Wish I could upgrade my Mac Pro 1,1
Yup the Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1 are perfectly capable of running Mavericks, but Apple doesn't want to support them.
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.
OS X Mavericks Adoption Pushing Toward 50%
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yup the Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1 are perfectly capable of running Mavericks, but Apple doesn't want to support them.
It's pretty easy to install to an external or even a flash drive if you want to just test it out. When I ran the betas I had simply cloned my computer to an external and installed Mavericks on top of it to see what compatibility problems I would need to anticipate.
----------
I like living on the edge, the Console logs from a .0 release gives me quite the rush.
Then again, I also used to run Linux where upgrading sometimes felt like a bad version of "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie"... So maybe I'm just weird like that.
Not all of the software supports it. Anyone running software from 08/09 that has been dropped will question an upgrade.
Add in that Mavericks is just the latest iteration, but nothing spectacularly new, and it isn't all that surprising that some are holding onto ML or L.
I am the 1%
----------
I've been running the same stable version of Logic Pro on my 2007 Mac Pro for years and have no desire to change that at the current moment.
----------
I've been running the same stable version of Logic Pro on my 2007 Mac Pro for years and have no desire to change that at the current moment.
I went back and re-read the statement. It is clear that the author was focused on saying adoption of Mavericks was approaching 50% using the 40% web traffic generation as evidence. He went on to say web traffic for previous versions of OSX had grown at a much slower pace.
We have about a half dozen Macs in our house. All but one are Intels. Only 4 can run Mavericks (without resorting to trickery) and 2 of those are up at college with our kids and they only run OS updates when they bring the machines home and I force them to accept the latest updates. Of the older machines, one is running Leopard (a G4 mini that sits there switched off until I decide I need to run a PPC app) and one is running Lion and sits silently in the exercise room for those occasions where we want to look something up quickly after turning it on and booting up (a 2008 Macbook).
So I tend to agree with the point of the article that is 40% (or more) of the Macs which are regularly being used are running Mavericks.
That number is quite disappointing when you figure Mavs is FREE.
Not really, look how many people are still on Windows XP.
Desktops are different from phones and tablets since a) they have a lot more work and items stored on them, which would make people hesitant to upgrade and b) people might not know about an upgrade, since things work just fine as they are.
If you're comparing OS X to a, hypothetical, OS XI - then you could raise some eyebrows but with point releases?
Besides, the general public doesn't really update an operating system until they get a new computer and it comes with it.
The mac pro 1,1 and 2,1 can run mavericks, you need a upgraded gpu and google tiamo boot efi. there are multiple forums on here talking about how to do it. I personally have a mac pro 1,1 with an 8 core cpu upgrade (flashed to 2,1) and a gtx 650ti installed.
There are a lot of people out there that just wouldn't think to upgrade unless there was a person or popup making them aware that it was available.
----------
This.
In 2008 I worked for a client who had there main computer at home still running Windows XP pre-Service Pack 1. The process of getting a computer like that to run fast again now that it's been on the internet feels like trying to help diabetic with heart failure exercise.
Its a cycle designed to sell hardware and make $$$, ie you are forced! This is not about pushing tech forward, this is about selling you new hardware.
People use xp in your building , not cause its their favourite, its cause its stable, they probably have legacy software written for it, and is not bleeding edge, ie full of security holes and bugs. When it comes to business, you never want to run the latest tech/os, NEVER!
and btw, XP is not different than snow leopard. Some people use it cause they have no choice!
On the windows side, I frankly like the fact I can install whatever OS I choose on a PC I build.
The main difference here is Apple is a hardware company, M$ is a software company. That should give you an idea of why they have different models. Apple wants to push you to thier latest hardware asap, M$ build sofware that will run on most hardware within limit. Neither cycle is great for pushing tech forward. Two different models to get your $$$$$
I don't understand Lion because it is the same crap as Mountain Lion, but:
- You don't go beyond Snow Leopard because Rosetta was removed, and the Lion and later GUI is trash.
- You don't go beyond Mountain Lion because SyncServices was removed.
I think the 'toward 50%' headline is simply derived from the GoSquared tracker's 49% figure.
The only meaningful Mavericks adoption figure is 'the percentage of extant Macs which support Mavericks and which are running Mavericks'. Web traffic tells us very little other than 'users with relatively modern Macs and an interest in keeping their OS u-to-date visit a lot of websites'.
Due to 3rd-party peripheral and software incompatibilities. I've got an older iMac with Lion still installed because Drobo won't support it's older devices in newer OS versions. My Mac Pro still has Mountain Lion because my audio interface driver doesn't have a Mavericks update yet. But I've got Mavericks on my laptop.
My school, for one, isn't upgrading since they'd have to upgrade about 200 laptops from 10.7.5 to 10.9.x, after making sure that all of their stuff works on 10.9. It's easier for them to not bother to upgrade at all.
Snow leopard is the most stable OS X imo, nimble and efficient.
And Maverick continues that tradition.
Snow Leopard for life, wooooo
Or until I have to buy a new Mac. I'll miss my PowerPC applications though
Or until I have to buy a new Mac. I'll miss my PowerPC applications though
You have to remember that a lot of older machines can't run Mavericks. I have a Macbook, for example that is stuck on Lion.
OK...now that I think of it. My parents haven't upgraded to Mavericks either.
Mainly because you need to input a credit card or iTunes gift card to initiate any downloads...even FREE ones.
I understand apple doing this as in the future if you want an App or Music, you can easily get it...but stinks for FREE upgrades. I need to go out and get an iTunes card.
Mainly because you need to input a credit card or iTunes gift card to initiate any downloads...even FREE ones.
I understand apple doing this as in the future if you want an App or Music, you can easily get it...but stinks for FREE upgrades. I need to go out and get an iTunes card.
If Apple would offer deeper legacy support then we would be seeing far greater penetration and they could make money selling more content. There are a huge number of Macs out there which are too old to run Mavericks but the 'oldness' is an artificial line drawn in the silicon. Apple could support Macs back to 1999 and they would have almost everyone and approach 100% upgrading.
life -- get used to it. youll find not everything is exciting. youll also find you dont need external rumors about technology to make your life exciting or meaningful.
