My Macbook can boot El Capitan in 30 seconds. The only diffrence between Early and Late 2009 MacBooks is DDR2 vs DDR3. Don't tell me DDR2 was why my MacBook was dropped
Sierra MacBook Early 2009? why no support?
+1 here. 2009 Mac Pro. 2x4 cores, 64GB RAM, and two 1TB SSD drives. It should absolutely run it fine. Planned obsolesence? I can't think of any other reason.
To be fair, I find any Mac with a spinning hard drive runs 10.11 poorly. That's why I moved to SSDs. This thing sings.
They can be updated to 5,1 though it still identifies as a 2009 it would technically be a 2010 model. That might be enough to make it work? But I don't understand why a lot of Macs with the same specs aren't supported were some are? My MacBook flies with an SSD, it shouldn't have any problem running Sierra, technically a 2008 Mac Pro should be able to run it too. I also don't know why they killed the 2008 and 2009 Mac Pros off? Or my MacBook
I also forgot to mention that currently it's my only currently supported Mac. I kind of need it if I want to keep using new OSes, my developing machine kind of needs my MacBook to run after updates if you know what I mean (and yes I'm using it on real Apple hardware it's an older Mac Pro) so no terms of service issues here. If my MacBook support gets dropped I can't develop on my Mac Pro anymore and I just upgraded to an eight core Set up. I don't want to have to buy all new hardware just to develop, my hardware works fine, it may be a little slow, but it's plenty fast enough for what I need it for. I just renewed my membership less than a week ago and now I'm told that I can't develop anymore after this fall? This is an issue and Apple needs to fix this.
Good luck moving to Windows 🙂
That kind of "take my ball and go home" post is totally non-productive and isn't goign to get you far.
I have no idea what Apple's plan is, could be that they will add support back before release, or maybe they've decided to finally drop this 7 year old machine. As a developer you know, especailly for an OS release, there are testing and support costs. Just becasue on the surface a given CPU seems to meet basic requirements, doesn't mean it will work or is economically reasonable to support. As a deveoper you know that even minor variations in a given chip can mean a feature can't be implelemented without major work and expense. Remember when AirDrop had issues becasue of some WiFi chips, which then brought us a new DNS model, then all **** broke lose? I'm sure that cost Apple BIG time! So while you might believe your 7 year old machine shoudl work fine it may not and Apple has decided, based upon their user data, to drop it. Who knows! I do know it's no where as easy and cut and dry as you have made it seem here and as a developer I know you know that too.
Regardless, if you can't afford a newer CPU, even a $500 MacMini, I don't think you're in the right business and perhaps should consider Windows where everything is just wonderful and Windows 10 runs on every CPU ever built!
Good luck!
I just just don't understand why so many systems with identical specs are either supported or not? I just wasn't happy in the former post, I don't plan to go tthe Windows route yet. I'm just saying Apple should at least let us test and give feedback on our system performance before they just drop us altogether. sure the system may be 7 years old but it performs the same more or less as the late 2009 that is supported? and to the Mac Mini comment, I'm looking for a cheap used one if I end up needing it, but I currently don't have the time or money and Have been happy with my setup for quite some time now. I've understood former iOS drops due to slow devices and OS X drops due to GPU and EFI, But Macs that still perform basically the same as supported ones? That makes no sense? Apple please let us try before they die?
Oh and what is wrong with the '09 Mac Pro? Especially upgraded it bascally is a '10 model, but even not upgraded, it has more power than a lot of entry Macs still today?
All I can see is they dropped support for all DDR2 ram Macs (except for the 2009 Mac Pro which really doesn't make sense ) I don't understand why? DDR2 is still a very viable Ram today it has aged very well. My computers with DDR2 still fly. ( yes I do have computers with DDR3 in them but I have a lot of DDR2 too) I honestly would not be upset if they dropped support for all the hardware In my MacBook . I understand killing off all the 2007 and 2008 supported Macs ( except the 2008 unibody MacBook) all of that hardware is really old ( mine is too but I'm getting to that point) and it should not be supported anymore and in fact it isn't with the Sierra MacOS. The late 2009 MacBook has the same GPU in it and the same CPU architecture as my MacBook and the 2008 unibody MacBook, they just don't have DDR3. Like I said before that isn't really an excuse to drop support for it. If the CPU architecture and the GPU is still supported in sierra, why isn't my MacBook or all the Macs that run a 9400M GPU? What is wrong with DDR2? I know Apple only officially supports 4 GB on my MacBook, but I am running 6 GB with no problem. Sure the original specs are horrible on mine, but the late 2009 MacBook specs also horrible. If their excuse is that the new one will need let's say more than 4 GB of Ram I may understand, but the late 2009 MacBook came with 2GB and the same slow 5400 RPM hard drive and Apple only officially support 4GB of ram on that one too. So unless there was a requirement like there was a few times in the past to upgrade ram before installing the new OS (which still wouldn't help the late 09 officially with 4GB (though it can run 8GB)), I see no reason on why mine is not supported?
You're thinking "mine" and not the fact that Apple would then be opening up themselves to support untold thousands of systems that don't "fly" when trying to run the os. Your machine is 7 years old now...it's your choice to stay on one that old.
They've done internal testing that you have no clue about and make their decisions based on that. There may be something in that config that directly fails or falls very short of performance expectations in one or two core features that make them decide against it. You choose to stay on the old systems, so deal with the consequences that come with it. You're thinking only of your own situation and not on a global support scale like Apple is forced to think.
A perfect example is all the complaints about how poorly iOS 9 performed on the 4S. Yes, the phone could run it, but not nearly as well as the newer phones. Once the OS drops below an acceptable performance level on the older hardware they drop it. I would rather they refine the OS and new features instead of spending far too much time limiting the OS for older hardware and spending troubleshooting/optimization time on making it barely work.
As for your comments on the 2009 Mac Pro upgrades...I actually will test that probably this weekend. I have a 2009 that has been flashed to 2010 firmware and a pair of E5645 6-core Xeons de-lidded and installed. I'm going to pop in a different hard drive and see if Sierra will install.
If it won't work, then I just accept the fact that I got many, many years of using the current OS and I'll have to consider the next steps. Trust me, it will **** if I have to do that since the Mac Pro has a SAS RAID HBA in it connected to an external expander chassis and 24 drives. I'll stay on El Capitan until I get a better system and migrate. I'm not going to demand Apple support my 7 year old system.
I'm not demanding them to support it I'm just at a loss for words on why they aren't? Is it because it's technically "obsolete" now? I know it's old, but the Late 2009 MacBook they support right now is vintage, and Will be "obsolete" in apple's eyes by the time Sierra comes out. I am starting to think they aren't supporting "obsolete" computers with the new MacOS, 2009 Mac Pro would fall into this category. I don't think they even tested it on these systems. I hope the 2009 Mac Pro does get support with an EFI update, because if that's the case I will scrape up and save money and try to get one of those somehow. They would be the most affordable "modern" first generation Mac Pro. But I wasn't planning on buying a new Mac anytime soon, and if they are planning on just supporting vintage and newer that would definitely cut out the 2007 and 2008 systems, but technically it would cut out all the 2009 too except for that MacBook which will be obsolete by then. And the problem is since El Capitan came out in 2015, and still supported some products made in 2007 and 2008... Those were already obsolete by then in Apple's eyes, so why didn't they cut support on those systems last year? Why lop off support for all systems made before late 2009? Like I said earlier I understand not supporting 2007 and 2008 systems, but they run on older hardware that isn't supported at all with Sierra, but Sierra supports a lot of hardware that is in some of the systems they lopped off support for? It just doesn't make sense? So my theory is Apple isn't supporting "obsolete" Macs anymore and any Mac that is running DDR2. Which I think is a bunch of baloney, even a 2008 Mac Pro should be able to run It, but of course it runs with DDR2. So if your Mac is about to be going into obsolete status watch out because by macOS 10.13 you are SOL.
And I just thought about it all DDR2 Macs are technically obsolete status now, but what about the people with DDR3 like a 2009 Mac Pro? Just no sense at all
I own a MacBookPro5,3 with DDR3 and i don't know what is the différence beetween this mid 2009 mac and the late 2009 one...
Could someone at Apple tel us why i won't be able to update ?
I came up with the idea that Apple is officially finally not supporting obsolete status Macs anymore. My MacBook fell into it early this year and your MacBook just did, which means the Late 2009 MacBook Will not be supported in 10.13 I just don't understand why they supported some 2007 and 2008 Macs for so long when they had already been obsolete? That's why I'm shocked now.
Has to be, they're killing off all the 7+ year old Macs because they hit Apple's "obsolete" status. Why didn't they kill off the 2007 Macs in Yosemite and 2008 Macs in El Capitan though? Why now? These systems should be more than capable to run Sierra. If they kill off Macs with old hardware like let's say because of the GPU, fine. But when you support 1 Mac with a Nvidia 9400M and not the other it doesn't make sense. If youre not supporting specific hardware anymore(not counting CPU), just lop all models with that hardware off at the knees. They lopped DDR2 support, any mac with DDR2 will not see Sierra. But DDR2 would be able to handle it I'm sure. The Nvidia 9400M is a dog of a GPU today and so is the 320M. Apple has never done something like this with Intel Macs. They've killed 32bit CPU Macs in 10.6, lopped off 32bit EFI Macs in 10.7, fine. They've killed off Macs with low end GPUs like GMA950s and 3100s in 10.7 too. But never have they supported one and not supported another with the same GPU. So yes planned obsolesence, we finally have proof. Apple s finally following their 7 year policy. 5-7 years vintage status, 7+ Obsolete, we don't care. Then again anyone who got a 32bit CPU Mac in 2006 had OS support for only 5 years when 10.7 came out and they had no support for it, and if you want to get technical 3.5 years if you say the begining of 10.6 release was the end. 2008 macBook owners for instance got 3-4 years roughly of support, they weren't even Vintage yet. But ALL Macs That were supported in 10.8 and won't be in 10.12 are Obsolete now (yes including the 2009 Mac Pro). So is this going to become a trend? Everytime a Mac hits obsolete status no more new shiny OSes? I hope not, but it looks like it's heading that way.
Again, you're focusing on the year and one spec (memory) when there are dozens of possible factors in the hardware. You also keep asking why Apple won't let you test your hardware then decide. Media backlash is why. "But the early betas supported my machine so why did you remove it from the final version?" The press would drive this into the ground. Apple has already tested your exact model along with every other model they make. If it didn't meet performance specs or it had issues like Kernel Panics with some functions, they would disqualify it.
It could boil down to a particular UBS or Bluetooth chip on your motherboard that can't be compatible. Maybe the sound controller. Who knows? They made the decision based on information you don't have (and, knowing Apple, will never have) and that's pretty much the end of the story.
Apple doesn't pay much attention to these boards unless you are asking about how to actually develop something. Hardware complaints have never been addressed here, nor has any thread about it ever changed their mind about final supported hardware.
I sympathize with your point, but you're really asking questions to a brick wall that won't get you anywhere.
All good points, I remember in iOS 4.2 beta, the iPhone 3G had airplay and when 4.2.1 was released there wasn't airplay and the media went crazy over that, little did they know it wasn't getting 4.3. Who knows, it could be many things, oh well I'll just find another Mac before Fall.