List of Macs Compatible With macOS Sierra

[robertosh]

My 2008 iMac it's out for the first time (core 2 duo 3,06Ghz, 8800Gs). I am happy with the support of my machine (it came with 10.5) but I would understand better this cut if Sierra was a total new os, but I don't see any big change compared to Capitan.

I was planning to put an SSD on it but this makes me think that maybe its the time to sell it.

 

[GrumpyTrucker]

My late 2009 MacBook Pro and the early 2009 mini both fall off the supported scale this time around. Shame, as from what we saw at the keynote, other than a few features that already aren't supported in El Cap I can't how see how much different Sierra is going to be. I can only assume there's going to be more under the hood changes that these systems can't support, but I'm still sad about it.

At the prices they're charging for essentially disposable Macs these days I just can't justify getting a new one that 'could' be thrown overboard in a couple of years.

My late 2012 iMac is ok this time around, but next year?......

 

[H2SO4]

Agreed that it's not always about raw performance. But there's absolutely nothing about a 2008 Mac Pro that doesn't exceed a 2009 MacBook. There's no logic here from a tech standpoint.

My 2008 Mac Pro is eight core 2.8 GHz Xeon, 32 GB RAM, with a SSD and a GeForce 760 GTX. There's absolutely zero reason it couldn't run the latest OS.

Yes there is.  + $

 

[oldmacs]

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!

I disagree. Have it on a compaq presario from 2008 and its on par with say El Capitan on a 5400RPM Drive.

 

[H2SO4]

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.

No. Apple does not give away its OS upgrades. I don’t know why people think this. Apple beancounters have worked out that if they increase the cost of the hardware by X amount they are able to tell you that the OS is free when in fact it most certainly is NOT.
Even if you buy that Mac second hand the cost of that OS has been factored in already.

 

[andyyau]

Why bother? I am still running my super old Macpro 1,1 with OS X El Capitan perfectly.

 

[trevor12]

I hope that someone skilled will make special boot.efi and grab kexts from ElCap to make Sierra working on my fully capable machine (6 gb ram, 120 ssd, MBP Late 2007)

Are there any webpages , forums where I can looking for for this ? Or where were some similar "upgrades" in history to learn about this phenomenon ? Planned obsolence is bad.

 

[Shanghaichica]

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

Well if your computer is more then a couple of years old it's obsolete according to Eddie cue.

 

[trevor12]

I hope that someone skilled will make special boot.efi and grab kexts from ElCap to make Sierra working on my fully capable machine (6 gb ram, 120 ssd, MBP Late 2007)

Are there any webpages , forums where I can looking for for this ? Or where were some similar "upgrades" in history to learn about this phenomenon ? Planned obsolence is bad.

 

[dwaltwhit]

They aren't bricking these computers, you just can't upgrade to the absolutely latest (as yet unreleased) OS. Your computer will be useful for years to come; the advantage over windows OS is the hardware actually outlives the OS. My 2009 iMac will most likely have siera until it dies years from now. A desktop that performs for close to a decade? Outstanding!

 

[ForTheGoodOfTheP]

This is a great step forward for Apple in my opinion. But they've got a long way to go.

This is where I think they should go from here: http://thechodeishere.bandcamp.com/album/boof-oof

 

[oldmacs]

They aren't bricking these computers, you just can't upgrade to the absolutely latest (as yet unreleased) OS. Your computer will be useful for years to come; the advantage over windows OS is the hardware actually outlives the OS. My 2009 iMac will most likely have siera until it dies years from now. A desktop that performs for close to a decade? Outstanding!

Yeah this would be fine if there was a good reason why they couldn't run the unreleased version of MacOS, but its fairly clear these are arbitrary cuts offs.

Can't see how anyone can defend Apple for doing this - they are rich as rags and can afford to support these machines.

They are making these machines last for less time than they should through spending up the time that these will be insecure and incompatible with apps.

 

[macnerd93]

Definitely expected from Apple but not cool. The latest Windows can run on PCs from 2005...

I think a lot of people forget Apple switched from PowerPC to Intel which were completely different CPU architectures. That's why this would never be possible. Yes it seems a little odd these requirements, but bear in mind the older Macs w are Macs supported are getting on for 7/8 years old and a lot of people would've replaced their main machine by now anyway. I would say 4-5 years and then if you want the latest and greatest software support its time to upgrade.

Also I'm sure someone will be able to hack it onto these machines without a problem. I can run Yosemite and El Capitan on my 2006 Mac Pro Quad without issue as long as the GPU is upgraded beforehand.

 

[MH01]

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.

The 2009 4.1 can be flashed to 5.1

The 2009 Mac pro can easily run it. Two factors, one, apple might be wanting to phase out /kill the Mac Pro or two, Sierra needs a wifi card for the continuity features to work, wifi was optional on the 2009 Mac Pro.

 

[H2SO4]

They aren't bricking these computers, you just can't upgrade to the absolutely latest (as yet unreleased) OS. Your computer will be useful for years to come; the advantage over windows OS is the hardware actually outlives the OS. My 2009 iMac will most likely have siera until it dies years from now. A desktop that performs for close to a decade? Outstanding!

What. A load. Of rubbish. There are lots of people and businesses running very old hardware with newer Windows OS.

 

[MH01]

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.

The worlds most advanced OS cannot run on a 2009 machine, while crappy Windows 10 can run on a 2005 machine??? Wonder which company is in the business of selling hardware

 

[R3k]

Regarding the 2009 Mac Pro, here is something interesting

I have two quad core 09 models that I dropped hex core chips in, new faster ram, and upgraded the firmware so that they're for all purposes now 2011 Mac Pro's- even says this is so in the about this Mac section.

So What's the difference between an 09 and 11 model? updated firmware, newer cpu, new memory to handle the upgraded memory speed, and updated GPUs.

Our GT120 GPU's carry over from the 2009's as they're still powerful enough to drive 2 x 2560 x 1440 screens in El Cap.

So I don't know why one isn't supported. There doesn't seem to be any technical Brick walls, and the 09 unmodded has more power than some of other supported devices- 2009 MacBook anyone

Anyways, I run these alongside a cylinder Mac Pro using Logic and their performance is quite similar while using Logic X on large arrangements with massive sample libraries.

 

[MH01]

They aren't bricking these computers, you just can't upgrade to the absolutely latest (as yet unreleased) OS. Your computer will be useful for years to come; the advantage over windows OS is the hardware actually outlives the OS. My 2009 iMac will most likely have siera until it dies years from now. A desktop that performs for close to a decade? Outstanding!

You do realise a 2005 machine runs Windows 10...... My 2009 iMac will be stuck on Sierra while it continues to run the latest Windows OS years from now.

Hardly outstanding.

 

[mw360]

The fact they're forcing obsolescence onto many of the cMPs gives hope I suppose that there'll be an nnMP for those victims to upgrade to, and it even helps us guess at the schedule:

So Sierra will drop in late Sept or so? Give it a couple of months for the cMP owners to finally cave and upgrade to the ancient nMP, then release the nnMP a couple of weeks after their return periods expire. Late Jan then?

And don't say they wouldn't do that. The iPad Pro staggered releases, with the less desirable, higher margin item first, were exactly that kind of cynical double-dipping strategy

 

[Analog Kid]

My late 2009 MacBook Pro and the early 2009 mini both fall off the supported scale this time around. Shame, as from what we saw at the keynote, other than a few features that already aren't supported in El Cap I can't how see how much different Sierra is going to be. I can only assume there's going to be more under the hood changes that these systems can't support, but I'm still sad about it.

Most of the high profile features look like they're making heavy use of Bluetooth-- auto unlock, clipboard sharing, etc. I'm guessing that's the component that doesn't cut it. My 2008 MP doesn't natively support AirDrop because of hardware limitations with BT/WiFi.

Even if those components are upgradable, I think they're basing compatibility on stock hardware and don't see a point in claiming support for machines that can't handle enough of the highest profile features. As you say, without those few features, the experience won't be much different than El Cap anyway.

 

[MH01]

Regarding the 2009 Mac Pro, here is something interesting

I have two quad core 09 models that I dropped hex core chips in, new faster ram, and upgraded the firmware so that they're for all purposes now 2011 Mac Pro's- even says this is so in the about this Mac section.

So What's the difference between an 09 and 11 model? updated firmware, newer cpu, new memory to handle the upgraded memory speed, and updated GPUs.

Our GT120 GPU's carry over from the 2009's as they're still powerful enough to drive 2 x 2560 x 1440 screens in El Cap.

So I don't know why they aren't be supported, there's barely any change.

I run these alongside a cylinder Mac Pro using Logic and their performance is quite similar while using Logic X on large arrangements with massive sample libraries.

Wifi was optional on 2009. Sierra features need wifi

 

[star-affinity]

With previous OS releases, drops usually made sense from an engineering perspective. I've always felt that it's better to drop support from old hardware than bloat the OS to keep it running- a longtime Windows issue.

Apple usually made drops for good reason. Dropping PPC Macs. Dropping 32-bit Macs (2007 MacBook with Core Duo). Dropping Macs without the GPU to run Metal well. And most recently, dropping support for 64-bit Macs that had 32-bit controller chips (2007 Mac Pro),l.

But this time it seems so...arbitrary. A 2008 MacBook isn't supported, but a Mac Mini with the same chipset is?

And to me, the worst is the removal of support for 2008/2009 Mac Pro's. These things were top to bottom 64 bit and outperform Apple's CURRENT Mini and MacBook lines, competing with low end current iMacs in multicore benchmarks. An eight core 3 GHz Xeon Mac Pro with a modern PCIe NVidia graphics card should absolutely be able to run Sierra.

While the answer may be that Apple didn't want to bother testing and supporting, it feels like a way to force users happy with their machines to upgrade. I get pushing a 2008 MacBook owner to modernize, but the Pro?

Could it be due to legacy graphics card and the drivers that has to be written for those cards? I guess we'll get more info down the road… Because it is possible to get even a Mac Pro 2006 (the first ”Mac Pro”) with a graphics that's newer than what they shipped with and replacement of of a couple of OS files.

So while it's not officially supported, maybe it won't be that difficult to get macOS Sierra onto, say a Mac Pro from 2008.

 

[oldmacs]

Wifi was optional on 2009. Sierra features need wifi

And what they couldn't just disable them on machines without wifi?

 

[MH01]

And what they couldn't just disable them on machines without wifi?

Of course they could. Though for a company in the business of selling hardware, any excuse will do . Heck a 2009 Mac Pro could run the latest OS for 10'years, as Microsoft has proven.

Firmware hack solves the issue anyway

 

[rUmbuyGum]

Agreed that it's not always about raw performance. But there's absolutely nothing about a 2008 Mac Pro that doesn't exceed a 2009 MacBook. There's no logic here from a tech standpoint.

My 2008 Mac Pro is eight core 2.8 GHz Xeon, 32 GB RAM, with a SSD and a GeForce 760 GTX. There's absolutely zero reason it couldn't run the latest OS.

Yep...I recently upgraded My Mac Pro exactly like yours......certainly moves rifer along with huge photo files......which is I swiped to Mac in the first place, back in the day Apple was invested in top end photography and graphics......

Funny, My 17" 2008 macBook pro had the option of a mat screen.....shortly thereafter, the 17"er went away as well as mat screens. I guess the new buying public couldn't lift the 17 " Mac Pro and like looking at their reflections in the new mirror like screens...um...rather than what was on their screens.....Come to think of it...Aperture didn't last that long either....

Biggest problem....we could actually get into the machines and upgrade hard drives and ram and video cards and such.....try that in a new Mac Pro or iMac....or iPhone or.....well, seems like the point is pretty clear...Follow the money and hope the new buyers really love lots and lots of cute graphics.