MP 7,1 Tahoe on 7,1 is intentionally set up as "Planned Obsolescence"

[avro707]

ou don't go to the Apple Store -- who have likely never seen a Mac Pro, and are unaware it even exists, much less have anybody present who can service it even if sent the parts

That's my experience with them as well, you say "Mac Pro" and they immediately correct you with "MacBOOK Pro".

Then you have to explain, err, no, it's the desktop tower that cost more than the price of some cars new. And then they go wide eyed. Only a few of them know what it is. When they find out you have two of them, both with the top CPUs and high spec GPUs, they are even more shocked.

 

[transpo1]

Agreed, "Tahoe running terribly on my M1 Max 16” MBP and that’s with 64GB RAM 😱 Not cool." It is not planned obsolescence for his particular Mac as the OP claims; IMO it probably is poor OS competence (i.e. 26.2 still beta) by Apple.

Quality control is should be their number one priority right now; that's why I hope the rumors are true and macOS 27 will be a maintenance release.

 

[maxoakland]

Should Apple just support Intel Macs indefinitely then? What is the appropriate approach in your mind?

Supporting them for ten years

 

[mattspace]

Quality control is should be their number one priority right now; that's why I hope the rumors are true and macOS 27 will be a maintenance release.

Could there be any more complete F-you to owners of apple's most expensive product, than to dump a janktastic OS on it as the final version, and then make a cleaned-up fixed update, which isn't made available.

It's going to be interesting when everyone's on Apple Silicon, and Apple starts applying the iPhone model of only providing security updates in full OS upgrades for machines that are arbitrarily considered "compatible" with the new system, regardless of how much worse its performance may be.

Make no mistake, the 3 years of security updates to previous system releases is only going to apply to machines that aren't supported by the new OS version, eventually. You'll get 6 months, tops, and then all security updates will only be available in macOS (year+1)

 

[antiprotest]

With Apple, never attribute to malice when it can be explained by simple, extreme, persistent, pervasive incompetence.

 

[Bigwaff]

With Apple, never attribute to malice when it can be explained by simple, extreme, persistent, pervasive incompetence.

… or greed.

 

[Heat_Fan89]

With Apple, never attribute to malice when it can be explained by simple, extreme, persistent, pervasive incompetence.

… or greed.

I don't think it can be contributed to any of that tbh. It boils down to, they just don't care if your device slows down. They are basically designing their OS'es now for the latest hardware. If you don't have the latest hardware, then too bad if it slows down. If your hardware happens to run fine, then you were lucky.

 

[avkills]

I am torn a bit on this subject; but am leaning more to the side that Apple should optimize the OS for any machine that is officially supported. Should be easiy for a Trillion dollar company to have multiple forks of the OS for both Apple Silicon and Intel. Besides you know the skunkworks division has the OS running on probably everything "just in case."

Also; anyone who has spent the money on a 7,1 has invested a gross amount of money into a computer; so I feel that Apple is obligated to make good on the investment and make sure the OS runs as intended on all officially supported machines. Hell I would not care if they disabled liquid glass on intel machines.

 

[etresoft]

I am torn a bit on this subject; but am leaning more to the side that Apple should optimize the OS for any machine that is officially supported. Should be easiy for a Trillion dollar company to have multiple forks of the OS for both Apple Silicon and Intel. Besides you know the skunkworks division has the OS running on probably everything "just in case."

Also; anyone who has spent the money on a 7,1 has invested a gross amount of money into a computer; so I feel that Apple is obligated to make good on the investment and make sure the OS runs as intended on all officially supported machines. Hell I would not care if they disabled liquid glass on intel machines.

Perhaps it boils down to what everyone's definition of what "supported" actually is in practice.

People in this thread seem to feel that "supported" means no degradation of performance, all security updates, and new features optional. And what does Apple provide? Two out of three? Some degradation of performance, security updates, and new features if the hardware permits. Is that really a Cardinal Sin?

After all, if people really want no degradation of performance, all security updates, and new features optional, then Sequoia's still available. Even Ventura got some security updates a few months ago. Yet obviously, 100% of people running Tahoe on Intel rejected that option. Do they really expect anyone to believe that Tahoe is the first OS upgrade that runs more slowly than previous versions?

Apple literally does have multiple forks of the OS for both Apple Silicon and Intel. And surely people don't think that Apple started porting macOS to Apple Silicon in 2020. We're all running the fruits of a decade-long skunkworks project that ported iOS back to the platform from whence it came, and then resurrected the old Rosetta architecture to keep old Intel apps running on foreign hardware for years. Is this not "supported"?

 

[mattspace]

After all, if people really want no degradation of performance, all security updates, and new features optional, then Sequoia's still available.

Except that your iPhone is going to require you to update to iOS 26 to get basic security updates, and then your apps that sync between iOS and macOS are going to become glitchy - Maybe Airdrop doesn't work every time, Safari reading list will stop working, iCloud tabs will start breaking, Continuity Camera starts dropping connections while on call, the version of iWork apps on the iPhone will be Tahoe-only for Mac compatibility with no option to make / keep document versions as Sequoia era, and you'll start seeing "this document was created in a newer version of (app), upgrade macOS to use (basic feature or editing capability)", and you flat out won't be able to get certain apps from Apple because they only offer them for the latest OS version.

Death by a thousand cuts.

 

[aespana]

I hope if and when that happens, people consider other vendors. Voting with your wallet is the only way to make a difference in this world.

That's what I did with the iPhones and iOS 26.

After the update and that ugly design, just sold it to my brother and bought a Pixel 9a. Works really well.

Right now I have a Air M1 well equiped for the future (16GB of RAM) but what future? A future with Tahoe? A future with macOS 27 and that ugly UI and possibly bugged 27.0, 27.1, 27.2 versions?

Nah. No thanks. The problem here is that Windows 11 is not that better than Tahoe. I think I will end going to Linux.

I don't know. En********ation is real and is here. Trillion value companies delivery terrible software. Don't know man, hard times

 

[AndreeOnline]

It runs like a Pentium 4, really boggles my mind that Apple would go this far to make Tahoe useless.

👋🏻 SDAVE,

Out of curiosity, have you tried partitioning off a bit of SSD disk space and making a clean install of Tahoe?

It's a few hoops to jump through, sure, but might be worth it from a 'peace of mind' perspective, even if it's just "yep, just as laggy". Perhaps a Sunday project?

I don't think Apple deliberately trashes their older Macs, but all optimizations will be for newer hardware, of course.

I had to shed a tear after finally getting the dual W6800 Duos, just as Blender was getting GPUs to work on macOS..... and even Apple was directly involved to make Blender + Metal work as intended.... only to read a few months later that Blender is dropping the Intel + GPU support for the Mac.

In the case of Blender, I know for a fact that it had nothing to do with malice or "we don't care". I worked directly with a few devs and went through many personalised builds to find out exactly where the problems/bottlenecks were. In the end, we reached the point where Blender is now: 4.2 LTS is the last version my Mac Pro will run.
Ultimately, it becomes unsustainable to patch software for individual configurations.

In Apple's case, I imagine it's pretty similar on a daily basis, on a much larger scale. I'm sure the software leads make continuous, unceremonious decisions about where to draw lines and cut features/support, trying to see the big picture. And the more niche the product/feature is, the more these types of decisions tend to hurt.

Owning both a Mac Pro and a MacBook Pro M3 Max, I try to stay balanced. I would lie if I didn't admit I'd like to see my Mac Pro and its GPU power extend further into the future. There is a LOT of grunt to tap into on the compute side of things, but software keeps moving away from it. The CPU is what it is. I'm not even sure it's worth bothering with the 28-core upgrade, which has become cheaper again.

 

[MarkC426]

👋🏻 SDAVE,

Out of curiosity, have you tried partitioning off a bit of SSD disk space and making a clean install of Tahoe?

This is a good call.

But personally I would use a separate disk, MP’s are designed for this (assuming the OP has available space)
Failing that an external drive would also work.
I would also install Sequoia to check performance.

I can boot my Studio from a Samsung T7, it’s damn slow to get to the desktop, but once loaded works pretty normal.

 

[TEG]

Why would you even try to run Tahoe on an Intel Mac? The only reason they even support it is if they didn't people would yell at them.

That being said, did you try a fresh install? You really should be doing a fresh Install every 2-3 OSes, just to keep your system from dealing with legacy detritus. Try installing Tahoe on a fresh SSD and see how it behaves. You have a 70% chance that thing will actually work properly, and not be so bogged down.

 

[avkills]

I always do fresh installs for major OS updates.

 

[AndreeOnline]

Why would you even try to run Tahoe on an Intel Mac?

I personally always want to run the latest compatible software. Simple as that. [ADDED: Full disclosure, I'm writing this on my Sequoia Mac Pro.... so there's that. I haven't updated it yet....]

The reason is that everyone optimises for the latest release. Software is a moving target, but the latest release has all known security patches and bug fixes.

Sometimes newer releases come with additional "features" such as eye candy or more consumer oriented features that amount to little more than baggage. Still, I default to updating UNLESS I learn about some major red flags—which can happen.

That said, some hardware nearing end-of-life might feel more at home on a certain generation of software or OS. I would very much welcome if Apple did something similar to what Blender does with their LTS (Long Term Support) releases. Imagine Apple keeping 3 generations of macOS "alive" that are 'feature frozen' but still get driver support, maintenance and security patches. Maybe they already to this to some extent?

As I mentioned earlier, my Intel Mac Pro is capped at Blender 4.2 LTS, but that doesn't mean that version is 'dead' since release. It still gets occasional updates compatible to its feature set.

 

[jimmy_john]

It's pretty far fetched to think Apple would intentionally cripple Tahoe on the Mac Pro - they don't even know what that machine is.

 

[Dolphins1972]

I think many of you chiming in here do not own a Mac Pro. Mac Pros are for professionals, they are built with server grade hardware that lasts 15-20 years even under heavy use on a daily basis. They are upgradeable, repairable and built to last. That's why professionals buy them and that's why they cost as much as ten times the amount of a maxed-out, top-of-the-line MacBook Pro.

It should be illegal to sell such a high cost item and then drop support for it in such a short time. Apple knew they were cutting ties with Intel but they kept building Intel based machines while hyping them up pushing them out to consumers. It's tantamount to fraud. I see it as a form of insider trading and stock market manipulation.

Because of the success and longevity of previous Mac Pro models, Apple knew they had a large base chomping at the bit for a new model. How many Intel based 7,1s did Facebook buy before they started selling them off at a highly discounted price without even unboxing them? I know many others got in on that deal including myself. They weren't base models either as you can see in my signature except for the additional dual Radeon 6900 XT.

So Apple made millions just from one company buying them. How many other companies bought them in bulk, not counting the average consumer who would need to take out a home improvement loan to buy one? And then come to find out they were only going to support it for one more OS update.

You can keep your integrated, non-upgradeable, non-repairable Mac Studios. I won't be throwing my money away on those anytime soon.

 

[AndreeOnline]

I think many of you chiming in here do not own a Mac Pro. Mac Pros are for professionals, they are built with server grade hardware that lasts 15-20 years even under heavy use on a daily basis. They are upgradeable, repairable and built to last. That's why professionals buy them and that's why they cost as much as ten times the amount of a maxed-out, top-of-the-line MacBook Pro.

Yes. So I guess: where does that leave us?

I get that many of you are disappointed and frustrated. But Mac Pro owner or not, you were likely never Apple's target customer for the Mac Pro. Facebook on the other hand, while not the stereotypical Mac Pro customer in our minds, might have been. They have at least handled their "the Mac Pro doesn't fulfil our needs frustration" in a more professional way: they simply got rid of stock they no longer needed—without venting about it.

I'm not sure if it's ONLY venting, or if there's more behind it, but reading these posts about Apple being crooks, or their design decisions equating to fraud (what's up with that?) has been one of the reasons I stopped coming to these forums.

The main thing is of course that it has absolutely zero positive impact on Macs going forward. Let's just stick to helping each other out, or criticising the Mac Pro in constructive ways.

If the rumours are true and Apple really is giving up the Mac Pro, then I think that is a serious mistake. I have no issues with the Mac Pro changing with the times. Why not just offering the Max and the Ultra performance levels in a Mac Pro case that allows for easy expansion of SSD storage and a few PCIe cards for speciality needs? Take the Studio price and and whatever premium necessary—basically a "large expandable case" cost. $999? $1499? $1999?

The Studio will work for most, but it becomes a dead end for many loyal customers. A vanilla M5 Ultra will have AWESOME performance across all types of apps.

 

[mattspace]

I'm not sure if it's ONLY venting, or if there's more behind it, but reading these posts about Apple being crooks, or their design decisions equating to fraud (what's up with that?) has been one of the reasons I stopped coming to these forums.

Apple are crooks. The company has a long rap sheet of corporate criminality; whether it's defrauding shareholders by backdating options to allow shares to be purchased at below fair (and legal) market value by executives, leading conspiratorial cartels to fix the price of eBooks, or operating illegal experimental silicon foundries with inadequate environmental controls in residential neighbourhoods, pretending that Apple doesn't behave as if they are above the law, is to be wilfully blind to the true nature of the company's culture.

And any conversation failing to acknowledge that, misses the context of everything the company does.

If you sell a product that has post-purchasable spare parts, and you sell it on the explicit premise that customers will be able to buy and upgrade those parts, and you sell it in markets that have a legal requirement to supply parts for a certain number of years after the product goes off sale, and then you refuse to honour those requirements, what else is that but defrauding your customers?

If the rumours are true and Apple really is giving up the Mac Pro, then I think that is a serious mistake. I have no issues with the Mac Pro changing with the times. Why not just offering the Max and the Ultra performance levels in a Mac Pro case that allows for easy expansion of SSD storage and a few PCIe cards for speciality needs? Take the Studio price and and whatever premium necessary—basically a "large expandable case" cost. $999? $1499? $1999?

Apple wants people to buy $12k iPads, that's the paradigm they want to be selling, where nothing about the configuration can be changed post-purchase, and every product can have its lifespan managed as perfectly as a content subscription.

 

[avro707]

When you look at upgrades people are trying to do with silicon macs, this isn’t a great situation:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-silicon-soldered-ssd-upgrade-thread.2417822/page-21

Needlessly difficult. For cheaper laptops I get it, but for desktop machines like the studio I don’t agree.

And changing storage types between the two Mac Pros current and previous… argh.

 

[jimmy_john]

I think many of you chiming in here do not own a Mac Pro. Mac Pros are for professionals, they are built with server grade hardware that lasts 15-20 years even under heavy use on a daily basis. They are upgradeable, repairable and built to last. That's why professionals buy them and that's why they cost as much as ten times the amount of a maxed-out, top-of-the-line MacBook Pro.

Professionals making money with their machines don't keep them in service for 20 years.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

If anything, all this thread does is prove that it’s not planned obsolescence, just an OS that needs a lot of work across the board.
In this thread, I’ve heard people complain that Tahoe runs terribly on their Intel machines, M1 Machines, M2 Machines, M3, M4 and *M5* machines.
Do we really think Apple is performing planned obsolescence on a machine released two months ago?

 

[SDAVE]

If anything, all this thread does is prove that it’s not planned obsolescence, just an OS that needs a lot of work across the board.
In this thread, I’ve heard people complain that Tahoe runs terribly on their Intel machines, M1 Machines, M2 Machines, M3, M4 and *M5* machines.
Do we really think Apple is performing planned obsolescence on a machine released two months ago?

Tahoe is already on .3 (Beta, but still) my dude...and it's the final supported macOS version for these Intels.

 

[avkills]

Normally I would have updated probably on on the .2 release, but even the .3 does not seem fit; so I wait patiently until all the screwballs get fixed.