2012 Mini not supported by OS X 10.12?

[dogslobber]

If prior history is anything to go by then systems with FireWire ports might be the ones to not be supported by 10.12. Possibly because there's no 10.12 driver for FW and it makes the system unstable, or other such nonsense. Where would that leave 2012 Minis if it turns out to be true?

 

[satinsilverem2]

I doubt that they would drop support for machines with FW. One that would drop like 7 years worth of machines and two there are still Thunderbolt docks and the Thunderbolt to FireWire adapter that Apple sells.

 

[jpietrzak8]

If prior history is anything to go by then systems with FireWire ports might be the ones to not be supported by 10.12. Possibly because there's no 10.12 driver for FW and it makes the system unstable, or other such nonsense. Where would that leave 2012 Minis if it turns out to be true?

I'm pretty sure that OS X hardware support has always been based around CPU and RAM features. The 10.6 update dropped support for the PowerPC; 10.7 dropped support for the Core Solo CPU and required 2GB of RAM; 10.8 dropped support for the 2006 iMac & 2007 Mini due to GPU issues. So far as I know, Apple hasn't dropped support of any machines since 10.8.

I see no reason for Apple to drop support for more machines any time soon, other than perhaps requiring even more baseline RAM...

 

[redheeler]

I'm pretty sure that OS X hardware support has always been based around CPU and RAM features.

10.4 dropped support for all Macs without Firewire, regardless of other specs the installer checks for it. Easy to work around though.

 

[jpietrzak8]

10.4 dropped support for all Macs without Firewire, regardless of other specs the installer checks for it. Easy to work around though.

Ah, I guess I needed to go back further in time. (My own first Mac was a Mac Mini, so I don't know as much about older Macs.)

 

[MacVidCards]

Aren't they still selling displays with FireWire ports?

 

[MultiFinder17]

Aren't they still selling displays with FireWire ports?

Yup, the Thunderbolt Display has a FW800 port on the back.

Also, considering that they were still selling the 2012 mini new a year and a half ago, I'm guessing that they won't drop support for it this summer

 

[hallux]

Dropping support for computers with FW ports would also drop support for the 2012 non-retina MBP's, of which they're STILL selling the 13" version new.

 

[Andres Cantu]

The 2012 Mac mini should be getting OS X 10.12, I see no reason why it wouldn't. Same goes for the 2011 and 2010 models.

The 2009 Mac mini, on the other hand, is on the chopping block.

 

[jpietrzak8]

The 2009 Mac mini, on the other hand, is on the chopping block.

Any rationale behind this claim? Unlike the 2007, the 2009 Minis support 8GB of RAM and sport an Nvidia 9400M IGPU (which is significantly superior to the 2007's IGPU). The Core 2 Duos in the 2009 Minis are not that different from the Core 2 Duos in the 2010 Minis, either. I don't see what reason Apple would have to drop the 2009 yet keep the 2010...

 

[Gav2k]

Won't happen. Apple was selling 2012 models in the referb store as recent as 8 weeks ago from memory.

 

[Andres Cantu]

Any rationale behind this claim? Unlike the 2007, the 2009 Mini supports 8GB of RAM and sports an Nvidia 9400M IGPU (which is significantly superior to the 2007's IGPU). The Core 2 Duos in the 2009 Minis are not that different from the Core 2 Duos in the 2010 Minis, either. I don't see what reason Apple would have to drop the 2009 yet keep the 2010...

To be honest, no. But since they haven't dropped support for any macs since OS X Lion, the next Mac mini to go will be the 2009 model.

But you're right, the 2010 model's CPU isn't much different, so that model isn't exactly safe either. The 2011, on the other hand, is the one that received the major boost in CPU power, so that one is safe for a while.

 

[Micky Do]

To be honest, no. But since they haven't dropped support for any macs since OS X Lion, the next Mac mini to go will be the 2009 model.

But you're right, the 2010 model's CPU isn't much different, so that model isn't exactly safe either. The 2011, on the other hand, is the one that received the major boost in CPU power, so that one is safe for a while.

While support has not been dropped since Lion, older Macs have not been able to access all the features of more recent versions of OS X. They sort of get left behind, which matters more to some than it does to others.

Not a bother from my point of view; my early 2009 Mini is still on Mountain Lion. The benefits of newer iterations of OS X are of little interest to me in a single Mac, no iDevice household. Methinks my next OS X update will come with my next Mac Mini in a couple or three years.

It will be interesting to see if support for older Macs is dropped with upcoming OS X updates (as was the case in the past), or whether they just get left behind by default (as we have seen recently).

 

[MultiFinder17]

Eventually they will start dropping support again for certain Macs, and I would not be surprised if they took the opportunity with 10.12 to do some major changes that would justify a name change to macOS. These changes may justify dropping some older machines. We'll just have to see at WWDC this year. Regardless, it's not like our older minis will suddenly stop working. We'll still get a couple years worth of security updates, then we'll be left on our own. And even then, they are still great little computers. I love how solid the minis are at quietly sitting in a corner, performing their duties; they make excellent servers.

 

[dogslobber]

Eventually they will start dropping support again for certain Macs, and I would not be surprised if they took the opportunity with 10.12 to do some major changes that would justify a name change to macOS. These changes may justify dropping some older machines. We'll just have to see at WWDC this year. Regardless, it's not like our older minis will suddenly stop working. We'll still get a couple years worth of security updates, then we'll be left on our own. And even then, they are still great little computers. I love how solid the minis are at quietly sitting in a corner, performing their duties; they make excellent servers.

If not FW then I think they might tell anybody with a 2009 or older system that they ain't getting 10.12 so should toss their ancient Mac on a dumpster. That appears to be the classification for vintage Macs right now. I'm wondering if the free OS X ride is over for those 2007 iMac owners and others.

 

[Ebenezum]

I would be very surprised if Apple would suddenly drop support for 2012 Mac Mini. It would made no sense because it was sold so recently and it has much faster components compared to older Minis.

IF Apple were to drop support it would make more sense to concentrate on the oldest supported models such as iMac, Mac Mini, Macbook, Macbook Air and Macbook Pro 2007-2009 because they have slower processors and GPU. Even then I don't think its likely unless Apple plans to introduce some kind new mandatory technologies that aren't practical on the Core 2 Duo processor.

I wouldn't be surprised if RAM requirement would be raised to 4 Gb because its currently the smallest practical amount. Obliviously it would leave out some newer Macbook Air models that only have 2 Gb out so it might be difficult to implement in practice...

 

[MultiFinder17]

I would think that having a 9400M or equivalent may be the base requirement for 10.12, as that would shave off the oldest Macs still supported, such as the pre-2009 iMacs and MacBook Pros that are still hanging on. I'd hate for support for them to drop, but they are truly next on the chopping block, well ahead of the 2009 minis. The next set to go would most likely be the 9400M/320M based machines. Again, we will see at WWDC this summer.

 

[paulrbeers]

My guess is the next "drop" is Core2Duo based Macs (and not based on GPU).
Mac Mini's haven't had a Core2Duo since Mid-2011
iMac's since Mid-2012
Macbooks since Mid-2011 (when they were discontinued entirely until the new MacBook was released)
MacBook Air's since Mid-2011
MacBook Pros since early-2011
MacPro's since Mid-2010

So the "newest" Mac sold with a Core2Duo is 4 years old (mid-2012 iMac), and most are at least 5 years old....

Edit: I am wrong, the last iMac to be released was the Mid-2009. The Mid-2010 model no longer had a core2 duo. So yes the "Newest" Mac you could have bought was Mid-2011 that would have had a Core2Duo.....

 

[jpietrzak8]

My guess is the next "drop" is Core2Duo based Macs (and not based on GPU).

I'm not sure why they would do that, though (other than trying desperately to get folks to upgrade to a new machine). Other than raw speed, there really isn't a significant difference between the Core 2 Duo and the Core i5/i7. Apple's increase in GPU dependence in OS X is a fairly decent excuse for why they've dropped support for some older machines (and why some features are missing on other machines), but I don't really see a reason yet why the Core 2 Duo couldn't still run OS X...

 

[JamesPDX]

Won't happen. Apple was selling 2012 models in the referb store as recent as 8 weeks ago from memory.

2012 in the USA website's refurb store? Haven't seen one in years. Please PM a link if you're outside the US.

 

[Gav2k]

2012 in the USA website's refurb store? Haven't seen one in years. Please PM a link if you're outside the US.

Have a search of the forums. Lots of us grabbed them

 

[MysticCow]

Those 2011 and 2012 models aren't even Vintage status yet. So I would likely wager we'd have at least 10.12 and probably even 10.13 before we have to start being scared of support for future Mac OS-es.

Even then, it isn't the end of the world. PowerPC users were left with a pretty solid Leopard or Tiger with Classic. Both of those were usable for many years after being left to die. I'd see the same happening with the 2011/2012 mini models also. So long as there is mileage left, it's going to work out.

 

[paulrbeers]

I'm not sure why they would do that, though (other than trying desperately to get folks to upgrade to a new machine). Other than raw speed, there really isn't a significant difference between the Core 2 Duo and the Core i5/i7. Apple's increase in GPU dependence in OS X is a fairly decent excuse for why they've dropped support for some older machines (and why some features are missing on other machines), but I don't really see a reason yet why the Core 2 Duo couldn't still run OS X...

Yes but there isn't a lot of difference in performance between the Nvidia 9400 series all the way to the HD Graphics in the first Core I series processors. So the that really doesn't differentiate the generations. However with the switch to core I, Apple had to switch to Intel system chipsets from Nvidia so on top of dropping the old core architecture, they would also be moving to all Intel system chipsets instead of supporting Nvidia and Intel.

Obviously this is pure conjecture. It really wasn't until the HD400 that the Intel GPUd really started getting "decent" IMHO.

 

[jpietrzak8]

However with the switch to core I, Apple had to switch to Intel system chipsets from Nvidia so on top of dropping the old core architecture, they would also be moving to all Intel system chipsets instead of supporting Nvidia and Intel.

Really?

2011 Mini: Core i5/i7 CPU, AMD 6630M GPU
2009-present iMac: Core i5/i7 CPU, multiple AMD / Nvidia GPUs
2010-present Macbook Pro: Core i5/i7 CPU, multiple AMD / Nvidia GPUs
2013 Mac Pro: Xeon CPUs, AMD GPUs
pre-2013 Mac Pros: Xeon CPUs, practically any GPU that fits in a PCIe slot

It is true that the Mini has been sticking with all-Intel GPUs in recent years, but the vast majority of Apple's other OS X machines have been using (and still are using) AMD and Nvidia GPUs. I don't see Apple profiting in any way by releasing a version of OS X stripped of all non-Intel GPU drivers; they'd still have to keep the drivers for most of their other products.

 

[paulrbeers]

Really?

2011 Mini: Core i5/i7 CPU, AMD 6630M GPU
2009-present iMac: Core i5/i7 CPU, multiple AMD / Nvidia GPUs
2010-present Macbook Pro: Core i5/i7 CPU, multiple AMD / Nvidia GPUs
2013 Mac Pro: Xeon CPUs, AMD GPUs
pre-2013 Mac Pros: Xeon CPUs, practically any GPU that fits in a PCIe slot

It is true that the Mini has been sticking with all-Intel GPUs in recent years, but the vast majority of Apple's other OS X machines have been using (and still are using) AMD and Nvidia GPUs. I don't see Apple profiting in any way by releasing a version of OS X stripped of all non-Intel GPU drivers; they'd still have to keep the drivers for most of their other products.

I didn't say Nvidia GPUs, I said Nvidia system chipsets.