macOS Older versions optimized per Mac?

[darinzook]

I’m probably not alone in having older Macs around the house. As each macOS has come and gone ive updated my Macs to the latest version that they support. For most Macs this hasn’t been a problem. Especially the ones that have upgradeable hardware. But for the Macs that don’t... MacBook Air with 2GB RAM for instance, the performance of said machines with the newer OS releases is intolerable.

Is anyone aware of a list where folks have done the research on each release and what the latest release run per Mac hardware and best user experience for that hardware? Does this question make sense?

Would love some feedback! Thx!

 

[Gregg2]

Didn't take long to find this:
https://everymac.com/systems/by_capability/maximum-macos-supported.html
Hope it helps!

 

[darinzook]

Didn't take long to find this:
https://everymac.com/systems/by_capability/maximum-macos-supported.html
Hope it helps!

This shows capability, but does it show if it will run like garbage?

What I’m getting at, is it’s capable of running later versions, but what is the latest version that it runs at but doesn’t run like garbage...?

 

[Fishrrman]

OP wrote:
"MacBook Air with 2GB RAM for instance, the performance of said machines with the newer OS releases is intolerable."

The answer (in my opinion) is simple:
Run "the last version" of the OS that still runs well on that particular Mac.
And... ignore the "upgrades" that would slow it down.

Has always worked for me.

 

[Gregg2]

I think a compatible OS that does not run well results from specific third party software that an individual user has on his/her Mac. Thus, I'm not sure it's possible to guarantee snappy performance for everyone.

 

[darinzook]

I think a compatible OS that does not run well results from specific third party software that an individual user has on his/her Mac. Thus, I'm not sure it's possible to guarantee snappy performance for everyone.

I'm not sure I would agree with this statement... The MacBook Air I referenced above is completely flat. I've installed no additional software - and it runs like complete garbage with a new (fully formatted SSD) Sierra and High Sierra install. I believe my statement to be completely valid. If you have a Mac that is upgradable... older Mac minis, iMacs, Mac Pros, etc, generally speaking you can control the performance of said machine.

The increasing problem - not all that different from older iPhones/iPads - Newer macOS releases, while bringing new features to older hardware, degrade usability, performance and battery life. This will only serve to prove valid as we continue to move down the path of non-upgradable machines.

My question was simply if anyone knew of a source of someone who had done this research already. My personal experience after some uninstalling/reinstalling on my MBA w 2GB RAM yesterday, is that for usability and overall experience - it shouldn't go past 10.11 (El Cap).

 

[EugW]

I'm not sure I would agree with this statement... The MacBook Air I referenced above is completely flat. I've installed no additional software - and it runs like complete garbage with a new (fully formatted SSD) Sierra and High Sierra install. I believe my statement to be completely valid. If you have a Mac that is upgradable... older Mac minis, iMacs, Mac Pros, etc, generally speaking you can control the performance of said machine.

The increasing problem - not all that different from older iPhones/iPads - Newer macOS releases, while bringing new features to older hardware, degrade usability, performance and battery life. This will only serve to prove valid as we continue to move down the path of non-upgradable machines.

My question was simply if anyone knew of a source of someone who had done this research already. My personal experience after some uninstalling/reinstalling on my MBA w 2GB RAM yesterday, is that for usability and overall experience - it shouldn't go past 10.11 (El Cap).

10.11 El Capitan runs poorly too on a 2 GB machine IMO, but for that machine that's probably what I would run for features and software compatibility. Or maybe 10.10 Yosemite. I guess 10.9 Mavericks it's usable, but for example, applications such as iTunes require at least 10.10 Yosemite. Chrome and Firefox still support Mavericks, but the latest version of Safari does not. It should be noted also that Safari on El Capitan is actually faster than Safari in Mavericks, but 2 GB makes both OSes slow.

I'm running High Sierra on 5 machines from late 2008 to 2017 (including two that are not officially supported). Luckily the older ones are upgradable, so all five machines have SSD and minimum 8 GB, although High Sierra runs OK on 4 GB. For another early 2008 MacBook4,1 with 4 GB and spinning HD, I'm running Chrome OS. No version of OS X that will run on that machine properly is usable in 2018 IMO. MacBook4,1 maxes out at 10.7.5 which is simply too old (albeit fast).

 

[darinzook]

10.11 El Capitan runs poorly too on a 2 GB machine IMO, but for that machine that's probably what I would run for features and software compatibility. Or maybe 10.10 Yosemite. I guess 10.9 Mavericks it's usable, but for example, applications such as iTunes require at least 10.10 Yosemite. Chrome and Firefox still support Mavericks, but the latest version of Safari does not. It should be noted also that Safari on El Capitan is actually faster than Safari in Mavericks, but 2 GB makes both OSes slow.

I'm running High Sierra on 5 machines from late 2008 to 2017 (including two that are not officially supported). Luckily the older ones are upgradable, so all five machines have SSD and minimum 8 GB, although High Sierra runs OK on 4 GB. For another early 2008 MacBook4,1 with 4 GB and spinning HD, I'm running Chrome OS. No version of OS X that will run on that machine properly is usable in 2018 IMO. MacBook4,1 maxes out at 10.7.5 which is simply too old (albeit fast).

I concur. For us, its a internet browsing machine. I'm not asking of it what I would ask of my other Macs. Its there to browse the internet, go through some photos occasionally, or listen to some music. I don't currently have it tied to my iCloud account, but to use most of the features that tie my Macs together, a "recent" OS is required.

Good call on Chrome OS and some of your other options. There are ways to make these things usable. I would love to see a chart for each of the older Macs that still "support" the latest OS, and what they should actually run to remain usable. I was shocked at how snappy that MBAw/2GB RAM was running Lion. Its probably at this point that anything under 4GB of RAM shouldn't be supported for the latest OS anymore - especially with how memory hungry Sierra and High Sierra seem to be under fairly minimal workloads.

 

[MacGizmo]

The simple answer is that the OS version that ships with the Mac is almost always the best version for that machine. There are exceptions. Snow Leopard ran MUCH better than Leopard on any Mac, as did Mountain Lion vs. Lion. Bottom line is that with only 2GB of RAM on that MBA, no OS is going to run spectacular, but the older the OS model, the faster it's going to run—simply because the older OS versions tend to have less RAM requirements.

 

[EugW]

The simple answer is that the OS version that ships with the Mac is almost always the best version for that machine.

No. This is simply false in most cases.

There are exceptions. Snow Leopard ran MUCH better than Leopard on any Mac, as did Mountain Lion vs. Lion. Bottom line is that with only 2GB of RAM on that MBA, no OS is going to run spectacular, but the older the OS model, the faster it's going to run—simply because the older OS versions tend to have less RAM requirements.

I'm typing this on a MacBook5,1 from 2008, which shipped with Leopard. Leopard is basically unusable on it these days, as is Snow Leopard. Sure, they run fast, but they are completely useless in 2018 in terms of software compatibility.

By FAR the best officially supported OS for it is 10.11 El Capitan. Patched 10.12 Sierra is great too. I'm running 10.13 High Sierra, but it's still young so the jury is still out on that one. However, 10.13.2 High Sierra runs just fine, and it's quite peppy with SSD and 4-8 GB RAM.

For any machine 2009 or later with 4 GB RAM or more, I'd recommend 10.11 - 10.13 depending on the specs.

 

[pixelatedscraps]

I’m probably not alone in having older Macs around the house. As each macOS has come and gone ive updated my Macs to the latest version that they support. For most Macs this hasn’t been a problem. Especially the ones that have upgradeable hardware. But for the Macs that don’t... MacBook Air with 2GB RAM for instance, the performance of said machines with the newer OS releases is intolerable.

Is anyone aware of a list where folks have done the research on each release and what the latest release run per Mac hardware and best user experience for that hardware? Does this question make sense?

Would love some feedback! Thx!

My aim is to stick to a version of macOS that is within 1-2 years of the hardware release - and then balance that thinking with the type of apps I’m going to be using on that vintage / obsolete Mac.

I don’t buy the wisdom that High Sierra runs well on old hardware (I struggle with a 2014 MBP) but then also don’t always believe the best OS is the one that it ships with.

Ultimately for the best balance of performance and usability, there is always going to be some compromise made. I for example, don’t plan on doing any Photoshop or online media streaming with my 2008 MB cos I know it just plain doesn’t work well enough for me.

 

[EugW]

My aim is to stick to a version of macOS that is within 1-2 years of the hardware release - and then balance that thinking with the type of apps I’m going to be using on that vintage / obsolete Mac.

I don’t buy the wisdom that High Sierra runs well on old hardware (I struggle with a 2014 MBP) but then also don’t always believe the best OS is the one that it ships with.

Ultimately for the best balance of performance and usability, there is always going to be some compromise made. I for example, don’t plan on doing any Photoshop or online media streaming with my 2008 MB cos I know it just plain doesn’t work well enough for me.

Which 2008? What CPU? What GPU? How much memory?

Online media streaming works perfectly with my late 2008 Core 2 Duo 2.0 GHz aluminum MacBook5,1 with GeForce 9400M running High Sierra. Netflix, YouTube, no problems, both with 4 GB RAM or 8 GB RAM. What are you trying to stream?

I wouldn't want to run the latest version of Photoshop on such an old CPU unless it is light usage, and some older versions of Photoshop may have compatibility issues with High Sierra. However, this has nothing to do with High Sierra speed per se. It's about Photoshop speed on Core 2 Duo esp. if memory is limited and Photoshop compatibility with the OS. IOW, running these same versions of Photoshop on an old version of Mac OS X will still be slow on these machines, because of the CPU and memory.

 

[MacGizmo]

Which 2008? What CPU? What GPU? How much memory?

Online media streaming works perfectly with my late 2008 Core 2 Duo 2.0 GHz aluminum MacBook5,1 with GeForce 9400M running High Sierra.

Then I would suggest that you have very low expectations.
[doublepost=1514892333][/doublepost]

No. This is simply false in most cases.

So is your logic, in this case, compared to virtually everyone else who posts on the internet about macOS. Perhaps your ancient MacBook also poops rainbows and glitter, but we all don't have the luxury of magic unicorns that double as MacBooks.

 

[EugW]

Then I would suggest that you have very low expectations.
[doublepost=1514892333][/doublepost]
So is your logic, in this case, compared to virtually everyone else who posts on the internet about macOS. Perhaps your ancient MacBook also poops rainbows and glitter, but we all don't have the luxury of magic unicorns that double as MacBooks.

Thanks for your very well thought out post. Your contributions to thread have been wonderful.

P.S. For those who might be wondering, my frame of reference comes from the Macs in my signature. While I have a rainbow pooping 2008 MacBook5,1 and 2009 MacBookPro5,5, I am also running a 16 GB 2017 Retina MacBook, as well as a 24 GB 2017 Core i5 iMac with dual 27" screens. As mentioned, all of these machines are running High Sierra.

 

[darinzook]

Thanks for your very well thought out post. Your contributions to thread have been wonderful.

P.S. For those who might be wondering, my frame of reference comes from the Macs in my signature. While I have a rainbow pooping 2008 MacBook5,1 and 2009 MacBookPro5,5, I am also running a 16 GB 2017 Retina MacBook, as well as a 24 GB 2017 Core i5 iMac with dual 27" screens. As mentioned, all of these machines are running High Sierra.

I'm glad I'm not alone in the Mac hoarding. My signature only includes my daily drivers. (does not include the wife's mac, family mac, mini server & the host of legacy PowerPC Macs.)

 

[MacGizmo]

Thanks for your very well thought out post. Your contributions to thread have been wonderful.

P.S. For those who might be wondering, my frame of reference comes from the Macs in my signature. While I have a rainbow pooping 2008 MacBook5,1 and 2009 MacBookPro5,5, I am also running a 16 GB 2017 Retina MacBook, as well as a 24 GB 2017 Core i5 iMac with dual 27" screens. As mentioned, all of these machines are running High Sierra.

Look, you may not like what I'm saying and feel like I'm bashing you. For that I'm sorry. But when you said "No. This is simply false in most cases," you basically are saying that what everyone else on the web is saying is false unless they agree with you.

If you look on various forums, Twitter feeds, Facebook groups and general discussion offline, many, many people find that when you're dealing with old Macs with minimal amounts of RAM and upgraded to new OS versions—the performance in almost every case goes down. There are of course exceptions (Mountain Lion, Snow Leopard, High Sierra) when performance goes up, but it's rare. Not only that, but many of the newer features don't work on old equipment, security updates don't apply (or are not even supplied because the hardware has been sunset by Apple).

I don't subscribe to the theory that if a few people experience a problem, then it must be a bug. I think what almost everyone online says is a bug is actually them not knowing what they're doing, or having done something that has caused the very problem they're complaining about. But in this case, I don't doubt that people experience slow-downs, feature deficiencies and other issues.

And finally, while your list of computers in your sig may seem impressive, let me assure you that it is only the case for people who have only one computer. I currently have 5 MacBooks (all three models), 3 iMacs, a MacPro, 3 MacMinis and 3 iPads in my house alone (oldest one dating back to 2006)... and manage dozens of Macs for each of my clients. I suppose that may be impressive for some people or make them think that I'm some sort of tech genius... but I assure you that it isn't the case. It just means you had the money to buy them. Nothing more.

 

[EugW]

Look, you may not like what I'm saying and feel like I'm bashing you. For that I'm sorry. But when you said "No. This is simply false in most cases," you basically are saying that what everyone else on the web is saying is false unless they agree with you.

If you look on various forums, Twitter feeds, Facebook groups and general discussion offline, many, many people find that when you're dealing with old Macs with minimal amounts of RAM and upgraded to new OS versions—the performance in almost every case goes down. There are of course exceptions (Mountain Lion, Snow Leopard, High Sierra) when performance goes up, but it's rare. Not only that, but many of the newer features don't work on old equipment, security updates don't apply (or are not even supplied because the hardware has been sunset by Apple).

I can’t believe you’re trying to suggest twitter and Facebook as a reliable source for Mac advice. I’m at MacRumors for a reason.

Furthermore, you’re changing the goalposts with your comment about minimal RAM. I actually already said that El Capitan doesn’t run well on 2 GB. But I also said that really old OSes are nearly unusable now because OS lack of support. Some of the machines discussed shipped with say 10.5 or 10.6, which unfortunately are extremely problematic to use now. Even 10.7 is a major problem.

I also said that, if you have SSD and enough RAM, more modern OSes are far more appropriate. ie. Better. Luckily, many of those machines are easily upgradable. So, no, the original OS that shipped with these machines is usually not the best OS for them for use in 2018.

That’s why I and many if not most people here at MacRumors recommend something like 10.11 if the machine can be upgraded to SSD and 4-8 GB RAM.

I don't subscribe to the theory that if a few people experience a problem, then it must be a bug.

I don’t even know what you are trying to say here.

And finally, while your list of computers in your sig may seem impressive, let me assure you that it is only the case for people who have only one computer. I currently have 5 MacBooks (all three models), 3 iMacs, a MacPro, 3 MacMinis and 3 iPads in my house alone (oldest one dating back to 2006)... and manage dozens of Macs for each of my clients. I suppose that may be impressive for some people or make them think that I'm some sort of tech genius... but I assure you that it isn't the case. It just means you had the money to buy them. Nothing more.

Good. So unless you’ve never upgraded any of your older machines when possible, then it should be obvious that current OSes run well on older machine, as evidenced by the experience of tons of people on this forum.