Logic Pro X - The "Force Apple Lion 10.7 support" question - your opinion

Question

Hi.
Now, that Apple has released Logic Pro X, we Pros have to learn that the minimum system requirement is set to OS X 10.8.4. In my book this is an asolute no go, with no reason other to impose Apples App-store power onto users to buy new hardware. So the questions for me are:
1. Why is the minimum requirement not 10.7 ? There are a lot of MacPros and other out there capable of only 10.7, yet still capable machines for production (remember, Final Cut Pro X runs fine on the first gen MacPros…)
2. I do not swallow it that the arguemnt might be that feature xyz didn't work out in 10.7. Let's make it clear, Logic Pro X should have been Logic 9 really, but Apple did not do their homework. Just like Avid released Protools 11, which should have been Protools 9 already. At least, Protools 11 runs fine on first Gen MacPros with 10.7.
3. I believe - yet can't proove - that the installer just looks for the installed system. Yet the core code might run just fine. Why is there no Trial download as with FCPX ?
What is your opinion ? Is it worth the effort to generate pressure to reduce minimum system requirement to 10.7 ?
PS.: Stay calm and relaxed
Regards

Answer 1

I'm on an original Mac Pro with an HD 5770 and 12 GB of RAM, and 4 x 1TB drives running FCPX with zero problems.
I also own a MacBook Pro i7 running 10.8.4
After using Logic since the eMagic days I will now have to investigate shifting to another DAW simply in order to be able to run the same software on my tower (studio machine) and laptop (live recording). There's thankfully no great rush as Logic 9 is no less capable today than it was yesterday, but I think today is a very sad day even so.
Things I believe:
Apple could, had they chosen, have released a Lion compatable version of Logic Pro X. If they can do it for FCPX, they can do it for Logic Pro X
Apple could, had they chosen, have released a version of Mountain Lion compatible with EFI 32 based Mac Pro's - if hackers can do it then of course Apple could. Had they bothered to do this, then right now they'd have something to really boast about.
Apple have an ethical and environmental obligation to do what they can to support older machines, so long as doing so does not cripple current machines or future development. Doing so might take a bit of ingenuity and maybe even some style and panache. I thought that was what Apple was about - and I think it used to be, but clearly things have changed.
People are running Mountain Lion on machines like mine. Unsupported of course. But its still possible.
That Apple chose not to do these things shows quite clearly what they think of their professional customers - and by professional I do not mean "rich" - I mean people for whom a computer is a creative tool which needs to be stable, reliable and capable - and just work when you switch it on and get ready for a productive day.
I have to wonder how many other professional musicians (who let's face it really don't NEED screamingly fast machines - not compared to the video world anyways) are going to be feeling equally sad and let down over the next few days as word of this spreads.
Just some thoughts