I know what I said, and I was serious. If this was a widespread problem, nobody would buy a Mac anymore. Planned obscelecense is largly a myth in tech, that is only compounded by technical advances that just makes everyone FEEL like they're getting the short straw. My 2012 MacBook Pro still works just fine, Apple isn't putting a hit out on me to get me to upgrade either.
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.
MP 7,1 Tahoe on 7,1 is intentionally set up as "Planned Obsolescence"
- Thread starter SDAVE
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
To be fair 2019 MacBook Pro ran like trash from the day it was released. Worst mac I ever owned, ran hot throttled too much and slowed down quite a bit. If not for Apple silicon I was looking for other non mac options than MBP. Got rid of it in a year when M1 Max MBP was released.
Last edited:
No offense to the purchaser, but buying a $25k Intel Mac Pro in 2022 was a massive mistake and waste of money, after the Apple Silicon transition was in full swing, Mac Studio M1 Ultra was released in March 2022, So unless it was in those unforunate months before that, still a mistake knowing that the platform was a dead end and would be end of life before the hardware was obsolete.
Well your post is humorously uninformed. Apple has nothing to gain from ‘planned obsolescence’ as you call it?
If that is what Apple is doing - as you claim - then there would be heaps to gain - forcing people to upgrade to maintain performance for one…
I think the OP was inferring the 25k original price, not necessarily what they paid….
Different users have different requirements for their particular work, so a 2019 MP may be the best option for some people.
There's plenty 2019 MP 7,1 users here stating the same thing. I'm not some n00b here, I'm a professional using a workstation level hardware that Apple sold for $25,000 in 2019 and continues to support it to this day. Do you really think I would randomly post this without having any talking points? I'm not an "influencer". I'm a Creative Director who does a ton of work with high end brands.
In every post like these, over the years, I always see Apple apologists (I will say I am one of those people sometimes too).
It's not just Adobe related, even on idle RAM usage is 40-50GB for no reason whatsoever. Sequoia ran perfectly fine. You're telling me 1 OS version bump and some liquid glass effects slowed down my system that has 28 cores and 192GB of RAM by 60%?
I haven't claimed Apple is doing anything lol. Computers get faster whether yours slows down or not. If Apple had a reputation for causing these issues, nobody would buy a Mac. Also I didn't called it planned obscolescence, OP did. I don't think planned oscolescence is real.
Yeah it's a myth that a 1 version OS bump dropped performance by 60% 🤣
Literally Sequoia .0 and .1 didn't run this bad.
There's memory leaks everywhere and stuttering even when CPU is only being used for 10-15%, frame drops across the UI and even Apple Music stuttering when switching windows.
Let's blame App devs and not Apple for releasing a piece of trash.
I have Windows 11 on another NVME on this machine and it runs smooth as butter. Obviously I hate Windows and don't use it for real work, but just letting you know this is macOS related not hardware.
28c/192GB RAM/4TB SSD/6900XT is no slouch. My iPhone 17 Pro has better performance than the 7,1 on Tahoe.
No, in this case my assumption would be it's one or many of the "infinate number of variables that could affect your Mac performance", not just squarely an issue with the OS. And I am not aplogizing for anyone, I don't form parasocial relationships with companies lol.
You can't say it's definitively a macOS issue because you don't have these issues on a different OS lol.
How is my machine an "infinitely variable system"?
It's literally a standard Mac Pro. It's not some hacked up thing like many other systems here, there aren't any mods. All factory, except the 6900XT (which Apple supports in their own documentations btw). As I said, this system ran fine for years except now under Tahoe. Lot's of high end professional work. I generally don't even update until a year after release, but knowing this was the last macOS version supported, I figured why not.
I'm not even going to reply to you tbh, I think you're just rage baiting.
You're just rage baiting.
There's no major issues on my M1 Max.
This is obviously Intel related.
Ok last response to you because you're a troll.
They're banking on the stickiness to the platform to entice people to upgrade rather than switch.
Basically the "what are you going to do, switch to Windows?" thing 😄
I have two local dev environments of a big enterprise CMS, it starts very slowly on M1 MBP used by another developer (we have literally the same dev environment setup), also on M2 MBA and once started doesn't run very quickly on either of them - but starts up very quickly on the 2019 Mac Pro (the one with the dual W6800X Duos) and runs very quickly on that.
This is a different use case to most folk here.
Last edited:
Tahoe running terribly on my M1 Max 16” MBP and that’s with 64GB RAM 😱 Not cool.
Sorry, but calling Apple's software management incompetence "Planned Obsolescence" is just wrong.
?? So OP intentionally misled us? How rude.I think the OP was inferring the 25k original price, not necessarily what they paid….
Different users have different requirements for their particular work, so a 2019 MP may be the best option for some people.
OP is spouting pure nonsense. Assuming that Apple "pulled this move" because "Corporate greed really did a number on Apple" based on no data other than difficulty making one 6-year-old box work running an entirely different generation of silicon work with the latest OS is not logical.
FYI I am running M2 Max silicon with 96 GB RAM and I have not upgraded to Tahoe yet. For decades of Macs I have found that Apple X.0, X.1 and X.2 OS versions usually have effectively been beta, so I either avoid them or expect to experience/tolerate beta-version issues. Perhaps the OP should do the same. I think it is Apple being incompetent, not some nefarious "Planned Obsolescence."
That is odd, works smooth here, but not as good as Sequoia. Same system as yours.
Literally quoted (used to be). The reading comprehension on this board is a bit depressing.
"one 6-year-old box work"
>Box
It's a professional workstation my guy, which Apple sold to professionals. I don't see how Tahoe is going to get any better, even by .5 especially on Intel.
>M1 Max from 2021
Oh look, it's another "box" that's 4 years old and runs fine.
Oh look, Intel ran fine 1 version before this.
Yet another person I will add to the ignore list.
That's quite a high spec machine too! Have you tried a fresh install of everything on it?
Obviously understand that's also a massive PITA to do.
OP, sorry you've had such a frustrating experience. Have you considered rolling back to Sequoia for the time being? Also what about installing a fresh Tahoe OS on a second partition? May be a good way to troubleshoot.
My 2019 16" Intel MBP with i9-9980HK, 64GB and 5500M 8GB VRAM is definitely a bit sluggish all around and the animations and eye candy are not always (but sometimes) smooth. I do annual refresh with each new OS, so even after using Apple Configurator to wipe/restore firmware and then install Tahoe from Internet Recovery, wasn't enough even with a clean install to change performance. Even with a 120Hz monitor, the bouncing animations for pop ups and things like Mission Control stutter. I went back to Sequoia, fast and smooth once again. I'm just going to ride out Sequoia for the next two years and then finally move on to Apple Silicon/M7/macOS28.
I doubt Apple is purposely making Tahoe bad for Intel-based Macs, but they sure aren't giving it much effort to optimize. Starting with Monterey, Apple started including Apple Silicon-only features. That was the real beginning of the end. I am not really surprised or upset to be honest. I'll have got 8 years of OS upgrades/support for my 2019 when I retire my Intel MBP in 2027 (9 years if they somehow make Tahoe run smoothly and I get to 2028). Not bad at all as far as I'm concerned. I actually thought Sonoma or Sequoia would have been the end of the road for Intel Macs, so to get Tahoe (even though it isn't all that great) for Intel Macs was a bit of a surprise.
I doubt Apple is purposely making Tahoe bad for Intel-based Macs, but they sure aren't giving it much effort to optimize. Starting with Monterey, Apple started including Apple Silicon-only features. That was the real beginning of the end. I am not really surprised or upset to be honest. I'll have got 8 years of OS upgrades/support for my 2019 when I retire my Intel MBP in 2027 (9 years if they somehow make Tahoe run smoothly and I get to 2028). Not bad at all as far as I'm concerned. I actually thought Sonoma or Sequoia would have been the end of the road for Intel Macs, so to get Tahoe (even though it isn't all that great) for Intel Macs was a bit of a surprise.