macOS 10.14 Mojave Drops Support for Many Older Machines

[iamtheonlyone4ever]

You can replace/upgrade the CPUs in the trash can just fine. The GPUs, on the other hand.....because courage. And the D300s D500s and D700s are known to fail.
[doublepost=1528225195][/doublepost]
The 2600K and HD6970 in the 2011 iMac is still way faster than any overpriced undercooled MacBook in 2018. Forced obsolescence because of Tim Crook’s stupid, slow, low-level, barely-supported-by-any-third-party-developer proprietary Metal API.

I agree with you and with all the other that are left out bitting the dust
anyway there is still hope that is if apple doesn't add support later for your system
check this out
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/macos-10-14-mojave-on-unsupported-macs-thread.2121473/

 

[fairuz]

You can replace/upgrade the CPUs in the trash can just fine. The GPUs, on the other hand.....because courage. And the D300s D500s and D700s are known to fail.
[doublepost=1528225195][/doublepost]
The 2600K and HD6970 in the 2011 iMac is still way faster than any overpriced undercooled MacBook in 2018. Forced obsolescence because of Tim Crook’s stupid, slow, low-level, barely-supported-by-any-third-party-developer proprietary Metal API.

My frustration with Apple's attitude towards GPUs, and the sorry state of that area in general, has pushed me to the point of nihilism. I have a Linux box for deep learning where I shamelessly just use CUDA + whatever supports it by default, and I use Boot Camp on my Mac for games. I'd get a Windows PC for Adobe stuff if I were a creative pro. OpenCL dev: forget it, not interested. I don't **** with the details of GPUs in macOS anymore. I'll just use whatever works out of the box and accept that Apple's setup will be inferior. RX(4/5)80 cause probably nothing else works right.

I think only Apple will use Metal, and they'll make some useful tools with it. They've got ARKit and something for ML and probably others in progress. Apple doesn't care about the open source community there. We'll use it all without caring how it works cause it's easier than the open source stuff.

 

[geromi912]

My frustration with Apple's attitude towards GPUs, and the sorry state of that area in general, has pushed me to the point of nihilism. I have a Linux box for deep learning where I shamelessly just use CUDA + whatever supports it by default, and I use Boot Camp on my Mac for games. I'd get a Windows PC for Adobe stuff if I were a creative pro. OpenCL dev: forget it, not interested. I don't **** with the details of GPUs in macOS anymore. I'll just use whatever works out of the box and accept that Apple's setup will be inferior. RX(4/5)80 cause probably nothing else works right.

I think only Apple will use Metal, and they'll make some useful tools with it. They've got ARKit and something for ML and probably others in progress. Apple doesn't care about the open source community there. We'll use it all without caring how it works cause it's easier than the open source stuff.

Apple is not serious in ML are they, literally everything ML requires, they’re walking away from. And if you have a windows PC why don’t you just game on it? I’m sure whatever gpu it has us stronger than whatever your Mac has lol and if not, it can be upgrade for half the price of a “brand new” MacBook Air

 

[fairuz]

Apple is not serious in ML are they, literally everything ML requires, they’re walking away from. And if you have a windows PC why don’t you just game on it? I’m sure whatever gpu it has us stronger than whatever your Mac has lol and if not, it can be upgrade for half the price of a “brand new” MacBook Air

I don't have a Windows PC, unless you count some of my spares that are Core 2 Duo or something. My Mac Pro has a GTX 660 that can play everything I've encountered, and I'm about to install my RX580, which will go beyond that.

 

[Roadstar]

How many years of security updates do OS X get after discontinued? I know windows 7 will get security patches until 2020- 5 years after end of mainstream support

With the current yearly release cycle it's about two years after the discontinuation. It should also be noted that the two years is conditional to the fixes being easy enough for Apple to backport, unlike the rootpipe vulnerability case.

Yes, it's ridiculous compared to Windows.

 

[nathansz]

it seems absurd that in order to check out dark mode on my quad core 3.1GHz 27" 2011 iMac with a radeon 6970 and 16G of ram I'll have to use it as a display for my dual core 2.5 GHz 2012 MacBook Pro with 8G of ram and integrated graphics.

 

[Guy Clark]

But if we stay to HSierra, will we get the new App Store?

No but is the new App Store really that important?
[doublepost=1528232235][/doublepost]

With the current yearly release cycle it's about two years after the discontinuation. It should also be noted that the two years is conditional to the fixes being easy enough for Apple to backport, unlike the rootpipe vulnerability case.

Yes, it's ridiculous compared to Windows.

Agreed support for macOS releases leaves much to be desired. This will be further highlighted when macOS High Sierra loses support in two years time as those with Macs that cannot run Mojave will be left vulnerable.

 

[afd]

Had to replace my 2011 21.5" iMac with a 4K version because the GPU died. I can't compare them side by side but the new one doesn't see any faster, if at all.

 

[MrUNIMOG]

Who cares?
Just buy a new iMac/iPhone every 1-2 years.

Or a new iPhone every 5-6 years, a new Mac every 7-10 years. Because that's how long Apple supports these devices.

 

[West Egg]

Support for and actual running on that hardware is two completely separate things of course

https://www.pcworld.com/article/295...-windows-10-the-answer-will-surprise-you.html

This article is pretty clickbait-y, though, given that the PCs they tested were mostly crap to begin with: "Inside it has perhaps one of Intel’s worst-respected CPUs, a 3.2GHz Pentium D, as well as 2GB of DDR2 RAM and a dead video card."

Meanwhile, 2011 MacBooks were (and still are) quality machines.

 

[Fastrip66]

Dropping support for seven year old macs? Outrage!

LOL, NS, what do people suspect. I have a 2014 retina 2.6 i5 13" and run ElCapitan on it because High Sierra sucks. LOL

ElCap is MUCH faster on it...my 512 8GB runs much quicker than it did on HS easily...I don't see the big deal honestly....HS is SUPPOSED to run faster with the NVMe SSD in the 2014 MacBook Pro but mine runs better with ElCap hands down.

 

[macbug]

My classic mid 2012 mbp lives on lol

I was on the edge of my seat looking at the compatibility list - I have the same mid-2012 classic - I'm so glad I get one more round, cause right now there's nothing worth upgrading to - same retina MacBook ( yea, I know, mines not retina either ) year after year. Let's hope they put some 6 core 8th gen Core i7's in there for the next refresh!

But this mid-2012 has served me very well-worth every penny.

 

[vasim]

I think that the 2012 machines will get 2 or more rounds. I was thinkinf of replacing my mac mini 2011 with a late 2012.

 

[Future-Proof]

Ah well... My 2011 MBP is officially old now and this makes me reconsider buying a Windows machine to replace it instead of a new Mac... If that's not planned obsolescence I don't know what it is. Longevity is one of the big advantages of owning a Mac but sadly it seems that they'd rather have a dark mode and a bunch of users forced to upgrade -> $$$.

I share your consternation but at the same time it's because they are still innovating on the Mac, ie. Metal framework. So yeah, as it stands Windows supports more machines for longer than Apple does, but at the cost of innovation, which isn't really needed on Windows machines as Microsoft figured out what they wanted long ago, whereas Apple is still setting course on their ship of hardware to a better destination.
[doublepost=1528268229][/doublepost]

I know, right?

This wouldn't be nearly as big an issue if Apple actually made computers that were still upgradable. The post-2012 Apple has everything soldered, screwed and secured with nary an upgrade possible unless you want to void your warranty. My trust ol' 2010 MBP has allowed me to upgrade the RAM and HD twice over in the 8 years I've had it. (Plus the optical drive and full set of ports which continue to come in handy.)

I love the Apple ecosystem, but I've got some decisions to make in the next few years. Do I switch to Linux? Do I buy one of Apple's current offerings? Do I switch to Windows?

The ironic thing is, if Apple had continued to make laptops with standard ports and perhaps even optical drives, I would have bought a new one three years ago. I'm holding on to my 2010 model because it's one of the last that aligns with my computing philosophy.

Switch to Windows. It's great (except be more careful with security)

This is a bit ridiculous. At the price of these machines, Apple should at least support them for 10 years.

Agreed, here's why:

Windows 10 requirements:
View attachment 764458
These look like the specs of an average 2004 computer.

Windows has support for far longer than 10 years.

 

[Guy Clark]

Mac is a phone company now. Once my machines fully expire I’ll have no problem switching to PCs to get my PRO work done. They clearly don’t care anymore about Pro users and are fumbling through they’re computer line up.

If Apple do not care for the Pro user anymore then kindly explain the purpose of the iMac Pro ?

 

[old mac]

If Apple do not care for the Pro user anymore then kindly explain the purpose of the iMac Pro ?

It"s Tim's way of laughing at all of the Apple fanboys.

 

[Guy Clark]

Apple MacBook Pro 2.5 GHz (13.3-inch, Unibody, Dual-Core i5

• 2.5GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i5 Processor
• Powered by a 2.5GHz Intel Core i5 Ivy Bridge Processor (2 Total Cores)
  Sleek yet powerful. This notebook features 2 cores on a single silicon chip. What's that mean? It means this baby is not only slim, but it's fast as well
  • Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz
  • 3MB on-chip shared L3 cache
  • Supports Hyper-Threading
• Memory (RAM): Equipped with 4GB, maximum 16.0 GB supported
• 1600 MHz DDR3L SO-DIMM PC12800 memory
• Two memory slots.

VS
Apple MacBook Pro "Core i7" 2.2 17" Early 2011 Specs

Processors: 1 (4 Cores) Architecture: 64-Bit
Processor Speed: 2.2 GHz Processor Type: Core i7 (I7-2720QM)
Details: This model is powered by a "Quad-Core" 32 nm, 64-bit Intel Mobile Core i7 "Sandy Bridge" (I7-2720QM) processor which includes four independent processor "cores" on a single silicon chip. Each core has a dedicated 256k level 2 cache, shares 6 MB of level 3 cache, and has an integrated memory controller (dual channel).
This system also supports "Turbo Boost 2.0" -- which "automatically increases the speed of the active cores" to improve performance when needed (up to 3.3 GHz for this model) -- and "Hyper Threading" -- which allows the system to recognize eight total "cores" or "threads" (four real and four virtual).

Turbo Boost: 3.3 GHz Custom Speeds: 2.3 GHz

Processor Upgrade: Soldered FPU: Integrated

System Bus Speed: 5 GT/s* Cache Bus Speed: 2.2 GHz (Built-in)

ROM/Firmware Type: EFI EFI Architecture: 64-Bit

L1 Cache: 32k/32k x4 L2/L3 Cache: 256k x 4, 6 MB*

RAM Type: PC3-10600 DDR3 Min. RAM Speed: 1333 MHz.

This Apple way to force people to either buy their latest junk (dongle computers) or crappy 13" MBP.

I am in the same position with my mid 2011 21.5" iMac and my initial reaction was the same until I had a few moments to think about it.
The mid 2011 iMac and early 2011 MacBook Pro have both had a more than reasonable amount of support. Both Macs are capable of running anything from OS X Snow Leopard up to macOS High Sierra. Thats seven releases they have been compatible with. It was always coming it was just a matter of when.
Meanwhile both the mid 2011 iMac and early 2011 MacBook Pro will continue to slog it out on a daily basis. Apple are incapable of producing a Mac like the 17" MacBook Pro these days.

The 17" MacBook Pro represents the pinnacle of Mac production and is unlikely to ever be surpassed.

 

[OtisTCampbell]

I am in the same position with my mid 2011 21.5" iMac and my initial reaction was the same until I had a few moments to think about it.
The mid 2011 iMac and early 2011 MacBook Pro have both had a more than reasonable amount of support. Both Macs are capable of running anything from OS X Snow Leopard up to macOS High Sierra. Thats seven releases they have been compatible with. It was always coming it was just a matter of when.
Meanwhile both the mid 2011 iMac and early 2011 MacBook Pro will continue to slog it out on a daily basis. Apple are incapable of producing a Mac like the 17" MacBook Pro these days.

The 17" MacBook Pro represents the pinnacle of Mac production and is unlikely to ever be surpassed.

[doublepost=1528308944][/doublepost]Awaiting announcement on a new 2018 iMac...hopefully six core...to FINALLY replace my beloved mid-2007 iMac in which I replaced the HD to an SSD, and upgraded the RAM to max. Has been like a new computer - though now many apps have now reached their limit with El Capitan. Cannot complain after getting 11 very useful years from this workhorse!

 

[MrUNIMOG]

If Apple do not care for the Pro user anymore then kindly explain the purpose of the iMac Pro ?

And not to forget the upcoming Mac Pro.

If Apple didn't care about the Pro user, they'd just shove new CPU and GPU into the old cheese grater and call it a day, or offer no Pro Mac at all.
Instead they're apparently putting great efforts into that very small market. Which is awesome, don't get me wrong.

 

[vasim]

I am in the same position with my mid 2011 21.5" iMac and my initial reaction was the same until I had a few moments to think about it.
The mid 2011 iMac and early 2011 MacBook Pro have both had a more than reasonable amount of support. Both Macs are capable of running anything from OS X Snow Leopard up to macOS High Sierra. Thats seven releases they have been compatible with. It was always coming it was just a matter of when.
Meanwhile both the mid 2011 iMac and early 2011 MacBook Pro will continue to slog it out on a daily basis. Apple are incapable of producing a Mac like the 17" MacBook Pro these days.

The 17" MacBook Pro represents the pinnacle of Mac production and is unlikely to ever be surpassed.

You are right for the big support. At the other hand Apple could give the updates to all mac's as microsoft does. And at the end of the day the user decides for the upgrade. For example, I have a Compaq Mini 311c. Microsoft gives me the option to load the windows 10 os but I removed them because they were very slow and I replaced the os with lubuntu. I cannot blame MS for the upgrade.

It was clearly my decision. For less experienced users It will be ok. The could stay on Macos HS. But for experienced users who can upgrade their machines it is fair to give all the upgrades.




I think this is the clearest behaviour.

 

[typecase]

I know, right?

This wouldn't be nearly as big an issue if Apple actually made computers that were still upgradable. The post-2012 Apple has everything soldered, screwed and secured with nary an upgrade possible unless you want to void your warranty. My trust ol' 2010 MBP has allowed me to upgrade the RAM and HD twice over in the 8 years I've had it. (Plus the optical drive and full set of ports which continue to come in handy.)

I love the Apple ecosystem, but I've got some decisions to make in the next few years. Do I switch to Linux? Do I buy one of Apple's current offerings? Do I switch to Windows?

The ironic thing is, if Apple had continued to make laptops with standard ports and perhaps even optical drives, I would have bought a new one three years ago. I'm holding on to my 2010 model because it's one of the last that aligns with my computing philosophy.

Agree with this 100%. I bought every Apple machine since 2004 but have refused to buy the newer Macbook Pros due to lack of I/O and that crappy keyboard. Also, I have yet to see an acceptable replacement for my 2010 Mac Pro. I had hoped she would have been able to run Mojave. She's more than capable. 24GB of RAM, 12 cores of processing power and a great video card that's better than anything Apple is putting in their current machines. I don't know where I move to next. Windows is still a wasteland, and I like to run Logic and some of my old Creative suite apps, which I could still purchase without having to buy a subscription. My best guess is probably a hackintosh if the new Mac Pro disappoints.

 

[tbone7467]

Windows 10 requirements:
View attachment 764458
These look like the specs of an average 2004 computer.

This looks like a horrible machine at minimum specs that most will want to throw out a window. lets be serious, the user experience at the bottom specs will be horrible.

 

[Agent69]

I think some of you are letting your emotions get the better of you.

 

[moderngamenewb]

My classic mid 2012 mbp lives on lol

So does mine. I got my retina mbp in December 2012 so I'm guessing 10.15 will be the last OS that will be supported on my mine.

 

[neutrino23]

tennisproha said: ↑
This is a bit ridiculous. At the price of these machines, Apple should at least support them for 10 years.

Really? That’s common with tech products and consumer goods is it?

It is an interesting point. There are at least two issues here: reliability and legacy standards support. All of our CRT TVs became obsolete when we changed to digital TV in the US. I have SCSI hard drives that can't be used anymore. My Zip drives gather dust in the corner. At some point you have to let go of legacy standards.

On the other hand there is reliability. My 12 year old Prius is running just fine as are many other devices around the home. My wife is using an 8 year old 17" MBP which is still running fine.