Here Are All the Macs Compatible With macOS Catalina

[star-affinity]

A 2010 Mac Pro has more than enough power to run the upcoming version of Mac OS, and quite likely any system software Apple releases for the next two decades. I know the 80s and 90s had us replacing our computers every few years, but we've hit a relative plateau over the past decade, and claiming that an 2010 8-core Xeon can't run what a 2017 dual-core i5 can is just disingenuous.

I'm not saying don't innovate or update. But I despise the throwaway culture we live in. I'm in the small minority, but I'd like to see computers (especially one's that cost more than $1000) come to be viewed as appliances more than apparel (think about it). When I buy a refrigerator, a couch, or a car, I expect it to last me 15-20 years. I will pay for quality engineering, but in return I'll determine when to EOL my property.

This is the philosophical problem I have with Apple and most other companies in the hardware and software industries. Most people don't seem to notice (or mind) that they're being fleeced, and the analogy of the frog in the boiling water is not out of place here.

I agree with you overall, but I think the car and refrigerator analogy is flawed. I have a Mac Pro from 2010 and I think it's sad that it won't get 10.15, but I do understand that computers are way more complex machines – both hardware and software wise – compared to refrigerators. I don't know the exact reason for Apple omitting the classic Mac Pro's in the coming MacOS, but maybe there are good reasons for doing so? I was thinking it might be related to the processors not getting any micro code updates from Intel for the lates security concerns found in their processors, but I don't know...

2010 and 2012 Mac Pros are excluded; likely for all of the video card upgrade gymnastics that had to be supported to enable them to run in Mojave.

The video card gymnastics has already been done to get them to run Mojave, so I don't see that as a reason not letting them support MacOS 10.15. Must be some other reason(s).

 

[AnonMac50]

I agree with you overall, but I think the car and refrigerator analogy is flawed. I have a Mac Pro from 2010 and I think it's sad that it won't get 10.15, but I do understand that computers are way more complex machines – both hardware and software wise – compared to refrigerators. I don't know the exact reason for Apple omitting the classic Mac Pro's in the coming MacOS, but maybe there are good reasons for doing so? I was thinking it might be related to the processors not getting any micro code updates from Intel for the lates security concerns found in their processors, but I don't know...



The video card gymnastics has already been done to get them to run Mojave, so I don't see that as a reason not letting them support MacOS 10.15. Must be some other reason(s).

I still really think it is simply because they can.

 

[Lancer]

So my iMac made the cut, not I just need to find money for new Office and Adobe software, but the bigger issue might be things like HandBrake which is not likely to be updated to 64bit any time soon.

 

[PossiblyJP]

And if that is the case, they could permit acceptable graphics cards to run the new OS versions, just as they have for Mojave.

Maybe they will. The initial beta for Mojave did not support the older Mac Pro either. They added support release version if you had a metal capable card.

 

[MoreRumors?]

Good to see my MBP is still eligible to receive the next update.

 

[Expos of 1969]

Macbook Pro, Late 2013 users rejoice!

Macbook Pro Early 2013 users as well !
[doublepost=1559658311][/doublepost]

Woo hoo! My daughter and I have late-2013 MBPs. Probably the best investment I made was paying a premium for a notebook that’ll last. If I had gone economy with a basic Windows notebook, it would have been replaced a few times by now.

I am very pleased with my early 2013 MBP and would very much like to replace it eventually with a similar product but I am extremely hesitant to do so due to all the reported problems with recent models. I realise that some deny there are more than a few users impacted but even the most rabid fanboy has to admit that hardware quality has taken a drop. These are not inexpensive machines (particularly to those of us in Europe and even more so to us retired users) and in the past some of us justified the expense by knowing we were purchasing very high quality items and the trouble free longevity would be worth it. Now can we make the same justification???

 

[Bloubum]

Bad form, Apple. I know you've just released a new Mac Pro (albeit, one that's out of the ordinary user's price range), but for those who just upgraded their 2010-2012 cMP graphics cards last year with the expectation of a few more years of updates...

Shameful.

Yah, they waited top drop old cheese grater support till they introduced new one cause they knew the 2013 trash can was just trash. They so could make Catalina compatible with Mac Pro that have full 64 support just as they continued for non trash can macs.
[doublepost=1559664912][/doublepost]

A 2010 Mac Pro has more than enough power to run the upcoming version of Mac OS, and quite likely any system software Apple releases for the next two decades. I know the 80s and 90s had us replacing our computers every few years, but we've hit a relative plateau over the past decade, and claiming that an 2010 8-core Xeon can't run what a 2017 dual-core i5 can is just disingenuous.

I'm not saying don't innovate or update. But I despise the throwaway culture we live in. I'm in the small minority, but I'd like to see computers (especially one's that cost more than $1000) come to be viewed as appliances more than apparel (think about it). When I buy a refrigerator, a couch, or a car, I expect it to last me 15-20 years. I will pay for quality engineering, but in return I'll determine when to EOL my property.

This is the philosophical problem I have with Apple and most other companies in the hardware and software industries. Most people don't seem to notice (or mind) that they're being fleeced, and the analogy of the frog in the boiling water is not out of place here.

Totally agree. I paid about 7k for my mac pro with upgraded vida k5000 card and I should be able to use it for 15 to 20 years. That ads up to about a new pac pro every 4 years or so. Apple always bragging about how they make the most recyclable hardware but the true planet caring way to go is keep supporting it. I am sure they just added code to the installer to block it from installing. It can be worked around but we should not have to!!!!

 

[UKPoliticsGuy]

What makes the Late 2013 MacBook Pro more special than, say the Mid 2014, Early/Mid 2015, or anything newer (or even the couple of generations older that are also getting support for macOS Catalina?

Err, it's mine.

 

[-DMN-]

2012 QC i7 Mac mini Lets Gooooo!!!!! :]

 

[jgleigh]

No more Cheese Grater 1.0 Mac Pro updates. Boo!

Guess that will keep http://dosdude1.com/software.html busy. But as long as Apple and Nvidia keep fighting about video cards I'll be stuck on High Sierra.

 

[davidlv]

I still use it as a second station, makes cash as the day it was bought. they don't make computers like that anymore...

My MBP is even older, a 2011, and it too is still going strong. Unfortunately my eyes are getting poor enough that it is hard to use now, without leaning in too far! So I mainly use it for backup, and do the work on the old Mac Pro.

 

[bosozoku]

I agree with you overall, but I think the car and refrigerator analogy is flawed. I have a Mac Pro from 2010 and I think it's sad that it won't get 10.15, but I do understand that computers are way more complex machines – both hardware and software wise – compared to refrigerators. I don't know the exact reason for Apple omitting the classic Mac Pro's in the coming MacOS, but maybe there are good reasons for doing so? I was thinking it might be related to the processors not getting any micro code updates from Intel for the lates security concerns found in their processors, but I don't know...



The video card gymnastics has already been done to get them to run Mojave, so I don't see that as a reason not letting them support MacOS 10.15. Must be some other reason(s).

the main reason is new modular mac pro is coming

 

[star-affinity]

the main reason is new modular mac pro is coming

So you are certain about this? What was the main reason for the 2008 Mac Pros being left out sooner? Because there have recently been quite some care coming from Apple when it comes to the classic Mac Pro machines. Firmware updates that has given support for booting from NVMe drives, for example. Why is this done if the new Mac Pro is on the way?

 

[AnonMac50]

So you are certain about this? What was the main reason for the 2008 Mac Pros being left out sooner? Because there have recently been quite some care coming from Apple when it comes to the classic Mac Pro machines. Firmware updates that has given support for booting from NVMe drives, for example. Why is this done if the new Mac Pro is on the way?

They don’t want to support any computer more than they have to. I’m sure if they could differentiate between the 2010 and 2012 models themselves they wouldn’t even let 2010 models run Mojave. They have discontinued support for many models just because they are older than 6-7 years, even though there are other models with the exact same specs.

 

[ojfl]

Maybe they will. The initial beta for Mojave did not support the older Mac Pro either. They added support release version if you had a metal capable card.

Here is hoping!

 

[HVDynamo]

Bad form, Apple. I know you've just released a new Mac Pro (albeit, one that's out of the ordinary user's price range), but for those who just upgraded their 2010-2012 cMP graphics cards last year with the expectation of a few more years of updates...

Shameful.

Honestly, this is a big thing that bugs me about how Apple does business. I'm lucky with my mid 2012 cMBP still being supported this time around, but I have zero need to upgrade, and I kind of don't want to since I would be losing all my ports that I still use. This computer has been great and is still plenty fast for my needs. But once the software stops getting security updates I won't really have a choice. It's nice for my laptop, but I think the Mac Pro's should have a longer lifespan than they are given considering the tier of hardware they have and the slowing of hardware support. Hell, I'd even be happy to go back to buying Mac OS updates to help keep the support for older machines going.
[doublepost=1560181999][/doublepost]

What makes the Late 2013 MacBook Pro more special than, say the Mid 2014, Early/Mid 2015, or anything newer (or even the couple of generations older that are also getting support for macOS Catalina?



The 2012 Mac mini was sold until 2014 when the 2014 Mac mini replaced it in the lineup.

The 2012 non-Retina 13" MacBook Pro was still sold until late 2016.

Both are rocking the same Intel Ivy Bridge chipsets, so you are correct that there's no technical reason as to why one should get more support than the other. However, the final sale date isn't what matters relative to the date it loses software support. If that was the case, then it would stand to reason that the 2012 Mac Pro should be supported for Catalina, given that a 2012 MacBook Pro already has support (when the 2012 Mac Pro didn't include any technology that wasn't also present in the 2010 Mac Pro).



A Windows PC sold in the same time period that the Late 2013 MacBook Pros were on sale for would still be supported for the current version of Windows 10 and presumably the next few thereafter. Even the cheap ones. You'd probably want to replace the HDD with an SDD, but other than that they'd be no different in terms of how well they ran Windows today.

People like to think that Macs are special in this regard, but they really aren't.



2010 and 2012 Mac Pros are excluded; likely for all of the video card upgrade gymnastics that had to be supported to enable them to run in Mojave.



I'm sure that if you spent $6000 on a 12-Core Mac Pro in 2011 or 2012, (and more money this last year on an upgraded graphics card so you could be current on macOS), you'd also complain. I do not have one of these machines, so it doesn't bother me. But I could totally imagine not being happy that this pretty much marks the beginning of shopping for a replacement Mac (especially when quality control isn't that great with Apple these days).





If I had to guess, it might have to do with (a) the fact that those Macs required a video card upgrade for Mojave (and Apple likely didn't want to have to keep supporting that kind of configuration for a machine that is already that old and (b) some of the increased tamper-proofing they're adding to Catalina. My guess is that if they didn't need an aftermarket video card for Mojave, they'd still be supported in Catalina.



...Except...it has nothing to do with the processor and everything to do with the video card support.



They need to slow down their software development cycles is what they really need to do. I don't think anyone really needed macOS 10.15 to release in 2019. Hell, I wouldn't mind waiting until 2021. They do not need to pump out new OS releases every year, especially since they don't seem to focus on things that I really wanted out of my Mac and are instead focusing on trying to figure out how my Mac can run more like a bloody iPad.

The only thing driving us to replace our Apple products is that the pace of software development is such that we are much sooner getting to the version of iOS/macOS/tvOS/watchOS/iPadOS where our Apple product either runs like crap or is left in the cold. Just slow your cycle and our **** can last longer and everyone can be happy!

Yeah, I haven't been happy with the yearly release cycle at all for macs. It's kind of ok with phones, but with PC's there isn't much that needs to change that often really. Hardware really does need to be supported for longer than apple does these days. I think 10 years should be a minimum for OS support given the fact that performance increases have slowed so much over the last 10 years or 9 years from the last date that model was sold. Everything with a 2010ish processor in it should be able to handle the OS still. It may not be a fast experience in some cases, but the pro machines definitely should still be supported back to 2009.

 

[JenI-cross]

A 2010 Mac Pro has more than enough power to run the upcoming version of Mac OS, and quite likely any system software Apple releases for the next two decades. I know the 80s and 90s had us replacing our computers every few years, but we've hit a relative plateau over the past decade, and claiming that an 2010 8-core Xeon can't run what a 2017 dual-core i5 can is just disingenuous.

I'm not saying don't innovate or update. But I despise the throwaway culture we live in. I'm in the small minority, but I'd like to see computers (especially one's that cost more than $1000) come to be viewed as appliances more than apparel (think about it). When I buy a refrigerator, a couch, or a car, I expect it to last me 15-20 years. I will pay for quality engineering, but in return I'll determine when to EOL my property.

This is the philosophical problem I have with Apple and most other companies in the hardware and software industries. Most people don't seem to notice (or mind) that they're being fleeced, and the analogy of the frog in the boiling water is not out of place here.

I think the main reason 5.1 are being killed is to kill hackintosh's ! There nothing apple could do when there was no custom hardware and universal drivers ! Yes there work rounds still but, it only matter time , I sure the T2 chip is just hardware dongle in all but name and it will imposable run mac OSX without one !

 

[jmariage]

I have reviewed the specs on all Macs sold in 2012 and fail to see why the Mac Pro (Mid 2012) does not meet the MacOS Catalina 10.15 requirements.

If it is hardware, the only thing this machine does not presently have is Bluetooth 4.0. It was originally equipped with Bluetooth 2.1 whereas all other Apple products of the time came with Bluetooth 4.0.

I could see how the old non-Metal compatible video card failed to meet Mojave requirements. But an upgrade to the Radeon RX580 with 8GB solve that. Now it's video performance matches the latest Mac of today.

I also own two 2012 MacBook Pros, a 13" and a 15" both with I-7 microprocessors, SSDs and 16GB of RAM. And am glad for their continued support.

But my main computer is the Mid 2012 Mac Pro. It is configured with a 3.33GHz 6-Core Xeon, 32GB of RAM, 14TB of storage (including 3 SSDs) and a Radeon RX580 with 8GB. Along with this I have three (1920 x 1200) displays, and Apple Keyboard, a Magic Mouse and a Magic Trackpad. I have also added a SATA 3 Card and eSATA, and USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt to its capabilities.

What more does it need?

 

[ojfl]

I have reviewed the specs on all Macs sold in 2012 and fail to see why the Mac Pro (Mid 2012) does not meet the MacOS Catalina 10.15 requirements.

If it is hardware, the only thing this machine does not presently have is Bluetooth 4.0. It was originally equipped with Bluetooth 2.1 whereas all other Apple products of the time came with Bluetooth 4.0.

I could see how the old non-Metal compatible video card failed to meet Mojave requirements. But an upgrade to the Radeon RX580 with 8GB solve that. Now it's video performance matches the latest Mac of today.

I also own two 2012 MacBook Pros, a 13" and a 15" both with I-7 microprocessors, SSDs and 16GB of RAM. And am glad for their continued support.

But my main computer is the Mid 2012 Mac Pro. It is configured with a 3.33GHz 6-Core Xeon, 32GB of RAM, 14TB of storage (including 3 SSDs) and a Radeon RX580 with 8GB. Along with this I have three (1920 x 1200) displays, and Apple Keyboard, a Magic Mouse and a Magic Trackpad. I have also added a SATA 3 Card and eSATA, and USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt to its capabilities.

What more does it need?

I wish I knew. I hope Apple sees people like you and decide to support Catalina on these machines as well. Maybe with a Bluetooth 4 USB dongle, which you probably have as well. If I may ask, what card did you use to add Thunderbolt?

 

[AnonMac50]

I have reviewed the specs on all Macs sold in 2012 and fail to see why the Mac Pro (Mid 2012) does not meet the MacOS Catalina 10.15 requirements.

If it is hardware, the only thing this machine does not presently have is Bluetooth 4.0. It was originally equipped with Bluetooth 2.1 whereas all other Apple products of the time came with Bluetooth 4.0.

I could see how the old non-Metal compatible video card failed to meet Mojave requirements. But an upgrade to the Radeon RX580 with 8GB solve that. Now it's video performance matches the latest Mac of today.

I also own two 2012 MacBook Pros, a 13" and a 15" both with I-7 microprocessors, SSDs and 16GB of RAM. And am glad for their continued support.

But my main computer is the Mid 2012 Mac Pro. It is configured with a 3.33GHz 6-Core Xeon, 32GB of RAM, 14TB of storage (including 3 SSDs) and a Radeon RX580 with 8GB. Along with this I have three (1920 x 1200) displays, and Apple Keyboard, a Magic Mouse and a Magic Trackpad. I have also added a SATA 3 Card and eSATA, and USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt to its capabilities.

What more does it need?

Newness and Apple blessing. If they can squeeze out a little more by making those users upgrade to newer machines they will. Most of the time Apple discontinues support for a system it isn’t because the machines aren’t capable. Let’s look at the recent example Machine cutoff for Sierra/High Sierra. Only a few of the machines cut off legitimately couldn’t run Sierra or High Sierra, they were 2007 models, because the CPU couldn’t support it. Upgrading the CPU in some of the machines would be no problem, but not supporting it is understandable. But most, if not all 2008-2009 models that were supported for El Capitan but not Sierra could actually run them. Especially since a lot of them had the exact same hardware that some of the supported models had. For example, 2009 13” MacBook Pro, 2009 white MacBook (non-unibody), and 2009 unibody MacBook. Only the latter supported it officially. Why? People will say these computers are old and shouldn’t be expected to run, but in reality, the computers can be run with hardly any extra work (if people that don’t work at Apple manage it easily, Apple can definitely do it).

 

[ojfl]

Newness and Apple blessing. If they can squeeze out a little more by making those users upgrade to newer machines they will. Most of the time Apple discontinues support for a system it isn’t because the machines aren’t capable. Let’s look at the recent example Machine cutoff for Sierra/High Sierra. Only a few of the machines cut off legitimately couldn’t run Sierra or High Sierra, they were 2007 models, because the CPU couldn’t support it. Upgrading the CPU in some of the machines would be no problem, but not supporting it is understandable. But most, if not all 2008-2009 models that were supported for El Capitan but not Sierra could actually run them. Especially since a lot of them had the exact same hardware that some of the supported models had. For example, 2009 13” MacBook Pro, 2009 white MacBook (non-unibody), and 2009 unibody MacBook. Only the latter supported it officially. Why? People will say these computers are old and shouldn’t be expected to run, but in reality, the computers can be run with hardly any extra work (if people that don’t work at Apple manage it easily, Apple can definitely do it).

I think it is fine for Apple to try and move people to newer machines. But the thing is, look at the specifications of the machine in the previous comment. An equivalent machine in the new Mac Pro would probably touch US$ 6,000 . That is not an easy number to swallow. They could try and make cheaper machines on the same architecture, and people would probably then upgrade.

 

[Frost7]

2012 classic MBP still going strong. What a beast. It just won’t die.

I still use mine as one of my main two workstations. Gets used either portably, or hooked up to one of two Thunderbolt Displays. Still going strong. Rocking a 4TB 860 Pro as storage now though, a far cry from the crappy little drive it originally came with.

 

[magicschoolbus]

I still use mine as one of my main two workstations. Gets used either portably, or hooked up to one of two Thunderbolt Displays. Still going strong. Rocking a 4TB 860 Pro as storage now though, a far cry from the crappy little drive it originally came with.

I threw a 1 TB SSD Samung EVO into mine and it was the best decision I have ever made.. Finally upgraded to 16 gigs a few weeks ago and its running like a dream! I just wish I could upgrade this damn screen.. coming from an iPad Pro to this, its like flipping from a standard def broadcast to a high def.. Still love it though. I can deal..when Apple releases a mac with the keyboard not recalled from the factory, maybe I will pick a new one up.

 

[iMacGuru]

M 21.5" 2015 iMac with 8GB and SSD won't handle Mojave. Too many whirling beach bass to use. I'm now running High Sierra. Will my iMac run Catalina?

 

[InexperiencedMacGirl]

Maybe you can help me out, I need to get a "new" mac because at 2010 my current one is "un-updatable". The Mac guy I "thought" I trusted told me after Mojave "no one will be able to update new OS's anymore", but based on what I read here about OS Catalina, should I get a 2015, or '17, I should be good to go...at least for a few years? Yes, no? What is the "real" issue if you can't update? This guy told me security...Thanks for any help!