excluded, just because they came with a stock graphics card that doesn't make the GPU cut, that's the way Apple works. It sucks, I've been in that position as well a long time ago (in 2001 when OS X was released, I owned the only G3-based Mac that wasn't supported, the first PowerBook G3 Kanga).

Originally Posted by cgc 

I shouldn't have to replace a modular computer every four years, maybe upgrade GPU and add an SSD and still go on for another four years.

I don't get that attitude to be honest: upgrading after, say, 4~5 years has always given me a machine that felt vastly superior to what I have had before. If you are content using 6~8 year-old hardware, you know from the beginning you will not be able to take advantage of many new features. And if you are running outdated hardware, what do you have against running an outdated version of OS X?* Right now, as I understand it, you are running 10.6 which was released in 2010 rather than 10.7, correct?

In any case, if the instructions I've found online work (I have no way of testing this since I am a die-hard laptop user), then you will be able to install and use 10.8 on your machine. Shouldn't that make you a little happier?

* There is nothing wrong with running older hardware and software, many people are content »as long as it works«. Computers are tools after all.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You did not specify that in your post.
...

I figured it was obvious since I was complaining my MacPro (hardware) wasn't being supported by OSX 10.8, maybe I wasn't so clear which happens. I know what I mean I'll be happy if the solution works reliably, I saw a hack that worked but left you with an unstable Mac.

Anyways, my MacPro scores about 5,800 on GeekBench, here's some modern Mac GeekBench scores to compare with:

• MacPro (Mid 2012, X5675, 12-cores): 25,375
• MacBook Pro (Mid 2012, 15", i7-3820QM, 8 cores): 13,270
• MacBook Pro Retine (Mid 2012, i7-3720QM, 4 cores): 12,914
• iMac (Mid 2011, 27", i7-2600, 4 cores): 12,496
• Mac Mini (unknown, i5-2500K, 4 cores): 9,041
• iPad3 (2012, A5): 765
• iPhone 4S (unknown, A5): 621

So the current generation of Mac computers ranges from ~5x faster to only ~2x faster. A doubling of speed is barely noticeable (I had a sidecar accelerator for my old Amiga that quadrupled the clock and I could barely tell it was running 4x speed unless I ran benchmarks). I'd say there's little need to replace a computer that is running last place but still very fast unless my computing needs have increased. This is the crux of my argument, older hardware is still very good hardware. This era of computing is different from years ago and although computers are getting progressively faster the computers we had are still very good. Heck, I use my 2001 G4 Sawtooth to serve video files (SD) to an old analog TV in the basement to watch when I exercise. Now THAT technology (e.g. G4/40MHz) got made obsolete when Apple transitioned to Intel.

Sorry to ramble, but i guess the best I should expect from Apple is software updates for another couple years. How feasible would it be to upgrade EFI to 64-bit via a swap-out or are the chip interconnects 32-bit as well or is the chip soldered in?

I think I just pulled a muscle beating this dead horse but it bugs me (can you tell)?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by cgc 

I figured it was obvious since I was complaining my MacPro (hardware) wasn't being supported by OSX 10.8, maybe I wasn't so clear which happens. I know what I mean I'll be happy if the solution works reliably, I saw a hack that worked but left you with an unstable Mac.

If you try it, let us know how well it works.

Originally Posted by cgc 

Anyways, my MacPro scores about 5,800 on GeekBench, here's some modern Mac GeekBench scores to compare with:

• MacPro (Mid 2012, X5675, 12-cores): 25,375
• MacBook Pro (Mid 2012, 15", i7-3820QM, 8 cores): 13,270
• MacBook Pro Retine (Mid 2012, i7-3720QM, 4 cores): 12,914
• iMac (Mid 2011, 27", i7-2600, 4 cores): 12,496
• Mac Mini (unknown, i5-2500K, 4 cores): 9,041
• iPad3 (2012, A5): 765
• iPhone 4S (unknown, A5): 621

I don't put much faith in Geekbench to be honest. But just to put these numbers into perspective: the new Xeon E5 manages up to ~30,000 on Geekbench, that's a factor of 6.

I prefer SPECmarks: a dual cpu configuration with the new Xeon E5-2690 manages around a SPECint base/peak of ~55/59 (this is a single core integer benchmark) and a SPECint rate base/peak (multicore integer benchmark) of ~660/690 (base and peak refer to using different compilers settings). Your Xeon (Woodcrest, 5150) achieves ~15/15.7 on SPECint and ~47/50 on the rate benchmarks.

Similarly, the corresponding floating point benchmarks yield scores of ~86.2/91.3 for SPECfp (single core), ~491/506 for SPECfp rate (multicore) for the new Xeon E5. Compare that to ~14.3/14.6 and 36.0/36.5 for the Woodcrest Xeon that is used in your machine.

This means the current generation of comparable CPUs is 8~10 times faster -- as to be expected form Moore's law (2^(6/1,8) ~ 10).

Out of curiosity, I've also searched for the results for the Core i7 3770 that will be used in iMacs:

int ~50.3/53.2
int rate ~177/189
fp ~64.6/66.2
fp rate ~128/130

Originally Posted by cgc 

So the current generation of Mac computers ranges from ~5x faster to only ~2x faster. A doubling of speed is barely noticeable (I had a sidecar accelerator for my old Amiga that quadrupled the clock and I could barely tell it was running 4x speed unless I ran benchmarks).

I find a doubling of speed clearly noticeable. Apart from the advances in cpu speed, SSDs which are standard on the most popular new Macs (MacBook Airs, TNG MacBook Pros) make a huge difference. Granted, you can upgrade your machine, I have added an SSD to my 2010 MacBook Pro, but still, there are other factors apart from RAW cpu speed.

Originally Posted by cgc 

I'd say there's little need to replace a computer that is running last place but still very fast unless my computing needs have increased. This is the crux of my argument, older hardware is still very good hardware. This era of computing is different from years ago and although computers are getting progressively faster the computers we had are still very good.

I agree. Although we are entering an era where GPUs are becoming increasingly important. E. g. Internet Explorer 10 and mobile Safari utilize the GPU to render web sites. This isn't just faster, but also consumes less power.

Originally Posted by cgc 

I think I just pulled a muscle beating this dead horse but it bugs me (can you tell)?

In any case, just if it wasn't clear from my posts: I do think it's disappointing to leave the 2006 Mac Pros behind, you're definitely correct that these machines are cpu-wise fast enough to run 10.8.

[cgc]

Is there a Linux distro that is able to monitor the 1,1 MacPro internal temps and control fan speed or is there a program in Windows that actually works (SpeedFan shows Mac temps as being ludicrously high but cannot find any fans to control).

[OreoCookie]

Have you tried smcFanControl? Not sure whether it works with the Mac Pro, but I use it to monitor and regulate the fans of my MacBook Pro.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Have you tried smcFanControl? Not sure whether it works with the Mac Pro, but I use it to monitor and regulate the fans of my MacBook Pro.

SMCFanControl works fine with MacPro but only in OSX. I'm looking for something similar that works in Windows (or Linux).

[cgc]

Looks like it's not too hard to get OSX 10.8 running on 32-bit EFI so long as CPU is 64-bit and GPU isn't too old.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by cgc 

Looks like it's not too hard to get OSX 10.8 running on 32-bit EFI so long as CPU is 64-bit and GPU isn't too old.

So, again the Apple apologists out there saying it's a technical issue are spouting complete bull.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by Eug 

So, again the Apple apologists out there saying it's a technical issue are spouting complete bull.

Yup, looks like I'm going to have to go get my torch and pitchfork out of the basement and start forming a nice angry (peaceful) mob to protest this...figuratively, of course.

[P]

Originally Posted by cgc 

Looks like it's not too hard to get OSX 10.8 running on 32-bit EFI so long as CPU is 64-bit and GPU isn't too old.

That link seems to rely on a 32-bit kernel (from god knows where) and graphics drivers copied from Lion. The link above (posted by both me and Oreo) shows a way to do it using the original 64-bit kernel for Macs that support the minimum GPU. The macrumors link implies that Macs with the X3100 mostly work, which they do not do with EFI64 emulation (as there is no driver for that), but I'd much rather use an official kernel if I had the option.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by P 

That link seems to rely on a 32-bit kernel (from god knows where) and graphics drivers copied from Lion. The link above (posted by both me and Oreo) shows a way to do it using the original 64-bit kernel for Macs that support the minimum GPU. The macrumors link implies that Macs with the X3100 mostly work, which they do not do with EFI64 emulation (as there is no driver for that), but I'd much rather use an official kernel if I had the option.

I saw they loaded 32-bit kernel but didn't see where it was obtained (e.g. somehow embedded within OSX 10.8 or compiled by someone). If it was compiled by someone outside of Apple I'd steer clear it as well.

Did you see that someone made the 32-bit kernel or did you infer it?

[cgc]

Here's what they're doing, not sure I understand 100%.

[P]

I inferred a 32-bit kernel from the graphics driver for the x3100, but netkas seems to imply that they're somehow hacking the 32-bit EFI to load the official 64-bit kernel with certain drivers hacked in. It also seems that this hack doesn't work when the RAM goes above 4 GB, which is a pretty serious limitation.

Anyway. The ML sources are out, so it's certainly possible to compile a 32-bit kernel, import the Lion graphics drivers and hope for the best if you really really want that Macbook or Mac mini to run ML. Mac Pro 1,1 users should try the chameleon hack above instead.

[cgc]

Here's a petition for Apple to support older Macs. Please consider signing, not that it'll do anything but what the heck.