Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

List of Macs Compatible With macOS Sierra

Ryantjan said:
But 13" MBP mid-2009 have same spec with 13" MBWU late-2009, and higher end model have better cpu with higher clock rate

Why apple drop support on 13" mbp mid-2009? Its more expensive than late-2009 mb :(
Click to expand...

They dropped support on both the mid-2009 and the late-2009 MBP. Again, at a guess, because the 2010 MBP was the first one that didn't have the broken two-GPU-but-not-at-once architecture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PabloGS
fredfnord said:
They dropped support on both the mid-2009 and the late-2009 MBP. Again, at a guess, because the 2010 MBP was the first one that didn't have the broken two-GPU-but-not-at-once architecture.
Click to expand...

Mid-2009 mbp 13" don't have 2 gpu, it just only have 9400m same with macbook late-2009, nothing different from this 2 machine, just different storage, 160gb vs 250gb

But higher end one have same storage 250gb, but have better ram and better cpu

I have higher end mbp 13" mid-2009 and apple drop support :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxiapple
GFLPraxis said:
With previous OS releases, drops usually made sense from an engineering perspective, but this time it seems so...arbitrary. ..... A 2008 MacBook isn't supported, but a Mac Mini with the same chipset is?
Click to expand...

I might be wrong about this, but did Apple still throttle the CPU when running on battery on 2008 MBs? I know they did on my 12" PowerBook (haha) ... if so, Sierra may run fine with full power, but not when running on battery. Just my thought... I might be way off here.
 
garirry said:
People keep complaining about this but please realise that it's been four years since there has been any OS drops, and prior to that every two-yearly (and even yearly) OS release dropped some of the old computers. I'm annoyed that the MacBook Early 2009 that I got by changing my 2008's logic board will not natively support it, but that's to be expected so I'm not angry.
Click to expand...
Definitely expected from Apple but not cool. The latest Windows can run on PCs from 2005...
 
  • Like
Reactions: vmistery, jpietrzak8, MH01 and 2 others
There are a thousand reasons for these things. And every time it happens, someone comes along and gets really really mad at Apple because they're being arbitrary and capricious about what they're doing, without having the faintest idea what those reasons are. It never fails, and it's always pretty funny when it happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brianric, Internet Enzyme and Brad9893
garirry said:
You do realise how many features are already unavailable on other Macs? Do you think Apple intentionally prevents that? No, it's just that it would run like ****. Better just drop it entirely at this point. And you better actually check the specs of the OS before judging like that.
Click to expand...
Heh, Apple always claims the latest OS is the fastest, but the higher spec requirements obviously show that it's not. Doesn't matter anyway. The 2009 Mac Pro isn't supported, but some piece of junk MacBook Air is just because it came out later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vmistery, nookster, Internet Enzyme and 8 others
truettray said:
I might be wrong about this, but did Apple still throttle the CPU when running on battery on 2008 MBs? I know they did on my 12" PowerBook (haha) ... if so, Sierra may run fine with full power, but not when running on battery. Just my thought... I might be way off here.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. I know, when I heard they were running LSTM/deep learning stuff on the device, I kinda wondered how they would do that efficiently... Obviously it will run on a background process, so maybe they were worried about slower laptops just crunching away in the background and absolutely slaughtering battery life. That would make a lot of sense... (and obviously a slow Mac Mini doesn't have that problem, since it can crunch away at this stuff all night long!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: centauratlas
fredfnord said:
There are a thousand reasons for these things. And every time it happens, someone comes along and gets really really mad at Apple because they're being arbitrary and capricious about what they're doing, without having the faintest idea what those reasons are. It never fails, and it's always pretty funny when it happens.
Click to expand...
Yeah, BS. I can install the new OS with absolutely no problems on an unsupported Mac if I want to; I just have to hack a boot file. My brother's been doing that without issues to run El Capitan on his MacPro1,1. No reason, though, as it would only result in a marginally slower Mac.

Oh, and other Unix-based OSs run on anything. Windows runs on almost anything Intel.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: vmistery, kiwi833, centauratlas and 2 others
I wonder if the 2009 Mac Pro can be made to work - you can already update their firmware to match that of the 2010 Mac Pro. And at that point, I don't think there are any actual differences other than the CPU they shipped with, which is swappable (hell it might even pass a simple system ID check).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Canubis and Flash SWT
  • Like
Reactions: Canubis, centauratlas and Flash SWT
blackcrayon said:
I wonder if the 2009 Mac Pro can be made to work - you can already update their firmware to match that of the 2010 Mac Pro. And at that point, I don't think there are any actual differences other than the CPU they shipped with, which is swappable (hell it might even pass a simple system ID check).
Click to expand...
If a Hackintosh can be made to work, then I'm sure that Macintosh can! ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: AleXXXa, sailmac and sudo1996
So this means that next year my early 2010 MBP will be dropped from macOS 10.13. Time to start saving for a 5K iMac I guess. Apple better included dual Thunderbolt 3.
 
GFLPraxis said:
But this time it seems so...arbitrary. A 2008 MacBook isn't supported, but a Mac Mini with the same chipset is?
Click to expand...
Agree with this 100%. I cannot understand the cutoff this time around. Now, let me also say that I don't consider 6-7 years of (free) OS updates to be all that bad, so it's not like I'm jumping on the "Apple sux" bandwagon with this one, but I can't really understand how they came up with this list. How is a 2009 MacBook supported, while a 2009 MacBook or Mac Pro not? Bizarre.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vmistery, taxiapple, Menneisyys2 and 2 others
It's hard to believe the decisions are arbitrary. I wonder if it has to do with killing off certain body styles or parts. I had read somewhere it was almost all he machines marked as obsolete or vintage.

It really seems that if it was going to be completely arbitrary they'd have just picked a year.

What kills me is that it seems like the crowd most likely to complain about the useless features are the same ones raging that the newest OS won't run on their 8-year-old computer (which is still supported and will be until whatever they call the 14th iteration of the OS is released).
 
  • Like
Reactions: MikeyMike01 and haruhiko
My 2008 Mac Pro is maxed out with a relatively recent PC graphic card and 10 or 12 Gigs of mem. It works fine for everything I throw at it even under bootcamp.
Not going to by a new Mac Pro until comes with a Pro machine that can have its graphic cards upgraded
Not interested in spending 3 grands to be able to buy a mini R2D2 can that can t have its graphics upgraded

Further more I cant find Apple displays since the old cinema display without that crappy reflective coating on them

I want a tower I can upgrade like a PC and I am not interested in flat screen that can t be much upgraded (imacs) so i guess I ll pass on the next OS upgrade. I m a Apple II kid that has been with MacOs since the 80s but the more time passes the more I get tired of this crap.

Elite Dangerous is not working on macs anymore because of Apple
Overwatch is not working on macs because of Apple

I ll stay with ios but until you give me an incentive to spend 1 to 3 grands just for those software upgrades its not going to happen
 
  • Like
Reactions: vmistery, nookster, agecross72 and 5 others
sudo1996 said:
Definitely expected from Apple but not cool. The latest Windows can run on PCs from 2005...
Click to expand...
And how is the user experience on that 2005 pc? Not trying to argue - that's a serious question.

Also, there's a difference that may be unpalatable, but should be acknowledged: MS still mostly makes their money off software (office, Windows). So it's in their interest to sell as many copies of Windows to as many machines as can possibly run it.

Apple, on the other hand, gives away its OS upgrades. They use software to drive their hardware sales. Giving people years of upgrades creates loyal customers... But they are still giving 6-7 years here. There has to be a limit. At some point, they need to make another hardware sale (or else charge for software).

Anyway, as I said before, I think this is an arbitrary list, which should have included lots more 2009 macs, if not 2008s, but I'm also cognizant of the realities of the business model(s) at issue here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: centauratlas
QCassidy352 said:
And how is the user experience on that 2005 pc? Not trying to argue - that's a serious question.
Click to expand...
It sucks because it's Windows, but it's not any worse on an old machine than on a new one unless that old machine is too slow to run the new Windows.

We still use 2005 PCs at home, hooked up to the TVs for watching movies and stuff. Funny, this was after we tried many different things like Apple TV and found that a Windows PC that can play absolutely everything is still the best.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: centauratlas
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back