Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Nothingfaced

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 15, 2014
79
30
Currently installing Beta 1 of High Sierra for my EIGHT YEAR OLD iMac. Late 2009, Core 2 Duo, 500GB, 12GB RAM.

People can complain that Apples are expensive, but this is why. They LAST. I have never had a desktop computer last this many years, much less actually still be supported here in late 2017.

I fully realize it will be a very bare bones version of OSX10.13, but wow.

Kudos Tim Cook.
 

danilko1

macrumors 65816
Jun 21, 2010
1,087
366
My MacBookPro 17" from 2009, last OS was El Capitan. The laptop is fully stocked and would work fine with Sierra and High Sierra. So I don't understand how some Mac Books from 2009 will work with High Sierra but higher spec Macs won't.

I don't run Beta software on my production 2011 iMac. That system is configured to the top, as well.
 

daflake

macrumors 6502a
Apr 8, 2008
920
4,329
I'm more impressed with the fact it's still software supported. Axes the common complaint that Apple "forces" people to upgrade hardware to be compatible with their software. Just isn't true.

Try and load that on my core 2 duo 2008 macbook.

I also have a lot of older PCs that run just fine. Hell, I remember when Apple used to force people to buy new Apps everytime they upgraded their OS.
 

pickaxe

macrumors 6502a
Nov 29, 2012
760
284
Currently installing Beta 1 of High Sierra for my EIGHT YEAR OLD iMac. Late 2009, Core 2 Duo, 500GB, 12GB RAM.

People can complain that Apples are expensive, but this is why. They LAST. I have never had a desktop computer last this many years, much less actually still be supported here in late 2017.

I fully realize it will be a very bare bones version of OSX10.13, but wow.

Kudos Tim Cook.

Have you ever used Windows? Windows 7, 8.1 and 10 are very optimized on old hardware, despite having to support a huge amount of different hardware compared to Apple. 7 especially runs on old hardware beautifully. As they should be, the only ones pushing this arbitrary hardware obsolescence on the desktop is Apple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Menneisyys2

grahamperrin

macrumors 601
Jun 8, 2007
4,942
648
… many PIII, P4, PM, and C2D desktops/laptops that still run fine …

… more impressed with the fact it's still software supported …

https://www.freebsd.org/relnotes/CURRENT/hardware/article.html#proc-amd64 FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT support for AMD64 goes back to processors from around 2004, as far as I can tell.

In practice, the oldest machine with which I have used a FreeBSD-based system is an Ergo Vista 621 notebook, circa 2007 hardware. A year or so ago.
 

rtomyj

macrumors 6502a
Sep 3, 2012
812
753
Have you ever used Windows? Windows 7, 8.1 and 10 are very optimized on old hardware, despite having to support a huge amount of different hardware compared to Apple. 7 especially runs on old hardware beautifully. As they should be, the only ones pushing this arbitrary hardware obsolescence on the desktop is Apple.

Gonna have to disagree. My second laptop was a mid range Samsung that lasted me about 2 years before the OS lagged like a mofo. Couldn't code, chrome was a pain to use, etc. My 2014 Mac mini is kicking its ass right now as is my 2014 MacBook pro (that things a monster!).
 

Nothingfaced

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 15, 2014
79
30
Finally installed after I had to do a time machine restore.

I really don't notice much different... just different Siri logo, different wallpaper... haven't messed w/ it much.
 

647156

Cancelled
Dec 4, 2011
276
375
Actually MS tends to outstrip Apple in how long they offer support for an OS and how old a machine can run current operating systems.
My "Early 2006" 20-inch iMac Core Duo, the first Intel Mac ever released (i.e. not counting the Developer Transition Kit), can only run a maximum of OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard i.e. 6 releases behind the current (though still the best OS X in my opinion!), but runs the very latest Windows 10 just great... :p

I've also had Windows 2000 running on it (possible by replacing a couple of files on the 2000 disc with the equivalents from XP), try running 17 years of Apple OSes on a single Mac!
 
Last edited:

Nothingfaced

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 15, 2014
79
30
one thing I refuse to do, and recommend you do *NOT* do: Don't upgrade a production machine.

I don't care how much you like the new OS, just leave it alone for at least another 6 months. I learned that lesson the hard way.
 

QzzB

macrumors regular
Mar 7, 2015
128
55
London
one thing I refuse to do, and recommend you do *NOT* do: Don't upgrade a production machine.

I don't care how much you like the new OS, just leave it alone for at least another 6 months. I learned that lesson the hard way.
thats a good rule for all Beta software - can loose data so never use Beta on Production systems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zaxxon72

fischersd

macrumors 603
Oct 23, 2014
5,367
1,936
Port Moody, BC, Canada
Pretty sure most big companies actually have IT policies against that (I know the corporations I've worked in did).
Nothing like some engineers losing 2 or 3 days of productivity because they had to play with a beta OS. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: zaxxon72

saudor

macrumors 68000
Jul 18, 2011
1,510
2,111
Well.. Windows 10 can run on stuff as old as P4 and Pentium D and those are 2006 and earlier.
Also Windows XP dropped support in 2014.. or 12 years after its release in 2002. Windows 7 (2009) is EOL in 2020 so 11 years there. macOS is only supported for 2 versions (2 years).
 
Last edited:

Lolito

macrumors 6502
Mar 20, 2013
397
34
here
Currently installing Beta 1 of High Sierra for my EIGHT YEAR OLD iMac. Late 2009, Core 2 Duo, 500GB, 12GB RAM.

People can complain that Apples are expensive, but this is why. They LAST. I have never had a desktop computer last this many years, much less actually still be supported here in late 2017.

I fully realize it will be a very bare bones version of OSX10.13, but wow.

Kudos Tim Cook.

good luck upgrading ram in 21,5" 2012 or later imac, dude, or in the latest mac mini, LOL.

You have a steve's era mac, dude, that's why.
 

Fancuku

macrumors 65816
Oct 8, 2015
1,023
2,659
PA, USA
[QUOTE="Nothingfaced, post: 24655284, member: 907560"]I'm more impressed with the fact it's still software supported. Axes the common complaint that Apple "forces" people to upgrade hardware to be compatible with their software. Just isn't true.[/QUOTE]
Windows XP was supported for some 15 years.
 

fischersd

macrumors 603
Oct 23, 2014
5,367
1,936
Port Moody, BC, Canada
[QUOTE="Nothingfaced, post: 24655284, member: 907560"]I'm more impressed with the fact it's still software supported. Axes the common complaint that Apple "forces" people to upgrade hardware to be compatible with their software. Just isn't true.
Windows XP was supported for some 15 years.[/QUOTE]
Umm...only because all of the big corporations were holding Microsoft by their naughty bits saying that they wouldn't upgrade until MS produced a decent version of windows. :D

Many were upgrading to Windows 7 though....then skipped 8 and went to 10.
 

Taz Mangus

macrumors 604
Mar 10, 2011
7,815
3,504
one thing I refuse to do, and recommend you do *NOT* do: Don't upgrade a production machine.

I don't care how much you like the new OS, just leave it alone for at least another 6 months. I learned that lesson the hard way.

I would suggest to anyone to create a new partition and install the 10.13 betas on the new partition. This way you can always reboot to the primary partition and not be affected by what is runnning on the new partition.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.