Hi, I am not v good with computers. But, I havew held off from getting Mojave, since it seems i was being told me excellent Brother printer would not work with it. Why did you hold back? TY
List of Macs Compatible With macOS Big Sur
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Mr. Dee
macrumors 603
Because my existing apps work with High Sierra and don’t require the latest and the Adobe apps are still working just fine. When Office 365 stops supporting 10.13 and Apple stops issuing security updates, I will move to 10.14.
mixel
macrumors 68000
Aww man.. This Early 2013 MBP runs Catalina perfectly, it really seems pretty arbitrary where they draw the lines.. What reason is there for a Mac with these specs:
To not run it, when there are newer, much weaker machines on the supported list? (I know, got to cut off sometime, but they never seem to take into consideration the difference between a low spec and high spec build of the same model)
Saying that, there will almost certainly be a patch.
To not run it, when there are newer, much weaker machines on the supported list? (I know, got to cut off sometime, but they never seem to take into consideration the difference between a low spec and high spec build of the same model)
Saying that, there will almost certainly be a patch.
Futhark
macrumors 65816
That’s pretty much the point I’m trying to make myself. Yes if I had kept my Mac Mini Late 2012 at base spec it would have been an awful user experience and one Apple wouldn’t want their users to experience but I’ve went from 4GB to 16GB Ram and changed to a solid state drive.
macrumor2018
macrumors member
The Haswell Processors in the Late 2013 21.5" iMac do not support hyperthreading, while those in the Mid 2013 MacBook Air, Late 2013 MacBook Pro, 2014 Mac mini and Mid 2014 21.5" iMac do support hyperthreading and use low power LPDDR3 RAM that is soldered and can't be upgraded at all. 2013 Mac Pro CPU also supports hyperthreading.
I'd be surprised if this had nothing to do it.
As for the Late 2013 27" iMacs vs newer 27" iMacs, someone else might know but perhaps Apple simply doesn't want to support 27" non-retina displays with updates anymore. I'm really not sure what happened there, as those devices don't use LPDDRx RAM or CPUs with hyperthreading.
I'd be surprised if this had nothing to do it.
As for the Late 2013 27" iMacs vs newer 27" iMacs, someone else might know but perhaps Apple simply doesn't want to support 27" non-retina displays with updates anymore. I'm really not sure what happened there, as those devices don't use LPDDRx RAM or CPUs with hyperthreading.
MrUNIMOG
macrumors 6502a
I don't think hyperthreading could be the reason, as even the latest (2018) Mac mini doesn't support it in i3 and i5 configurations. And as you mentioned neither do current iMac models (unless configured with an i7).
The non-Retina thing also doesn't make that much sense since they obviously still need to support external 27" displays of the same resolution (heck, even their own old Thunderbolt Display for the 2013 Mac Pro users out there).
Plus, there's a non-Retina iMac still being sold even today, albeit a 21.5" model.
macrumor2018
macrumors member
When MacOS Sierra was released all macs that had ever shipped with OS X Leopard pre-installed were not supported by Sierra (regardless of specs including Wi-Fi chips, etc.). Macs introduced after OS X Snow Leopard was released (with the exception of Late 2009 Mac Mini, which had an older Wi-Fi chip) were supported by Sierra and High Sierra.
But this kind of scenario doesn’t seem to explain what happened here with Big Sur.
But this kind of scenario doesn’t seem to explain what happened here with Big Sur.
DaveN
macrumors 6502a
Do you mean Messages? The app with the blue cartoon text bubble with three ...? Yes it works and syncs with the current iOS.
macrumor2018
macrumors member
Actually, looking further into it, as far as 2013 iMacs being incompatible with Big Sur goes, I think it comes down to the requirement of 1.5 GB of Graphics Memory.
Edit: Corrected Sierra to Big Sur
Edit: Corrected Sierra to Big Sur
Last edited:
MrUNIMOG
macrumors 6502a
Indeed possible, but still would be kind of odd to exclude the whole 2013 iMac lineup, when this would actually just affect 1 GB 750M and 755M models.. Both the lower-end Iris Pro and the higher end 775M, 780M models would've been fine. Perhaps they wanted to avoid confusion? Still, odd decision, if there isn't another reason.
Also, 1.5 GB VRAM requirement would be quite a jump from Catalina, which supported machines with as little as 512 MB (Nvidia GT 640M and 650M).
macrumor2018
macrumors member
Perhaps as a result of not wanting customers who purchased the 2013 iMacs with 1 GB graphics memory to feel ripped off, Apple went out of its way to ensure that the other 2013 iMacs would also not be supported to alleviate customer confusion or frustration (especially of those who bought the more expensive 21.5" model) but kept the basic mid 2014 21.5" model supported (perhaps because it was introduced separately and it would be less confusing for the average user for identification purposes, etc.). The unresolved questions section on this page supports that idea also indicating that 802.11n Wi-Fi is not supported by Big Sur, hence the lack of support for 2012 and Early 2013 Macs.
I recall when OSX Leopard was released in 2007, its minimum requirement was a PowerPC G4 Processor with a clock speed of 867MHz or faster. These days, Apple just refers to the date a Mac was introduced. Over time, it seems the company has become less transparent as to why older Macs are dropped from macOS updates than in the past.
macrumor2018
macrumors member
Actually Sierra support had more to do with whether or not a mac computer series was ever shipped with OS X Leopard preinstalled or contained an older Broadcom chip. If so for either, they weren’t supported by Sierra.
For example, mid 2009 MBP originally shipped with Leopard so needed to be able to accommodate this OS. This could have caused future compatibility problems with the future MacOS Sierra. The mid 2010 MacBook Pro although virtually identical to its predecessor never had to run OS X Leopard as Snow Leopard was on the market by then.
Last edited:
MrUNIMOG
macrumors 6502a
I hope you're joking. If not, that's some really wild theory you've got there.. 🙃
YMark
macrumors 6502a
Anyone know if Big Sur will run on a Late 2013 iMac? The above isn't clear, it just says "Accordingly, the following models capable of running macOS Catalina will not be able to be upgraded to macOS Big Sur:"
EDIT: I found the answer, and I guess it isn't supported. That pisses me right off as Banktivity 8 needs Big Sur. I'm just not sure who I'm more pissed at.
Thanks
- 2012 and 2013 iMac
EDIT: I found the answer, and I guess it isn't supported. That pisses me right off as Banktivity 8 needs Big Sur. I'm just not sure who I'm more pissed at.
Thanks
Same situation - except I never heard of Banktivity I am just annoyed that my late 2013 iMac (which they sold < 5 years ago?) doesn't support the new OS!
DaveM77
macrumors newbie
Banktivity's own site says "The new Banktivity for Mac is optimized for macOS 11 Big Sur but also runs on macOS 10.15 Catalina".
I wouldn't panic just yet.
Last edited:
It's not that some of the excluded MAC models hardware is incapable of supporting BIG SUR. It's more to do with arbitrary exclusions being written into BIG SURs source code. Apple has done everything in it's power to prevent MAC computers from being upgraded to extend their functional "life spans" … soldered in HDDs and RAM … now MAC computer models arbitrarily excluded in the new O/Ss source code. It's all about maximizing the bottom line. BIG SUR might turn out to be a dud … after all CATALINA was nothing to write home about.💣
Wyatt Wong
macrumors newbie
I agreed with you that 2012 MBP should be able to run macOS Big Sur