Will Mac OSX Lion work on my 11" Macbook Air

I know Lion has not been released yet but I'm nervous that Lion won't work well on my new Macbook Air. It sounds ridiculous but by looking at my specs it looks really underpowered yet Snow Leopard works like a champ on it. Just looking for some feedback.

I'm sure it will run fine.

But the official specs haven't been released yet as it's still under development and testing so no one can guarantee anything at this point.

most, if not all the promo shots are using the MBA to show it off, so id be surprised if it doesnt.

At a guess, anything Intel based will run it no problem. But will have to wait and see to be 100% sure.

- Simon

Yes your MBA will be just fine, however Buzzard there are reports circulating about Lion not working on early 2006 Intel models.

harryb2448 said:

Yes your MBA will be just fine, however Buzzard there are reports circulating about Lion not working on early 2006 Intel models.

Click to expand...

Just been reading about this... saw the8tharks thread about some CoreDuo models possibly not being supported. Bummer for some people but I suppose it's just the way it goes (if it's true).
They always have a reason for not supporting some machines though, usually a good reason.

- Simon

Buzzard2010 said:

They always have a reason for not supporting some machines though, usually a good reason.

- Simon

Click to expand...

yep: getting people to buy a shiny, expensive new computer

robduckyworth said:

yep: getting people to buy a shiny, expensive new computer

Click to expand...

the reason behind leaving out the core duos is because they don't support 64-bit. Lion is (probably) only 64-bit.

robduckyworth said:

yep: getting people to buy a shiny, expensive new computer

Click to expand...

I think 5 years of support is pretty good. People can still get by with SL. It's not like their computer will be shut down.

This is the tech life: like it or leave it.

EDIT: darn it, forgot that word is considered a bad word here.

If they wanted to they could still support Core Duo's. in the same way SL does, but they wont make as much money that way.

they know its old, and how do they get people to upgrade? drop support. they want as much money as they can get.

but yes, 5 years is a good amount of time.

more like: like it? buy a new one then.

(im not going to upgrade anyway for at least 6 months after its released. who knows how many compatibility issues it will have with third party software.)

I've been using the developer beta for a few days now, and the beta supports any Mac with at least a Core 2 Duo processor. Keep in mind that Apple just released the new MacBook Airs, so they're not going to stop supporting them less than a year later. I'd also like to note that Lion has been seeming to be a resource hog to me over the past few days. On my Core i3 iMac, Snow Leopard usually only has less than 2% of the CPU used with no activities running where Lion on the same machine is taking 30% to 50% with nothing running on it. So on an 11" MacBook Air, performance probably won't be as good with Lion as it is with Snow Leopard right now. But hey, Lion is only in beta, so Apple has a lot of time to work on it.

robduckyworth said:

If they wanted to they could still support Core Duo's. in the same way SL does, but they wont make as much money that way.

Click to expand...

Actually there are a lot of legitimate architectural reasons why they may not want to support the Core Duo. Sure they could, but why should they continue to support older hardware if it truly limits the possibility of what they could do. I mean they could still support PPC Macs too, or heck why not the old Motorola chips too?

And at this point, the official requirements haven't been released yet, so we just have to wait and see what happens.

In a late 2010 Macbook Air , Lion runs in 64 bits.
In SL runs only in 32 bits.

Peculiar....

tjplu said:

I've been using the developer beta for a few days now

Click to expand...

If you're running the developer beta, you're either a developer or a pirate.

If you're a developer, you are under an NDA, so you may want to clam up.

If you're a pirate, you may also want to clam up if you want to continue participating on this forum.

Im not a NDA. Im not a pirate. And, by the way, i don´t have a Macbook Air.Just seen it on other´s Mac.

ljbad4life said:

the reason behind leaving out the core duos is because they don't support 64-bit. Lion is (probably) only 64-bit.

Click to expand...

your very miss informed about cpus and 64bit. if i'm not mistaken, most cpus built since 2007 have been 64bit compatible/based. i know amd athlon64's were the first gen to hit mainstream and intel made all cpus 64bit ready (btw which are used in all macbooks since the powerpc).

C2D cpus are totally 64bit ready. ALL CPUS in the last 3 years are 64bit ready. Even the Pentium Dual-Cores are. Core2solos are too btw.

Suddenly, 64-bit Windows is mainstream | ZDNet

Intel® Core™2 Solo Processor - Specifications

Intel® Pentium® Processor - Specifications

Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor - Specifications

sorry to be that guy but i had to..

seamonkey420 said:

your very miss informed about cpus and 64bit. if i'm not mistaken, most cpus built since 2007 have been 64bit compatible/based. i know amd athlon64's were the first gen to hit mainstream and intel made all cpus 64bit ready (btw which are used in all macbooks since the powerpc).

C2D cpus are totally 64bit ready. ALL CPUS in the last 3 years are 64bit ready. Even the Pentium Dual-Cores are. Core2solos are too btw.
...

sorry to be that guy but i had to..

Click to expand...

ljbad4life did not mention the C2D. He specifically stated the Core Duo. These chips were used in first gen Intel Macs. This is a different chip than the Core 2 Duo. The Core Solo and Core Duo (not to be confused with the Core 2 Solo and Core 2 Duo) were introduced as low power notebook chips and are strictly 32 bit. Both are now 5 years old and naturally pre-2007.

For the specs on the Core Duo, here is the Intel page - link.
You'll find that both the instruction set and memory access are 32 bit.

Sorry to be that guy, but, I had to...

Edit: And, don't really see what an article from '08 talking about the install base of Windows 64 bit has to do with whether any particular hardware is 64 bit compatible or not.