Apple reveals macOS Sierra hardware compatibility list

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 55
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,274member
    IIRC, Mavericks was the first upgrade that was actually free. 
  • Reply 42 of 55
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,799member
    jumpcutter said:

    Should I buy a new Mac!  I see nothing innovative from Apple's computer line up. Apple wants it's mobile devices to lead the way...pushing a smartwatch and the phone so it can work together quickly when it really does not. What a joke.

    "nothing innovative" Just another dog whistle buzz word for Apple bashers. Whatever. Name another company that designs, manufactures state of the art consumer electronics, writes all their own software, operating systems and even a new programming language with a compiler. They market all their products through their network of worldwide retail locations which have a full fledged service and repair center in each one. Then they have grown the company into the largest corporation the world has ever seen. Probably all just dumb luck.
  • Reply 43 of 55
    slurpy said:                                                                     
    Your post makes no fucking sense whatsoever. Both your Mac Pro and Macbook Pro have been updated many times since 2008. But, because they weren't arbitrarily updated again at this event (which is a software and developer event, no one expected hew hardware) you may "have to go to a PC"? What the fuck? In 8 years, you saw no reason to update your Macbook Pro even though its been updated like 8 times in that timeframe, the new models are infinitely better than yours - yet you now suddenly you "have to" switch to Windows? Please, do that and spare us your asinine, mindless trolling. 

    Oh, and Apple has no obligation to support your ancient devices  for its newest software, and you have no rational reason to expect it. You have gotten almost a decade of free OSX updates since your purchased your computers (8 years of updates), your sense entitlement is pathetically childish and utterly unreasonable. So please, switch to Windows 10, no doubt Microsoft and some random PC will meet your ludicrous and irrational standards. 
    I don't believe for a second his story that he was holding off switching to a new Windows 10 PC because of the prospect of running Sierra on an 8-year-old Mac. Why is upgrading to a new Mac to run Sierra off the table as an option?
    Yeah, running Sierra has nothing to do wiling.  I was hoping for a new Mac computer which has not been partially updated like the last 2 updates of MBP or even the iMacs updates. Everything is a mess with Apple's computer line up.
    docno42
  • Reply 44 of 55
    lvidallvidal Posts: 158member
    I'm pretty sure my 15" MBPro 2008 (two SSD and full RAM) could easily run Sierra. There's nothing so drastically changed from El Capitán that makes this machine useless in Sierra. No intensive use of GPU or crazy CPU processes. This decision is for marketing purposes only to make us buy new machines. I'm sure it will be an alternative option to install it on this machine.
  • Reply 45 of 55
    lvidallvidal Posts: 158member
    auxio said:
    rcfa said:
    This is pretty retarded: if they make minimum RAM requirements etc. I'm all for it.
    But the stupid anemic MBA from a couple of years ago with a lousy on-CPU Intel-GPU and 2GB soldered on, non-upgradable RAM makes the cut, but my 2007 MBP with 6GB RAM, SSD, and a decent GPU, which runs circles around that MBA, does not.

    I hate randomized planned obsolescence!
    Because you _know_ all of the technical details right?  You know exactly how the new Auto Unlock feature works under-the-hood and what hardware support it requires to perform secure, wireless unlocking.  And you know for sure that your 2007 MBP has that hardware in it.  Same thing with Safari Apple Pay and Universal Clipboard (which are likely built on that same technology).  There's a lot more than just CPU/GPU/RAM being utilized for new OS features.

    But perhaps you don't care about those features and believe that Apple should have spent time writing code to detect what hardware you have in your Mac, determine whether it supports those features or not, and disable them in cases where it can't be supported.  Then spent time writing more code to ensure all the apps which rely on those features do the same detection and handling.  Then wrote customer support documentation to ensure that people who try to use those features on incompatible Macs can figure out why they aren't working.  And also trained customer support staff to handle all of the customers who can't be bothered to read the documentation and call/walk in to complain about things.  And even if Apple did all of that, you'd be complaining that they didn't add enough new features for you (because they spent all of those resources on trying to ensure backwards compatibility for the other features).

    Excuse me, sir, but those are stupid arguments for not support a product that is completely capable of doing 90% of the work the OS offers.

    He is totally right in saying that those MB Air machines are way too lower spec in front of his machine or my 15" 2008 MB Pro or some early or mid 2009 MB Pro or other ousted models. A simple specs exceptions for the people who upgrades certain models can resolve the problem of feature compatibility, and don't think that Apple and their team have too much problems to detect hardware compatibilities to restrict features (as they do in each release). For them to show you an alert that tells you "Hey! You have this XXXX model. Feature 1, Feature 2, Feature 3 and Feature 4 are not compatible with your Mac" is just a piece of cake.

    Apple only wants you to expend some money in a newer product because they are not selling the OS anymore, so their revenue comes from hardware sold. But hey! They can charge people with older but capable hardware. That's fair.  There are no intensive increase of CPU/GPU/RAM that can justify the obsolescence of these products as there are a lot of newer models with much lower specs. If you want to believe it or not, that's your problem.
    edited June 2016
  • Reply 46 of 55
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,274member
    You literally have no idea. 

    If Apple were about forcing people to buy new hardware, why on earth would they support SEVEN-YEAR-OLD MACHINES? 

    Which they are, you know.
    kevin kee
  • Reply 47 of 55
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,836moderator
    volcan said:
    The article incorrectly states '2009 or later' iMacs and MacBooks. It's actually 'Late 2009 or newer' iMacs and MacBooks that are required.

    i have an 'Early 2009' white MacBook and a 'Mid 2009' 20" aluminium iMac and neither of these make the grade - El Cap is the end of the road for these two.... 
    I remember when OS X went full 64 bit and some older Macs could not be upgraded past Lion. At least back then they explained the reason. Some 32 bit kernel files, video drivers, or kext files or whatever. Does anyone know what is causing this new incompatibility?

    In their SEC filings, Apple mention that they record revenue estimates for free upgrades:

    "For sales of qualifying versions of iPhone, iPad and iPod touch (“iOS devices”), Mac, Apple Watch and Apple TV, the Company has indicated it may from time to time provide future unspecified software upgrades to the device’s essential software and/or non-software services free of charge. The Company has identified up to three deliverables regularly included in arrangements involving the sale of these devices. The first deliverable, which represents the substantial portion of the allocated sales price, is the hardware and software essential to the functionality of the hardware device delivered at the time of sale. The second deliverable is the embedded right included with qualifying devices to receive on a when-and-if-available basis, future unspecified software upgrades relating to the product’s essential software. The third deliverable is the non-software services to be provided to qualifying devices. The Company allocates revenue between these deliverables using the relative selling price method. Because the Company has neither VSOE nor TPE for these deliverables, the allocation of revenue is based on the Company’s ESPs. Revenue allocated to the delivered hardware and the related essential software is recognized at the time of sale provided the other conditions for revenue recognition have been met. Revenue allocated to the embedded unspecified software upgrade rights and the non-software services is deferred and recognized on a straight-line basis over the estimated period the software upgrades and non-software services are expected to be provided. Cost of sales related to delivered hardware and related essential software, including estimated warranty costs, are recognized at the time of sale. Costs incurred to provide non-software services are recognized as cost of sales as incurred, and engineering and sales and marketing costs are recognized as operating expenses as incurred.

    The Company’s process for determining its ESP for deliverables without VSOE or TPE considers multiple factors that may vary depending upon the unique facts and circumstances related to each deliverable including, where applicable, prices charged by the Company and market trends in the pricing for similar offerings, product specific business objectives, length of time a particular version of a device has been available, estimated cost to provide the non-software services and the relative ESP of the upgrade rights and non-software services as compared to the total selling price of the product.

    Beginning in September 2015, the Company reduced the combined ESPs for iOS devices and Mac between $5 and $10 to reflect the increase in competitive offers for similar products at little to no cost for users, which reduces the amount the Company could reasonably charge for these deliverables on a standalone basis."

    As a publicly traded company, they have to account for improvements to a product that aren't specified at the time of sale since work and monetary cost went into the improvements. There's a limit to how long they can do this for each product so every product they make has to stop being supported even when the devices can run the software adequately.

    It helps with their support systems and quality assurance too. They have to train support staff to handle a range of devices and test devices for deployment. Supporting really old devices makes that job harder.

    It's pretty standard practise for companies to stop supporting old products. It is annoying when they cut support really short like when they restrict things like XCode to the last two operating systems. It's reasonable for Apple to drop support for hardware that is more than 6-7 years old. iOS 10 only goes back about 4 years.

    The cost in maintaining compatible hardware is the difference between what people sell an old product for and how much they pay for a compatible model. If someone today sells a 2008 Macbook for $200 and buys a 2012 Macbook for $600, the cost has been $400 after 8 years. They get 4 years of hardware upgrades and another few years of OS compatibility.

    A Mac upgrade program would help where people pay half the price of the hardware over 2 years and upgrade automatically every 2 years. A $3000 Mac Pro would be $69/month and every 2 years, people get a new one at the same price point. Apple can then sell the one they take back for half the price and they make the full revenue. If someone doesn't want to upgrade, they just pay it off. Most entry level Macs would be around $29/month, which is a pretty low cost and they can add a $5/month extra for AppleCare.
  • Reply 48 of 55
    mariomario Posts: 348member
    Yeah, I’m going to figure out how to install it on my Mac Pro. I’m going to take a wild guess and say that it’s not actually too old to run it.
    Of course it is not too old. It's faster than anything from 2011 or 2012 (I have a few 27'' iMacs and Macbook Pros from those years and it beats then in performance tests and of course has 2 times the max RAM). I wonder if installing on external drive from supported hardware and then cloning to internal Mac Pro drive would work?
  • Reply 49 of 55
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    mario said:
    I wonder if installing on external drive from supported hardware and then cloning to internal Mac Pro drive would work?
    I think I'll try that first, but won't it whine about not finding the hardware it wanted?

    Watch; Apple will have completely removed support for early Xeon processors to save on space.  :p
  • Reply 50 of 55
    sennensennen Posts: 1,470member
    The guys on ATP mentioned that the cut-off point could be the inclusion of AES instruction set on Intel chips. This makes sense given the new file system's use of disk encryption. I'm not sure, my unsupported mid-09 MBP17 has Penryn C2D and I think the supported 09 MB has a Penryn as well. It could be a case of not all Penryns being equal. I highly doubt that the cut off is arbitrary as some seem to think, however.
    docno42
  • Reply 51 of 55
    jumpcutterjumpcutter Posts: 100member
    spheric said:
    IIRC, Mavericks was the first upgrade that was actually free. 
    Correct. Which is about 3 years ago as I stated. Thank you for confirming.
    edited June 2016
  • Reply 52 of 55
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    sennen said:
    The guys on ATP mentioned that the cut-off point could be the inclusion of AES instruction set on Intel chips.
    I’m very upset that you seem to be correct.

    EDIT: Hang on, the Late 2009 iMac and MacBook are supported, but they use Wolfdale (Penryn) and the P7550 (Penryn), respectively. Those are pre-Nehalem, even, and I can’t find any mention of AES in their specs.
    edited June 2016
  • Reply 53 of 55
    sennensennen Posts: 1,470member
    sennen said:
    The guys on ATP mentioned that the cut-off point could be the inclusion of AES instruction set on Intel chips.
    I’m very upset that you seem to be correct.

    EDIT: Hang on, the Late 2009 iMac and MacBook are supported, but they use Wolfdale (Penryn) and the P7550 (Penryn), respectively. Those are pre-Nehalem, even, and I can’t find any mention of AES in their specs.
    Yeah, that's what I also mentioned about my Penryn-based mid-09 17" MBP vs the MB. There was a later Penryn revision, I think, perhaps that supported it?
  • Reply 54 of 55
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    sennen said:
    Yeah, that's what I also mentioned about my Penryn-based mid-09 17" MBP vs the MB. There was a later Penryn revision, I think, perhaps that supported it?
    MacTracker says that those are the chips those models used, and Intel’s config page says they don’t support AES.
  • Reply 55 of 55
    Impressed that my 6 1/2 yr old MBP (mid 2010) is still getting new operating systems for free. Every year it feels new again, and its still plenty fast with maxed RAM and SSD. Finally planning to upgrade with the next MBP release.
Sign In or Register to comment.