Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Like many other posters have previously said the compatibility list makes no sense. I hope Apple clarifies it before Sierra is released. At the moment it seems the motive is to sell more Macs by artificially removing support from models that should have no trouble with Sierra (Macbook Pro 2009, Mac Pro 2008-2009) etc.
Ooh, or better yet run esxi on the xserve...
Just cuz it's not good enough for apples standards doesn't mean it's not good enough for... every other x86-based OS out there.
[doublepost=1466015955][/doublepost]
Sadly I cannot recall any instances where the supported hardware list has changed between announcement and release....
A legitimate concern, I do believe Logic 9 dropped some older OSX support when they went from 9.0 to 9.1. buuuut, IIRC the app store doesn't let you install incompatible versions so you should be good. Also, 2018 and beyond, probably about time for a new machine anyway for all the new logicPro features it will have by then lol
That was 10 to 10.1. They dropped support for anything pre Mavericks. That is approx 1 1/2 years after the release of Mavericks- almost 3 years after the release of mountain lion. Ive been using Logic since 4.7, that was the quickest compatibility drop ive experienced, and I don't expect that trend to continue, El Cap will be good for much longer imo.
Edit: I wanted to add that though they dropped support for 10.0.x, logic 9 still works.
Last edited:
Yes, I know that (I have a ”PC” GTX 970 in a Mac Pro from 2010). But it's Nvidia providing those drivers, not Apple.
I feel that alot of these features could be implemented in a simple update to El Capitan.
I see no need in releasing a whole new version of an OS just to add these features, except the new Apple filesystem.
I see no need in releasing a whole new version of an OS just to add these features, except the new Apple filesystem.
Why not just keep it as is on El Cap? For that year? I'm sure she won't notice the difference, because there won't be any.
The new file-system alone is a very sufficient reason to do a new OS release. They're talking about it supporting native encryption (so probably getting rid of the whole "File Vault" thing you have now, where you have to manually run it and let it churn through a preparation process to enable encryption support).
But ever since Apple started bundling some of the applications with the OS, it puts it in the situation where updates to those apps require a new OS version, to keep everything consistent. Not trying to argue whether or not this was the "best" way to handle all of that ... but just saying that's where it leaves us today. As it stands now, a developer can assume a user has, say, "Photos" installed just by verifying the OS X release is El Capitan or later. That's something they'd want to know if they're trying to make your photo library accessible seamlessly inside a "picker" window in their own program -- because iPhoto required a different method of accessing it.
Since Apple sells both the hardware AND the operating system, the whole business model revolves around you upgrading both portions in regular cycles. If you're not willing or interested in doing so, then fine. You're left with a computer that's still as good as it ever was at running all of the software and all of the operating systems up through the date the last OS was released. For many people, that's just fine. (I know a graphics designer who makes a living doing commercial artwork, such as the sides of boxes or cans of products shipping to the U.S. from overseas. It wasn't that long ago, he was still using only "vintage" Macs running MacOS 9.1. He's an older guy and would rather retire than learn everything involved in getting current with the latest versions of apps like Photoshop, not to mention OS X itself. As long as he can run the old, outdated versions of all the expensive design software he bought long ago, and he has a good enough Internet broadband connection to get his work uploaded to the people who pay him, he's good.)
But ever since Apple started bundling some of the applications with the OS, it puts it in the situation where updates to those apps require a new OS version, to keep everything consistent. Not trying to argue whether or not this was the "best" way to handle all of that ... but just saying that's where it leaves us today. As it stands now, a developer can assume a user has, say, "Photos" installed just by verifying the OS X release is El Capitan or later. That's something they'd want to know if they're trying to make your photo library accessible seamlessly inside a "picker" window in their own program -- because iPhoto required a different method of accessing it.
[doublepost=1466187908][/doublepost]No disagreement they're still great computers today, but I sold my 2008 Mac Pro tower back in 2014 and didn't look back. I don't think it's any secret that Apple has *never* shown interest in you clinging to a machine they sold you 7 or 8 years ago. The "but it's a PROFESSIONAL" machine doesn't really hold much water either, IMO. If you're truly using it for "commercial/pro" type work, it should still have more than paid for itself in the first year or two you used it. Otherwise, maybe the problem is not the computer but the user?
Since Apple sells both the hardware AND the operating system, the whole business model revolves around you upgrading both portions in regular cycles. If you're not willing or interested in doing so, then fine. You're left with a computer that's still as good as it ever was at running all of the software and all of the operating systems up through the date the last OS was released. For many people, that's just fine. (I know a graphics designer who makes a living doing commercial artwork, such as the sides of boxes or cans of products shipping to the U.S. from overseas. It wasn't that long ago, he was still using only "vintage" Macs running MacOS 9.1. He's an older guy and would rather retire than learn everything involved in getting current with the latest versions of apps like Photoshop, not to mention OS X itself. As long as he can run the old, outdated versions of all the expensive design software he bought long ago, and he has a good enough Internet broadband connection to get his work uploaded to the people who pay him, he's good.)
umm.. like Mac OS Server only adds apps on top of the OS now...
Maybe because deeper integration is needed and system complexity ?
Really, its no different then OS X server, except rather than just putting VPN server, DNS server etc... your also doing the same to disk utility and system files.
Probably its more seen as "we don't wanna go down this rabbit hole" of issues with adding..
Starting from scratch is always better.
I'm in a similar position, bought a used 2008 MP, and been slowly upgrading. Can I ask how much of an improvement the SataIII card made? How did you end up wiring it to the hard drives?
???
So first it was 'late 2009 iMacs and later', then it was 'all 2009 iMacs and later', now it's '2010 iMacs and later'.
Wake me up when someone comes up with the definitive answer.
So first it was 'late 2009 iMacs and later', then it was 'all 2009 iMacs and later', now it's '2010 iMacs and later'.
Wake me up when someone comes up with the definitive answer.
what gets me is i have a mac pro 3,1 2008, apparently this new macOS Sierra won't work with any mac pro's if they are not 2009 or above, and lot more of their computers, isn't that nice, these people have to screw over (the customer) again, the 3,1 is a 2X3.2 CPU 32GB of memory SSD's that boot in 5 seconds and do 720 GBps on the PCI slot and runs El Capitan just fine but it isn't good enough for their new macOS Sierra, i am not getting it, these people just don't seem so smart or like they are just ripping off me again, just disgusted with it all, i for one just don't feel like bragging them up or spending any more money on any apple stuff, i am done, there are plenty of others that are getting better all the time
I have a late 2009 mini ( Dec ) I will be able to run Sierra ? From what it looked like , I thought it was all 2009 models . Thanx
My 2008 Mac Pro seems identical to yours except for my ATI Radeon HD 4870 chipset....Any source for locating the precise reason This form of Mac Pro is inadequate????
I'm actually hoping they release the new systems a little beofre Sierra. That way they'll be able to run El Capitan if Sierra turns out to be a buggy mess. Not that El Capitan is perfect mind you, but at least that would give us another option with the new laptops.
Let's see what happens as to which models can run it after it is released .I would let Sierra sit for a while before I would think of using it. I made a mistake with El Capitain and installed it right away and had lost all of my email due to a bug in Mail
I know officially my iMac from early 2009 isn't on the list. But that there's ways to still get it on there. To be honest. As much as I enjoy El Capitan, the sudden unexpected slow behavior when I neeeeed it to be fast, is such a frustration that I don't want to increase those moments. I'd love to move to macOS, but I think when I get my new iMac end of this year, it won't be an issue for me, and I get best of both worlds or something like that.
I think you are exactly right in your expectations. Just burn redundant copies of your data so you won't lose originals during migration efforts. My first computer was an NT machine in 1998 built by an Apple shop which bought into a vapor-ware expectation that Microsoft's next iteration was going to blow Apple away from further consideration in the future of computerdom....Call it the worst of both worlds...
By 2008 I'd burned through three "high" end desktops from Microsoft delusions of adequacy and got my 2008 Mac Pro followed by my 2008 17" Macbook Pro..(Hey!!! Matt Screen instead of a mirror!)... ...both now declared obsolete about a month ago, even though both products were, and still are, user upgradeable. Yeh...that may be part of the reason Apple wants them obsolete.
On the other hand, both are still work just fine using El Capitan......The work data between date of purchase and the present is still work well done and not lost at all. No regrets switching to Mac. Also, no regrets pointing out Apple's recent attraction to the iPhone-iPadification of working Macs.
This forum's populace knows that.
Who knows?......Maybe Apple will notice...
Cheers!
By 2008 I'd burned through three "high" end desktops from Microsoft delusions of adequacy and got my 2008 Mac Pro followed by my 2008 17" Macbook Pro..(Hey!!! Matt Screen instead of a mirror!)... ...both now declared obsolete about a month ago, even though both products were, and still are, user upgradeable. Yeh...that may be part of the reason Apple wants them obsolete.
On the other hand, both are still work just fine using El Capitan......The work data between date of purchase and the present is still work well done and not lost at all. No regrets switching to Mac. Also, no regrets pointing out Apple's recent attraction to the iPhone-iPadification of working Macs.
This forum's populace knows that.
Who knows?......Maybe Apple will notice...
Cheers!
Last edited: