I would. No one would ever try to install Windows 8 on a machine from 2007. My 2007 17" MBP (Santa Rosa) works great with the latest OSX. So while you may not find it impressive I'd venture you are in a small minority.
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 Tidbits: System Requirements, Redesigned Activity Monitor, App Battery Monitoring, and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would. No one would ever try to install Windows 8 on a machine from 2007. My 2007 17" MBP (Santa Rosa) works great with the latest OSX. So while you may not find it impressive I'd venture you are in a small minority.
No, yes, yes.
Why no? Because the current beta has many issues, not only internal but with third-party apps. It's a beta for a reason. Perhaps by DP3 or so it'll be good enough for main usage, even then though its not recommended since there can always be rather big bugs lying within.
I've got a late 2006 MacBook Pro running Windows 8 right now. Working like a charm.
Two more:
Possible to install over Mountain Lion? If yes:
Recommended to install over Mountain Lion?
Yes, and depends. It will install over ML without a hitch and preserve pretty much all your settings, but naturally doing this might be risky. What if some nasty bug renders the partition unusable? Yes it's unlikely, but then you pretty much have to restore from a prior backup. So only do this if you first backup your ML install and aren't worried about losing anything by playing with the new OS.
Personally, I think they should dump support of older machines without hesitation, those older machines can continue to run the OS and programmes they run today and ran previously, they don't *need* to be updated as much as (this is my personal opinion) newer machines shouldn't have to be crippled or restricted in some way by the legacy machines demanding equal support out there of OS and applications.
I've got a 2007 iMac, which I fully expected this release not to support, and while I'm pleasantly surprised they will support it, in the situation where I owned a new iMac and the OS decided to support that older machine at the expense of *not* taking advantage of my new technology in some way, I'd be pissed and think I'd overpaid for something. Technology advances happen at a much slower pace than previously, they shouldn't be held back further because a bunch of old machines demand equal love.
Machines today last much longer than they ever used to - Microsoft and Windows machines pretty much perished at the 2 year mark in the past, so my 6 year old iMac running the latest OS (and running it fairly well!) is pretty amazing I have to admit (and will be 7 years old when next year's OS comes along), and something I never expected when I purchased it new.
As for the green aspect, I'll sell my old one (in the next year) to someone that doesn't need the latest and greatest OS and software, and they'll enjoy the machine for, I would imagine, a few more years before the thing ever needs to be put out to pasture.
The "iCloud" folder was a tip from 9to5Mac, here's the direct text from the site:
"You can now navigate your iCloud documents in Finder. You can drag anything into this “iCloud” folder. Each app sifts through this folder and finds associates files."
I don't get it.
Edit: So it's Mobile Documents folder like before which is still neither elegant nor easy to use.
Last edited:
Supporting a MacBook Pro from 2007 but not a Mac Pro from the same year is far from impressive.
I'd recommend you give it a try on a separate partition, and try the apps & games you can't go without. And also test out the overall stability.
Personally I'm someone who always likes to test beta software just for the heck of it, and I generally run it as my main OS, obviously I always back up my files using Time Machine.
Good thing I have a strong backup of everything before I updated. That's what they make backups for right?
Same requirements as 10.8
If true, this will be the first release since 10.2 that didn't increase the requirements. Kinda saw this coming, since Apple ran out of hard points for cutting off support (Intel/10.6, 64-bit CPU/10.7, 64-bit UEFI/10.8) Last arbitrary cutoffs came with Leopard (867 MHZ G4).
If true, this will be the first release since 10.2 that didn't increase the requirements. Kinda saw this coming, since Apple ran out of hard points for cutting off support (Intel/10.6, 64-bit CPU/10.7, 64-bit UEFI/10.8) Last arbitrary cutoffs came with Leopard (867 MHZ G4).
while it will run on 2007 era machines, I have to wonder how usaebleit will be.
My impression of the last few OS revs have been that Apple is following a "tick-tock" strategy. Leopard was kind of a pig, Snow Leopard scaled back it's egregious excesses. Likewise for Lion/Mountain Lion.
I am guessing there will be a follow up to Mavericks.
"Mavericks:Locals Only".
Or this OS naming convention could be just a one off to bridge us to OS XI.
Which doubtless will draw names from AKC.
My impression of the last few OS revs have been that Apple is following a "tick-tock" strategy. Leopard was kind of a pig, Snow Leopard scaled back it's egregious excesses. Likewise for Lion/Mountain Lion.
I am guessing there will be a follow up to Mavericks.
"Mavericks:Locals Only".
Or this OS naming convention could be just a one off to bridge us to OS XI.
Which doubtless will draw names from AKC.
+1 can't find this. Mobile Documents is still hidden in your Library, but does not behave this way.
Perhaps they were referring to All My Files? The behavior hasn't changed since Mountain Lion. Copying a file to All My Files defaults to the local Documents folder.
Yeah, looking at the list it looks the same, but the article says "most". Are there any machines losing support?
The new Dock is a Dog
The new Dock looks pathetic. But following the hideous iOS 7, it is no surprise that the MacOS will be destroyed as well...
The new Dock looks pathetic. But following the hideous iOS 7, it is no surprise that the MacOS will be destroyed as well...
Support for OpenGL 4.1 is good, but they really need Compute Shader support which is part of OpenGL 4.3 or can be added as an extension to OpenGL 4.1. Compute shader is more efficient at some graphical tasks than pixel shaders and many DX11 game engines are going to rely on compute shaders as an integral part of the engine, especially once next-gen consoles come out. Having compute shader support would ease bringing DX11 games to Mac.