List of Macs Compatible With macOS Sierra

[Flash SWT]

I came to jump on the "why not the 2009 Mac Pro 4,1" bandwagon. I imagine the wizards on the forum here will find a way to make it happen though.

I just can't justify buying a new machine when this one still works pretty well.

 

[commander.data]

If progress were the reason, they would have made a consistent cut, based on discernible hardware constraints. Yet the late 2009 MacBook is still supported, while it has the same CPU, GPU and RAM as some older MacBook models or even MacBook Pro models of the same year. This appears to be an arbitrary policy choice, not based on hardware considerations.

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook+Pro+15-Inch+Unibody+Mid+2010+Teardown/2212#undefined

-A close up view of the AirPort Extreme card.
-This AirPort card is a bit different than the one mounted in the clutch cover of the Late 2008 and Early 2009 MBP 15" Unibody.
-This is in fact the same AirPort/Bluetooth board found in the plastic MacBook Unibody.

There are many other components in a computer than just the CPU, GPU, and RAM and Apple has to worry about not just performance but also driver availability. In this case, I think the difference might be the Airport/Bluetooth card/chipsets. The Mid 2009 MacBook Pro shared the same Airport/Bluetooth card design as previous Early 2009 and Late 2008 MacBook Pros while a new design was introduced starting with the Late 2009 MacBook which was then used in the Mid 2010 MacBook/MacBook Pro. OS X drivers need the co-operation of both Apple and the OEM providing the chips and if all parties decided that around 2010 is as far back as they are willing to provide resources to make and support drivers for, it just happened that the Late 2009 MacBook got in for free because Airport/Bluetooth drivers were already available from the Mid 2010 MacBook/MacBook Pro whereas the Mid 2009 MacBook Pro was the last of it's generation. There may well be other minor component differences between 2009 and 2010 models where driver availability has resulted in the final supported hardware list landing where it did irrespective of bigger components like the CPU and GPU.

And while 2009 hardware is currently 7 years old, which while fairly old now, may not seem too old to support given how long Macs can last, Apple has to consider the full support lifetime of a macOS release which is 3 years including the security update only phase (drivers have had security vulnerabilities requiring updates) before supporting a Mac. So Apple has to be sure they themselves as well as all the OEMs who provide the various chips in a Mac are all willing to support and maintain drivers until late 2019 for a Mac to be included in Sierra. So this Late 2009 Mac support cut-off actually means owners of those devices will get a decade of macOS support by the time Sierra hits EOL in late 2019, assuming Sierra is the last release for them, which I think is a reasonable lifespan.

 

[sudo1996]

I came to jump on the "why not the 2009 Mac Pro 4,1" bandwagon. I imagine the wizards on the forum here will find a way to make it happen though.

I just can't justify buying a new machine when this one still works pretty well.

Yep, it's already been done for the 3,1. What about all those Xserves you have?

 

[Flash SWT]

Yep, it's already been done for the 3,1. What about all those Xserves you have?

Doh! I'm at home in "personal mode" so I was only thinking about myself actually. Since a new machine here is money out of my pocket.

But you're right, this puts a sunset on all our servers at work as well. It's too bad since they still run like champs. That said, El Cap should still get security updates for another couple years and by then it'll probably be time to retire that hardware anyways.

 

[kwikdeth]

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.

Yep, keep buying that company line. The shareholders love you guys.

There is literally no hardware difference between a 2009 and a 2010 Mac pro besides it's installed CPU and firmware to support said CPU.

A 2009 MacBook with a dual core cpu, with integrated graphics, is supported... but an eight-core Mac Pro machine with discreet GDDR5 graphics can't cut it? Yeah that's right, cuz AirDrop would run like "****" on that. Yeah right.


Past cutoffs have made technical sense. 32-bit. Graphics capabilities. This one is just arbitrary, and what I'd expect from Apple in 2016.

 

[sudo1996]

A 2009 MacBook with a dual core cpu, with integrated graphics, is supported... but an eight-core Mac Pro machine with discreet GDDR5 graphics can't cut it? Yeah that's right, cuz AirDrop would run like "****" on that. Yeah right.

Heh, and if you want to prove the point even further, hack AirDrop to work on the Mac Pro anyway.

 

[oldmacs]

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.

I've used it on 2007 machines and with an SSD its fine. I have it on my 2008 White Macbook that Apple couldn't be bothered supporting in 10.8 and that is fine!

I don't care what Apple's business model is - arbitrary cut offs are ridiculous and Apple should be ashamed. They are rolling in the cash, and it is a hypocritical move given their supposed 'environmental friendliness'

 

[karsten]

I've used it on 2007 machines and with an SSD its fine. I have it on my 2008 White Macbook that Apple couldn't be bothered supporting in 10.8 and that is fine!

I don't care what Apple's business model is - arbitrary cut offs are ridiculous and Apple should be ashamed. They are rolling in the cash, and it is a hypocritical move given their supposed 'environmental friendliness'

not to mention it's not like microsoft where they have to support every hardware build under the sun, apple has what like 5 different computers?

 

[oldmacs]

not to mention it's not like microsoft where they have to support every hardware build under the sun, apple has what like 5 different computers?

Exactly - Apple has few fewer machines to support

 

[Naaaaak]

Macs remain the computers with the shortest OS support. Windows, Linux and *BSD are unmatched. Quite different from what Apple is doing on mobile.

Part of the reason is that a lot of Apple's hardware is so ****** unless you pay for the top end. GPUs have been comparatively underpowered for years and RAM has been comparatively skimped on. All those shortcuts taken years ago.

The shortcuts now are well-known (5200 RPM HDs, etc.).

 

[pat500000]

I came to jump on the "why not the 2009 Mac Pro 4,1" bandwagon. I imagine the wizards on the forum here will find a way to make it happen though.

I just can't justify buying a new machine when this one still works pretty well.

Tim Cooks says otherwise.

 

[Astro7x]

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.

I held off on updating my OS for years, was running Mountain Lion for the longest time on my 2008 Mac Pro. I had to finally upgrade to El Capitan for some software compatibility, and was absolutely shocked at how it ran better.

Guess I'm El Capitan for life now...

 

[Hennesie2000]

Well, time to start a thread devoted to installing on "unsupported" machines just like the MacPro1,1 and 2,1 machines. I need to upgrade my wife's 2009 MacBook Pro at least one more year.

 

[SoAnyway]

My 2011 iMac felt like a whole new computer when I breathed more life into it by putting an SSD in it last year. I'm glad found mercy in their infinite wisdom to continue to support my iMac for another year or two despite how well it performs.

 

[paulin2012]

Apple today announced macOS Sierra, the latest version of its Mac software platform and renamed successor to OS X El Capitan. The first beta of the update was seeded to developers earlier today, while a public beta will be released in July.

macOS Sierra will be available as a free software update for compatible MacBook, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iMac, Mac mini, and Mac Pro models in the fall. Many 2007 to 2009 Macs that are compatible with OS X El Capitan will not be upgradeable to macOS Sierra, as the cutoff is now at least Late 2009.

The official list of Macs compatible with macOS Sierra:

Late 2009 or Later
MacBook
iMac


2010 or Later
MacBook Air
MacBook Pro
Mac mini
Mac ProApple has shared the full video of its WWDC 2016 keynote, where it also introduced iOS 10 alongside new versions of watchOS and tvOS.

Article Link: List of Macs Compatible With macOS Sierra

El Capitan was a such messed up OS for my Mac mini (late 2012). There were no discernible improvements and screwed up Mail and Safari and no way to restore the previous OS. I have lost confidence in Apple.

 

[neutralguy]

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.

Don't worry. You will have enough time to save up for that!

 

[haruhiko]

All these planned (and forced) obsolescence plus the App Store search ads.

With the iPhone sales slowing down, Apple is really desperate to force existing users to upgrade.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

If a fully maxxed out Mac Pro from the 2009 can't run Sierra that says more about the "worlds most advanced desktop operating system" than anything else, don't you think?

Unless of course it's sales politics...

At this point, I'm not buying it anymore.
The OS is free, that's quite the change. (or "free" as I should put it)
Windows isn't nearly as much of a slouch anymore, sure it has its problems in many other areas, but OS X isn't exactly perfect either.
Yet Windows manages to stay compatible with a wide range of computers and OS X is sitting here getting dropped from still perfectly viable computers.


I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even allow any tricks like that anymore.
Then again maybe you're right.
Guess we'll have to wait and see, but it's hard to be optimistic these days.

Glassed Silver:mac

Not like for like comparision. You are comparing two operations systems, yes. However, the business models are completely different. Do no forget that Apple is a hardware company that makes software. Microsoft is a software company that makes a bit of hardware. See the difference? Windows needs to cater to every single machine it can, because the OS is the product. Same with Linux, UNIX, etc. MacOS is not the product in and of itself. It is a integral part of the product package, that only runs on Apple hardware. Same with iOS and iPad/iPhone.

Of course sales politics has to do with it. Planned obsolescence naive to believe otherwise. As illustrated, the hardware is Apple's business model, not the software. Then again, 8 years is a good run for any computer, Mac, Wintel, whatever, and you already know Apple's stance on computers that are more than 5 years old. Owning one is "sad" according to Phil Schiller, and it quite makes sense that he says so, right?

If you want to keep using your older Mac Pro on the very latest operating system, maybe you have to go to Windows 10, but I would argue that, "What's wrong with El Capitan that you can't just keep using that? Why is that not an option for you?"

I get that you want to have the latest and greatest features on your computer, but taking things in perspective...have you tried running Windows 10 on an average, run of the mill 2009 Wintel machine? It isn't very pleasant, I can tell you that!

 

[sevoneone]

There are many other components in a computer than just the CPU, GPU, and RAM and Apple has to worry about not just performance but also driver availability. In this case, I think the difference might be the Airport/Bluetooth card/chipsets...

Came here to say the same thing. Thank you for bringing reason to this thread.

Remember all the wifi issues that cropped up when 10.8 or 10.9 came out (can't remember right now exactly which OS)? This is just speculation, but that was likely a software conflict between drivers and some control software that is part of the OS.

Part of what makes the Mac experience so good is the fact that the OS and the hardware are very closely tied together and, as a result, the way macOS handles hardware drivers and controls that hardware can be fundamentally different than Windows or Linux. When you have a common, known set of components, you can make low level tweaks to make feature X faster or more reliable. Even though those tweaks might not work on every variety of component out there, you can make it work on every new machine you've released in the past 6 years and a good number of ones from the past 7, but you have to leave the rest behind. If the result is that you have something that works better because of it, well that's advancement and innovation. I'm sorry that the Broadcom/Realtek/Intel engineer that designed whatever chip it is, couldn't look into his chrystal ball and know 7 years later Apple might want to do bizarre thing X with the hardware and accomodate for it.

Trust me, everyone, including those with machines left behind, will be much happier than they would be if they tried to shoehorn support in and everyone had wifi,Bluetooth,battery life,track pad, [insert pice of hardware here]... problems because of it.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

All these planned (and forced) obsolescence plus the App Store search ads.

With the iPhone sales slowing down, Apple is really desperate to force existing users to upgrade.

Except this is nothing new for Apple? They sell hardware. Of course they want you to buy more of it, and at regular, increasing intervals, preferably. This has always been the case. Don't understand how people are suddenly criminalizing this when its always been the case, or better put, victimizing themselves. Maybe it is only the people that are directly affected this time, and they were all quite happy as long it wasn't their machines on the chopping block?

Remember when Apple used to charge for the new OS X version in addition to removing support for older machines? At least they're not doing that anymore.

 

[alvesik]

Do all macs get the Siri feature?

I have a 2014 MBA and I'm hoping to get the Siri feature.

If 2014 models don't get the Siri feature, Apple will have even more angry customers on their hands.

 

[willybNL]

My Mid-2009 MacBook Pro just sent over an overly large emoji...

I wonder if El Capitan will receive All Security Fixes that Sierra will get.

Otherwise there is just one option; upgrade to Windows 10. That even runs on the first MacBook with Intel they ever made.

My Late 2008 MacBook Pro has more hardware than you'd have when buying a cheap PC right now so I really don't see why it wouldn't be able to run Sierra (with some features disabled). It's still blazing fast with El Capitan.

 

[demodave]

[snip]

Apple today announced macOS Sierra, the latest version of its Mac software platform and renamed successor to OS X El Capitan. The first beta of the update was seeded to developers earlier today, while a public beta will be released in July.

[snip]

Article Link: List of Macs Compatible With macOS Sierra

Why are so many people complaining about 6 (or 7) year old Macs not running macOS Sierra? That's 6 YEARS!?!?!

I own a 2010 MacBook Pro that I want to update, not because it might not run macOS Sierra, but because it is getting heavy. I can imagine that it might make a decent "desktop" non-traveling "typewriter", but I want my "go with me" laptop to feature reasonably recent technology, both electromechanical *and* software.

A Mac from 2009 or 2010 has likely offered over 2000+ days of service. At $1 a day, has it not already done it's fair share?

[I will exempt myself from debate with the people who clearly know the guts of the system and the software. I'm not that smart. I just want it to work. And it seems to me that Apple has its hands full with that goal at the moment.]

 

[willybNL]

Hopefully they will actually allow you to upgrade, but state it is not officially supported (but only best effort).

That way everybody can decide for themselves and do not need to violate any terms when trying to get it running (eg. Via A VMware hyper visor or so that just fakes its a newer Mac).

 

[poi ran]

I think historically Apple has supported hardware better than software. In some cases just the latest OS is fully supported with security updates. Our Macbook Pro Early 2008 has survived longer than any other Apple computer we've owned (and we've owned since late 80s). I've upgraded it with SSD, maxed out RAM at 6GB (4GB could barely run Yosemite). Quite expensive computer (and even more so here in Sweden), but worth the money. At the moment it runs great, but I guess lack of security updates for El Capitan and its Safari will force my MBP into retirement in 2017, 2018 latest. Addition: I wouldn't mind staying on El Capitan for years to come if Apple promises security updates until a certain date, just like Microsoft does. I do _not_ like Apple's quiet drop of support for older OS.

I would accept this without question if Apple offered a good explanation. Lack of drivers for <whatever device> or something would do. Too little RAM for the GPU (I have 256MB). What should kill many old Macs is lack of RAM I reckon, being stuck with 4 or even 2 GB today isn't fun. If they say they drop it because they can't be bothered to update Firewire,bluetooth or camera drivers I'd be annoyed though, as those are features I never use. And I'd like the choice to upgrade and lose some obsolete hardware support, just like Windows allows. (I have hopes that there will be ways to force an upgrade to "obsolete" machines)

As for other platforms. My 2012 Google Nexus 4 phone, with quad core CPU, 2GB RAM, HD display, whatever, was dropped by Google "for no apparent reason" when Android 6 was released 2015. Although hardware of my Nexus is still better than many 2016 Android phones it is stuck on a 2014 OS (Lollipop 5). Apple supports phones better, removing features but giving ("forcing") older phones new operating systems and security updates. (I now use Custom ROM for my phones, but Samsung, Google, LG, Sony, they all have crap update/upgrade policies)

Ok this is OT, but I run Windows 10 on a 2010 8GB RAM quad core intel PC with SSD, it also runs OSX El Capitan. No problems. I expect it to run Sierra, but perhaps the GPU (AMD6670) might kill it. I will then upgrade GPU. I also have a slower 2009 quad core AMD PC with 4 GB RAM and a cheap AMD 4650 running Windows 10, SSD, no problem, kids use it for games and TV. And I have a 2006 dual core AMD with 4 GB RAM and nvidia 8400 running Windows 7 (which MS supports with security updates until 2020). It might run Windows 10 if I tried, but I haven't. My point is that PC hardware also survives long these days, unless you buy the absolutely cheapest stuff available. I think my 2010 PC run Windows 10 and El Capitan better than some current line PCs and Macs actually. None of my PCs have anything but "standard" equipment", they were all quite cheap and then upgraded as needed. By far our Macbook Pro is our most expensive computer, and it runs El Capitan without problems so I'd like Apple to give us the choice to run Sierra if possible.