List of Macs Compatible With macOS Sierra

[oldmacs]

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

Frustrates me -_-

I'm more concerned for the 2008 and 2009 Macbook Aluniniums and Macbook Pros..
[doublepost=1465889749][/doublepost]Can I encourage everyone here who is unhappy to submit feedback to Apple and email Tim Cook - might not do much but might make them realise that some people are unhappy.

 

[T909]

So my MacBook Pro mid 2010 will surely run it?
Also, how much ram and free harddisk space would it even need?

 

[MH01]

Frustrates me -_-

I'm more concerned for the 2008 and 2009 Macbook Aluniniums and Macbook Pros..
[doublepost=1465889749][/doublepost]Can I encourage everyone here who is unhappy to submit feedback to Apple and email Tim Cook - might not do much but might make them realise that some people are unhappy.

I completely agree. I have a 2009 MacBook Pro 17" with ssd that runs like a dream, no reason at all it could not run Sierra. Its planned obsolescence, so you upgrade to a new machine.

Irony in my iPad 3 runs like a total dog with iOS 9..... Though that forced me to upgrade , as you cannot downgrade iOS versions. One way or another you are forced to upgrade hardware if you want the latest "free" software from apple. They are a hardware company.

 

[Hastings101]

And how is the user experience on that 2005 pc? Not trying to argue - that's a serious question.

You've probably had a dozen replies, but it works very well actually. I've got Windows 10 on a crappy Dell Latitude from 2005 and it runs just as well as it did on XP, with a bit of graphics lag sometimes from the very bad Intel GPU. OS X and Windows are two different beasts, and granted Windows is substantially more efficient than OS X now that it's built with low-powered tablets in mind, but it's definitely possible to have a good experience on old hardware.

Not that I'm saying Apple should be supporting a ten year old computer, just that it's weird for things like an earlier Mac Pro and Macbook Pro to be excluded when a Macbook Air can run it. I don't really understand the logic besides "give us money", which is really not good PR if they can't at least fake something.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

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

Huh, nice to hear - I have it one a couple of 2011 Lenovo S12's and it is a nasty pig...that being said, not even Windows 7 ran well on those.

 

[gnasher729]

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

It could be that there is a difference between "is supported" and "works".

If it's supported, that means Apple has tested it just as thoroughly as they would test a 2016 MacBook, and if bugs are found they fix them just as they would fix them on a 2016 MacBook. It might be that you can download and install the new OS, but at your own risk.

Or maybe you can't, because Apple would be legally responsible for any such problems and therefore isn't going to allow it.
[doublepost=1465892550][/doublepost]

Wifi was optional on 2009. Sierra features need wifi

Why would Sierra need WiFi? Why exactly would Ethernet not work? Or a mobile card plugged into USB? As a software developer, it's actually quite difficult to determine whether a Mac has WiFi hardware or not, or to determine that WiFi is available or not, so I can't see the slightest reason why WiFi would be needed.

 

[Abramski]

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

What is wrong with a Core2Duo MacBook Pro 17 inch? Offcourse it would run Sierra with some limitations due to, lats say the bluetooth being of an older kind . . . My MacBook is still performing perfecly fine! No isues what so ver, i bought this machine from some Poster Developper, even the battery is still holding its charge very good, up to 6 hours, i have it now for a year and they want me to change? No way José! There gonna be some folks that will find a way to trick the installer just like they did on the white MacBook of Early 2008 . . . Officialy you could just go to 10,7 on it, but some hackers found a way to install even El Capitan on those machines, so, i just going to sit back, not worry to much and let those guys figger it out, but buying a new mac just for Sierra? My Siri says NO!!

 

[Ryantjan]

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

My Vaio SZ series 2006 running well with windows 10, its a decade machine, and i still use it for works

 

[MH01]

Why would Sierra need WiFi? Why exactly would Ethernet not work? Or a mobile card plugged into USB? As a software developer, it's actually quite difficult to determine whether a Mac has WiFi hardware or not, or to determine that WiFi is available or not, so I can't see the slightest reason why WiFi would be needed.

its a reason I gave apple might have used to drop 2009 Mac Pro support, they need an excuse, cause it's not the CPU ....... On the flip side, give me a better reason why a 2009 Mac Pro could not run Sierra ?? Cause I cannot think of one .

How on earth can a 2009 Mac Pro not support Sierra when a 2009 iMac can? Your turn . Throw me a better suggestion than wifi that apple might pull. All devices that have Sierra support , have wifi standard.

 

[vmistery]

I have an old 2008 (I think) Polycarbonate MB that I ended up putting Windows 7 on when Apple didn't allow an upgrade from I think it was Lion. Seems a shame to bin a machine in perfect working order, ironically it just also upgraded to windows 10!

 

[opeter]

It doesn't really matter, the PRO users, that need horsepower are slowly going away from Apple. Apple doesn't care anymore, it's slowly turns into a gadget, but first and foremost a software and web-service company ...
[doublepost=1465897884][/doublepost]

I have an old 2008 (I think) Polycarbonate MB that I ended up putting Windows 7 on when Apple didn't allow an upgrade from I think it was Lion. Seems a shame to bin a machine in perfect working order, ironically it just also upgraded to windows 10!

And works without problems, right?

 

[DanTheAppleMan]

Oh right, so my 'obsolete' 2010 MBP can handle Sierra, but the still supported 2008 Mac Pro that I bought as a step-up from it can't?
Thanks Apple

 

[gjvon]

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.

This guy gets it.

 

[vmistery]

It doesn't really matter, the PRO users, that need horsepower are slowly going away from Apple. Apple doesn't care anymore, it's slowly turns into a gadget, but first and foremost a software and web-service company ...
[doublepost=1465897884][/doublepost]
And works without problems, right?

Fine considering its limitations. With the exception of playing videos there is very little in the way of browsing and office work you can't do on an older machine with this chipset.

 

[GaryMumford]

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?

I Agree with this, but I don't think it's the processor power thats the problem, It's more likely to do with these older MacPros not supporting Bluetooth LE and Handoff. Seems like most of the new features require it.

 

[Glassed Silver]

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!

Of course I know the reason: where Apple gets their money from is entirely different.
I've said that countless times myself on this forum.
I will still hold them to higher standards, because whilst I do understand why they do axe products at some point, the differential of Pro vs. consumer devices shouldn't favor the consumer device usually in terms of how long you get support.
That's very awkward.

As with "latest and greatest features": well, this time around my Mac isn't affected, so I still get them, but the problem is that if you do sync devices it's not only about if you want them, but if they are cross-compatible.
Latest iTunes for latest iOS, iTunes needs version n of macOS/OS X whatever, ...
Notes that are password-locked don't work on older iOS versions I assume. (haven't tried with my older iPhone, because I don't want to beta test a possible conflict and data loss)

As for Wintel machines from 2009: that's a very generalized statement.
I have in fact run latest Windows versions on many older machines and once RAM upgrades, if necessary, had been done it was a pleasant experience most of the time within reasonable expectation levels.

Glassed Silver:mac

 

[J Scimonetti]

The first OS my early 2008 MacBook Pro won't be able to run. Maybe Apple will release a new MacBook Pro with Sierra... maybe...?

Yeah, I was thinking the something. Both of my Late 2008 MacBookPros run great. I was wondering when Apple Corp. was going to nudge me to buy new ones.

I wish the new MacBookPros would be as cool as the Late 2008's were. We had iWeb, a clean and simple UI interface for iTunes and iPhoto, and an email BOUNCE button back then. Boy, those were the days. I'll never forget walking into the Apple Store for the first time and walking out 2 hours later with a new MacBookPro and my own web site already set up for me through iWeb.

 

[brucerb]

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

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. ...

[also posted this reply to your comment at Ars]

This is interesting but is likely not the reason. Note that the mid 2009 13" MacBook Pro (NOT Sierra supported) and the mid 2010 13" MacBook Pro (is Sierra supported) use the same AirPort/Bluetooth board:
Mid 2009 13" MacBook Pro Airport Card
Mid 2010 13" MacBook Pro Airport Card
(yes they are using the same photo in both guides, so we do have to trust that iFixit has this right)

The 13" MacBook Pro can have quite different internals than the 15" or 17" for a given model year (e.g. in the mid-2010 models, the 15" and 17" went to i5 and i7 chips while the 13" stayed with Core 2 Duo; 13" never had two GPUs) so you can't generalize across the 3 screen sizes.

If someone can figure out the critical difference between the mid 2009 and mid 2010 13" MacBook Pros that causes the difference in Sierra support, then we might have a better understanding. The known changes for the mid 2010 are unofficial support for 16 GB RAM (instead of 8), a slightly faster CPU (albeit from the same "Penryn" Core 2 Duo family), and a newer GeForce 320M GPU (but apparently the older 9400M is in some other supported machines). Also a better trackpad, battery, and enhanced audio passing over mini-display port.

 

[GrumpyTrucker]

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.

I agree with most of that. However, they managed to release El Cap for these machines just with some of the continuity features missing. I'm sure they can do the same again so that we'd get the new OS and all the future security updates that would bring, and maybe a few of the new features. Like Siri maybe. Can't see why Siri wouldn't work on these machines.

As for auto unlock...meh, if they were allowing that via iPhone TouchID I'd be interested, but it seems it needs the mostly useless (to me) Watch. I'm sure that thing hasn't got a big market outside America. Heck, maybe even outside California. I've seen two in the wild.

 

[mic j]

What is wrong with a Core2Duo MacBook Pro 17 inch? Offcourse it would run Sierra with some limitations due to, lats say the bluetooth being of an older kind . . . My MacBook is still performing perfecly fine! No isues what so ver, i bought this machine from some Poster Developper, even the battery is still holding its charge very good, up to 6 hours, i have it now for a year and they want me to change? No way José! There gonna be some folks that will find a way to trick the installer just like they did on the white MacBook of Early 2008 . . . Officialy you could just go to 10,7 on it, but some hackers found a way to install even El Capitan on those machines, so, i just going to sit back, not worry to much and let those guys figger it out, but buying a new mac just for Sierra? My Siri says NO!!

Also the owner of a 17" 2009 MBP with SSD (250GB) and dvd drive swapped for HDD (320GB), maxed our RAM and running El Capitan. It runs great!!

Frankly, I am not seeing any breakthrough features in Sierra that would make me feel I need to upgrade. Lot's of "nea-o" stuff but nothing essential to me at this point. Now...if they came out with a new 17"MBP, I would probably buy it immediately... just for the weight reduction.

Looks like I'll be stuck on El Capitan for a long time, or until they introduce some OS feature that is so necessary to have that I would go for a smaller screen size.

 

[loby]

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!

I feel everyone's pain, but I kind of agree with the comment, "What's wrong with El Capitan that you can't just keep using that? Why is that not an option for you?"

The thought is if Apple gets El Cap finished in the next few updates, it should be supported for another few years. That makes close to ten years of life on the 2009 models. Seriously, does a ten year old computer need to have the latest version to be of value?

I use as a secondary scratch system a 13" MacBook 2010 with 16 gb ram and put in an SSD with four OS X's versions partitioned on it to run various programs I still use. One is OS X EL Cap the current version. But I do not use El Cap as much on it (though it runs good), but instead prefer Mavericks or Snow Leopard. The mac seems happy with the older OS X and runs faster than when it was new, so no need to use the new and latest.

After 10 years with the same mac, if you want the latest and greatest, maybe it may be time to save up and buy a new Mac. Some say Windows can run old systems, but how many people in the Windows world still use a ten year old system as their main or have to have PC? I have one and put Windows 10 and use it maybe once a month. Just some thoughts.

 

[NufSaid]

I am getting on the bottom end of the iMac. Can't have it forever......we probably all keep computers too long as it is.

 

[GFLPraxis]

I Agree with this, but I don't think it's the processor power thats the problem, It's more likely to do with these older MacPros not supporting Bluetooth LE and Handoff. Seems like most of the new features require it.

I guess Bluetooth makes some sense, but I mean, I can fix that on my 08 Mac Pro with a USB stick.
[doublepost=1465915586][/doublepost]

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.

Doesn't really seem valid since those cards are upgrade able and NVidia's new Mac drivers even let you use PC Cards. My 2008 octo Mac Pro runs a GeForce 760 GTX.

Oh well. Bet I can get Sierra running with a plist edit.

 

[dwaltwhit]

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

Windows is not Mac. That simple.

 

[garirry]

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

Can you people give up on this stupid shareholder argument? Yes, I get your point, whatever. Stop using this incredibly offensive insult. Jeez.