Upgrade to latest OS on Macbook Pro Mid 2009

[snadge]

Hi,

my uncle has a 'mid-2009' MacBook Pro and it won't let him upgrade to the latest version of the OS..is there a way around this? or is it because of hardware compatibility problems (too old for new OS)?

Also,

we are upgrading the battery and HDD to an SSD, can, which or how should we go about installing the latest OS he can install on that MacBook Pro mid-2009?

I am not too familiar with MAC/Apple but good at Windows and can install Windows from USB...im guessing we can do the same on a MAC? with the latest version?

many thanks in advance

 

[EugW]

The latest version of macOS is not supported on that Mac.

However, it can be installed, and it will run. See here.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/macos-high-sierra-10-13-unsupported-macs-thread.2048478/

http://dosdude1.com/highsierra/

P.S. You need to be able to boot off an external USB drive. Don’t try this until you’ve confirmed you can boot from a cold boot (as opposed to a warm restart) from that USB drive. It depends on the drive. Some work and some don’t.

The reason is you need to be able to (automatically) patch the install from a cold boot off the USB drive. You can install the OS from a warm restart but you can’t patch that way. Therefore if you use a USB drive that won’t cold boot the Mac, you’ll get stuck with a machine that has High Sierra installed but can’t boot it because it’s not patched.

 

[snadge]

thanks for your response

when you refer to 'cold boot' do you mean similar to windows/Linux 'live cd' as in running the OS from USB into RAM rather than install as a test then confirm its operational then go ahead with the install?

EDIT:

I am personally totally new too mac installation procedures TBH so would need clear instructions

thanks

 

[Fishrrman]

I suggest that your uncle stick to what he has installed now, or install "Low" Sierra and be done with it (whichever one of the two applies).

There is no inherent advantage in having "the most recently-released" version of the OS.
What's better is to have an OS install that works well for you...

 

[snadge]

can you supply install instructions for MAC as I'm noob too macs, but been doing up & repairing PC's for 10+ years with windows...need to learn MAC with more people getting them - I guess there will be YT vids on it, just thought I would ask the mac pro's on here

edit: on the newer version it says increased security/performance or some sort like that so wouldnt it advantageous?

 

[EugW]

thanks for your response

when you refer to 'cold boot' do you mean similar to windows/Linux 'live cd' as in running the OS from USB into RAM rather than install as a test then confirm its operational then go ahead with the install?

EDIT:

I am personally totally new too mac installation procedures TBH so would need clear instructions

thanks

Since you’re new at this, you would best tell us the exact model. Click on the Apple in the top left corner and go to "About This Mac". And then click on the button that says "More Info" or "System Report". It will show you the specific model number, something like "MacBookPro5,5".

High Sierra has more up to date features and software than Sierra, but is also less compatible with old legacy software. It depends on what software you are running. 10.13 High Sierra also has a h.264 video bug that only occurs under very specific circumstances. Most people will never or only very rarely see that video bug. That bug is completely absent in 10.12 Sierra, but I've only seen that bug in the wild in real world usage twice in 9 months using High Sierra on two such old machines, and in both instances it wasn't a big deal. Plus that bug is present in a couple of fully supported Macs too, so it's not the fault of the unsupported install.

Overall, I think 10.13 High Sierra is the superior upgrade on these old Macs, as long as they have SSD and sufficient RAM, which is bare minimum 4 GB, but preferably 6 or 8 GB. These requirements are the same for Sierra and High Sierra IMO.

Assuming it is indeed a MacBookPro5,x model, the process is as follows:

0) BACK UP YOUR DATA.
1) Download dosdude1's High Sierra patcher.
2) Follow the instructions to create a USB drive with the patched macOS installer on it.
3) Turn off the machine.
4) Plug in the USB drive and turn on the computer to do a cold boot of the Mac, while holding down the OPTION key.
5) If the USB drive can cold boot, you should see an orange external drive listed. Select that one and boot off it.
6) Do the macOS install.
7) Reboot to the USB drive and run the patches.
8) Reboot the internal drive and enjoy High Sierra!

I suggest that your uncle stick to what he has installed now, or install "Low" Sierra and be done with it (whichever one of the two applies).

There is no inherent advantage in having "the most recently-released" version of the OS.
What's better is to have an OS install that works well for you...

If I understand the original post, "Low" Sierra is not officially supported on that machine either. So, either Sierra or High Sierra will be unsupported installs. If you're going to install an unsupported OS, you may as well choose High Sierra, unless you have old software that won't run on it.

Why High Sierra?

1) Better compatibility with APFS. I wouldn't recommend an APFS boot disk, but there are still external drives.
2) Better more up to date native software, like Photos. Photos is hugely improved in High Sierra.
3) HEIF image support. This is key, since iOS devices take a lot HEIF/HEIC images these days. The support is only with certain software, but at least it works. These files are completely unreadable in Sierra.
4) HEVC video support. This is less important since these old Macs don't have enough horsepower to play most HEVC, but at least the compatibility is there.
5) Longer security support. Apple typically issues security updates for older versions of macOS, but usually the newer the version of macOS, the more recent the security updates.
6) Longer Safari support. Apple typically issues Safari updates for older versions of macOS, but usually the newer the version of macOS, the more recent the Safari support.

I would expect that High Sierra will continue to get some maintenance updates until 2020, and if so, these machines will be viable until about 2022. For Sierra, subtract one year from those dates.

 

[Fishrrman]

If Low Sierra won't run on a 2009 MBP, will El Capitan run?
I'd use that.

There is a point beyond which older Macs cannot run newer versions of the OS.
In that case, put on "the last version that WILL run", and be done with it.

If you need "more modern than that", it's time to be shopping for a newer Mac.

 

[Glockworkorange]

Since you’re new at this, you would best tell us the exact model. Click on the Apple in the top left corner and go to "About This Mac". And then click on the button that says "More Info" or "System Report". It will show you the specific model number, something like "MacBookPro5,5".

High Sierra has more up to date features and software than Sierra, but is also less compatible with old legacy software. It depends on what software you are running. 10.13 High Sierra also has a h.264 video bug that only occurs under very specific circumstances. Most people will never or only very rarely see that video bug. That bug is completely absent in 10.12 Sierra, but I've only seen that bug in the wild in real world usage twice in 9 months using High Sierra on two such old machines, and in both instances it wasn't a big deal. Plus that bug is present in a couple of fully supported Macs too, so it's not the fault of the unsupported install.

Overall, I think 10.13 High Sierra is the superior upgrade on these old Macs, as long as they have SSD and sufficient RAM, which is bare minimum 4 GB, but preferably 6 or 8 GB. These requirements are the same for Sierra and High Sierra IMO.

Assuming it is indeed a MacBookPro5,x model, the process is as follows:

0) BACK UP YOUR DATA.
1) Download dosdude1's High Sierra patcher.
2) Follow the instructions to create a USB drive with the patched macOS installer on it.
3) Turn off the machine.
4) Plug in the USB drive and turn on the computer to do a cold boot of the Mac, while holding down the OPTION key.
5) If the USB drive can cold boot, you should see an orange external drive listed. Select that one and boot off it.
6) Do the macOS install.
7) Reboot to the USB drive and run the patches.
8) Reboot the internal drive and enjoy High Sierra!


If I understand the original post, "Low" Sierra is not officially supported on that machine either. So, either Sierra or High Sierra will be unsupported installs. If you're going to install an unsupported OS, you may as well choose High Sierra, unless you have old software that won't run on it.

Why High Sierra?

1) Better compatibility with APFS. I wouldn't recommend an APFS boot disk, but there are still external drives.
2) Better more up to date native software, like Photos. Photos is hugely improved in High Sierra.
3) HEIF image support. This is key, since iOS devices take a lot HEIF/HEIC images these days. The support is only with certain software, but at least it works. These files are completely unreadable in Sierra.
4) HEVC video support. This is less important since these old Macs don't have enough horsepower to play most HEVC, but at least the compatibility is there.
5) Longer security support. Apple typically issues security updates for older versions of macOS, but usually the newer the version of macOS, the more recent the security updates.
6) Longer Safari support. Apple typically issues Safari updates for older versions of macOS, but usually the newer the version of macOS, the more recent the Safari support.

I would expect that High Sierra will continue to get some maintenance updates until 2020, and if so, these machines will be viable until about 2022. For Sierra, subtract one year from those dates.

I think OP would be better off with the maximum OS that machine will natively take, especially as he is new to the platform.

I doubt his uncle will miss the additional features.

He will notice the SSD improvements, however.

 

[EugW]

If Low Sierra won't run on a 2009 MBP, will El Capitan run?
I'd use that.

There is a point beyond which older Macs cannot run newer versions of the OS.
In that case, put on "the last version that WILL run", and be done with it.

If you need "more modern than that", it's time to be shopping for a newer Mac.

The 2009 MacBook Pros run High Sierra just fine, as long as they have sufficient RAM and SSD. Core 2 Duo with hardware video acceleration is adequate for surfing.

I currently have both a MacBook5,1 and a MacBookPro5,5 running High Sierra. I can tell you that El Capitan doesn't run these machines any faster for real world usage.

In fact, ironically, installing newer versions of Safari didn't slow things down. It made things slightly faster because Safari gets performance improvements on an ongoing basis.

I think OP would be better off with the maximum OS that machine will natively take, especially as he is new to the platform.

I doubt his uncle will miss the additional features.

He will notice the SSD improvements, however.

El Capitan is fine for now, but the important point here is El Capitan likely won't get updated past 2018, whereas High Sierra will likely continue to get updates until 2020. This effectively adds a 2 year life span to these machines.

 

[Glockworkorange]

The 2009 MacBook Pros run High Sierra just fine, as long as they have sufficient RAM and SSD. Core 2 Duo with hardware video acceleration is adequate for surfing. Furthermore, it's not any faster in El Capitan.

I currently have both a MacBook5,1 and a MacBookPro5,5 running High Sierra.


El Capitan is fine for now, but the important point here is El Capitan likely won't get updated past 2018, whereas High Sierra will likely continue to get updates until 2020. This effectively adds a 2 year life span to these machines.

Is it generally two years below current for security/software updates?

I remember pulling out an old, 2010 plastic MacBook a few years ago running Lion. Safari alerted me it was not safe to use (or something similar). For what it's worth, I received a similar message on Chrome, so I suppose I agree with putting High Sierra on if the idea is to keep the machine for a few years.

 

[EugW]

Is it generally two years below current for security/software updates?

I remember pulling out an old, 2010 plastic MacBook a few years ago running Lion. Safari alerted me it was not safe to use (or something similar). For what it's worth, I received a similar message on Chrome, so I suppose I agree with putting High Sierra on if the idea is to keep the machine for a few years.

Yeah, usually the security updates and Safari get updated for about 2 years.

BTW, your 2010 plastic MacBook runs High Sierra fully supported. In contrast, my 2008 white MacBook (MacBook4,1) does not run anything past 10.7.5 Lion. It did get some updates for a couple of years, and then some time after that I started to have major problems with certain websites.

10.7.5 Lion came out in 2012, and I think the last update for Safari on Lion was in 2014. By 2016 I was having significant website compatibility problems, so much so that I couldn't take it anymore even with it being used just as a kitchen recipe and surfing machine, so in 2017 I went out and bought a used 2008 aluminum MacBook (MacBook5,1) simply to be able to surf better with modern browser support.

 

[Glockworkorange]

Yeah, usually the security updates and Safari get updated for about 2 years.

BTW, your 2010 plastic MacBook runs High Sierra fully supported. In contrast, my 2008 white MacBook (MacBook4,1) does not run anything past 10.7.5 Lion. It did get some updates for a couple of years, and then some time after that I started to have major problems with certain websites.

10.7.5 Lion came out in 2012, and I think the last update for Safari on Lion was in 2014. By 2016 I was having significant website compatibility problems, so much so that I couldn't take it anymore even with it being used just as a kitchen recipe and surfing machine, so in 2017 I went out and bought a used 2008 aluminum MacBook (MacBook5,1) simply to be able to surf better with modern browser support.

That's right, it does. I might fire it back up and put HS and see what happens.

MacBook 5,1 was my first Mac. Loved that machine. Was the genesis of the 13 in MB Pro

 

[EugW]

Ironically, my white 2008 MacBook4,1 has a 2.4 GHz CPU that is 20% faster than my aluminum 2008 MacBook5,1 with 2.0 GHz CPU, but the surfing experience is much better on the latter due to hardware video acceleration and modern browser support. However, it's even better on my 2009 MacBook Pro, since it has a somewhat faster CPU at 2.26 GHz. That 13% extra makes a difference.

A 3.06 GHz Core 2 Duo would fly.

That's right, it does. I might fire it back up and put HS and see what happens.

MacBook 5,1 was my first Mac. Loved that machine. Was the genesis of the 13 in MB Pro

If it doesn't have a SSD then don't bother.

HD + 2 GB + any version of macOS from ~10.9 or later = Totally unusable.
SSD + 2 GB = Very slow
SSD + 4 GB = OK
SSD + 8 GB = Decent

 

[Glockworkorange]

Ironically, my white 2008 MacBook4,1 has a 2.4 GHz CPU that is 20% faster than my aluminum 2008 MacBook5,1 with 2.0 GHz CPU, but the surfing experience is much better on the latter due to hardware video acceleration and modern browser support. However, it's even better on my 2009 MacBook Pro, since it has a somewhat faster CPU at 2.26 GHz. That 13% extra makes a difference.


If it doesn't have a SSD then don't bother.

HD + 2 GB + any version of macOS from ~10.9 or later = Totally unusable.
SSD + 2 GB = Very slow
SSD + 4 GB = OK
SSD + 8 GB = Decent

120 GB SSD and 4 GB of RAM, so it is good to go as a backup machine.

 

[EugW]

120 GB SSD and 4 GB of RAM, so it is good to go as a backup machine.

2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo + SSD + 4 GB RAM + GeForce 320M would make for a fine surfing machine in High Sierra. Because of the GeForce 320M, AFAIK, you wouldn't get the h.264 bug either.

It'd be even better with 8 GB RAM if you multitask, but if you're just doing email plus browsing with maybe a couple of tabs open, then 4 GB is enough.

That machine actually supports up to 16 GB RAM, which is ironically the same as a 2017 MacBook Pro. However, that would be way overkill on a machine like that. 8 GB was worth it for me simply because I was able to get it for US$35. However, these days it's more like $70 for name brand 8 GB RAM, so I maybe wouldn't bother if it was just a lightly used secondary machine, because for such light usage, 4 GB is already OK.

 

[Glockworkorange]

2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo + SSD + 4 GB RAM + GeForce 320M would make for a fine surfing machine in High Sierra. Because of the GeForce 320M, AFAIK, you wouldn't get the h.264 bug either.

It'd be even better with 8 GB RAM if you multitask, but if you're just doing email plus browsing with maybe a couple of tabs open, then 4 GB is enough.

That machine actually supports up to 16 GB RAM, which is ironically the same as a 2017 MacBook Pro. However, that would be way overkill on a machine like that. 8 GB was worth it for me simply because I was able to get it for US$35. However, these days it's more like $70 for name brand 8 GB RAM, so I maybe wouldn't bother if it was just a lightly used secondary machine, because for such light usage, 4 GB is already OK.

[doublepost=1529177873][/doublepost]

2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo + SSD + 4 GB RAM + GeForce 320M would make for a fine surfing machine in High Sierra. Because of the GeForce 320M, AFAIK, you wouldn't get the h.264 bug either.

It'd be even better with 8 GB RAM if you multitask, but if you're just doing email plus browsing with maybe a couple of tabs open, then 4 GB is enough.

That machine actually supports up to 16 GB RAM, which is ironically the same as a 2017 MacBook Pro. However, that would be way overkill on a machine like that. 8 GB was worth it for me simply because I was able to get it for US$35. However, these days it's more like $70 for name brand 8 GB RAM, so I maybe wouldn't bother if it was just a lightly used secondary machine, because for such light usage, 4 GB is already OK.

I will leave the 4GB of RAM. I am contemplating yanking the optical drive and making a fusion drive. This would all be just for fun. Actually, I think the first order of business would be to replace the battery. This thing gets like an hour out of a full charge.

 

[snadge]

the RAM is 8GB with Dual-Core 2.6Ghz or something...is it easy to swap out the CPU on macbook pros?

HDDs are bottlenecks in all systems these days and his battery last 5 minutes...so upgrading the battery and replacing the HDD with a Samsung EVO 860 will improve it loads, even if you use RAM Cache for Portable Browser to increase browser performance and save SSD Writes (expecting you can do that a OSX just like Windows?)

i know using a RAM cache to save SSD writes is overkill but does work

 

[ApfelKuchen]

Is it generally two years below current for security/software updates?

There's no hard-and-fast rule from Apple on this. Apple is still issuing security updates for El Capitan - they'll at least do that until Mojave is released. Only Apple knows whether they'll continue after that. Whether that's two years or three years of ongoing support depends on how you count things - three years from the release of El Capitan, or two years from the release of the subsequent OS, Sierra.

I'm running El Capitan on an early 2008 iMac. That Mac has been on Apple's Vintage and Obsolete list for several years, yet they're still issuing security updates that can benefit machines like mine. Considering the age of some of the Macs that can run High Sierra but won't be able to run Mojave, I'd expect they'll be issuing security updates for High Sierra for well more than two years.

While many things are "possible," sometimes they turn out to be impractical. For the most part, Apple stops supporting OS upgrades because the hardware (CPU, graphics, Bluetooth, etc.) can't support key new features. So while the rest of the OS may run just fine, your uncle could run into some features that generate errors, system hangs, etc. If you're OK "owning" the problems that may arise from running an unsupported OS, go right ahead. Maybe it'll strengthen your relationship with your uncle, and you'll likely learn more about macOS than you would by taking the easy route.

I have enough trouble supporting iOS- and Mac-owning family members who are running supported software. I would not "hot rod" any of their software/hardware, as they'd become too dependent on me. What if they need support and I don't have the time to help? If they then call AppleCare or go to an Apple store, they'll be told, "Sorry, you're using a non-supported OS, we'll have to erase and install a supported OS before we can start troubleshooting." A "helpful amateur" might end up in over his/her head. KISS.

 

[MSastre]

I've got an early 2009 MBP with an SSD and 8GB of RAM, running El Capitain, and I am perfectly happy with its performance. El Capitain is the highest OS supported, and you just might want to try that first.

 

[EugW]

I've got an early 2009 MBP with an SSD and 8GB of RAM, running El Capitain, and I am perfectly happy with its performance. El Capitain is the highest OS supported, and you just might want to try that first.

I have the same hardware running High Sierra. See signature. Speedwise it doesn’t feel that much different from El Capitan.

Performance is OK but my 2017 Core m3 MacBook feels much faster. Whatever you do, don’t compare those machines side by side.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

I have the same hardware running High Sierra. See signature. Speedwise it doesn’t feel that much different from El Capitan.

Performance is OK but my 2017 Core m3 MacBook feels much faster. Whatever you do, don’t compare those machines side by side.

This brings me back to something John Woram said at an Audio Engineering Society meeting back in the 1970s (back before John became a prominent PC columnist)- "Foobini's Law: Not everything that can be done should be done."

Again, what's good for someone with the technical ability to deal with potential problems may not be so good for someone who's dependent upon others for their tech support.

 

[Macbookprodude]

The latest version of macOS is not supported on that Mac.

However, it can be installed, and it will run. See here.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/macos-high-sierra-10-13-unsupported-macs-thread.2048478/

http://dosdude1.com/highsierra/

P.S. You need to be able to boot off an external USB drive. Don’t try this until you’ve confirmed you can boot from a cold boot (as opposed to a warm restart) from that USB drive. It depends on the drive. Some work and some don’t.

The reason is you need to be able to (automatically) patch the install from a cold boot off the USB drive. You can install the OS from a warm restart but you can’t patch that way. Therefore if you use a USB drive that won’t cold boot the Mac, you’ll get stuck with a machine that has High Sierra installed but can’t boot it because it’s not patched.

I assume the same person can also do Mojave as well for unsupported Macs ?

 

[EugW]

I assume the same person can also do Mojave as well for unsupported Macs ?

No

 

[Macbookprodude]

No

We need to wait and see. After all if High Sierra can run on a 2008 Mac Pro, then Mojave may eventually.

 

[EugW]

We need to wait and see. After all if High Sierra can run on a 2008 Mac Pro, then Mojave may eventually.

No. Not with the same ease of install and level of functionality. There is an entire thread on this. Mojave makes some fundamental design changes under the hood.