Likelihood of Mojave on Unsupported Systems


#1

So I wasn’t really that impressed with Mojave. It seemed like one more rather incremental update that follows on High Sierra, Sierra, even El Capitan (maybe even back to Yosemite). It also seemed to be drawing on things I’ve seen in Linux design for the last couple of years (full dark mode, reminds me a lot of Deepin Dark and certain dark themes I’ve tested out on my Linux Mint MacBooks Black and White).

But far from a complaint I think this actually great. Why? Because it feels like Apple didn’t touch the backend much if at all. This strongly indicates that dosdude1 or someone else will probably be able to use the same bag of tricks to put Mojave on unsupported (but still quite capable) Macs. I bet that also includes my 2008 3,1 Mac Pro, giving me yet another year of support potentially. Sierra ran perfectly and High Sierra has issues that seem to be High Sierra related (reports of problems across other older Macs, both supported and not). So, assuming Mojave isn’t going to have issues specific to my 3,1, as long as it is an improvement on High Sierra, I’m down.


#2

I just don’t get why everyone gets so excited about “Dark mode”. It’s a colour scheme/theme. Big Deal. Macrumors in particular seems to think it’s an amazing feature.

About the only thing I thought was a good idea was the stacked icons on the desktop. That’s actually a pretty cool feature.

My partner who still has an iPhone 6 plus (the very phone pointed out in the presentation) is definitely looking forward to ios12 if it means an improvement in speed/responsiveness.

I just built myself a cheapy Windows Box with a Ryzen 3 2200g CPU and I have to admit I’m just loving windows even if it has it’s problems, but then so does Mac OS. I’ve hardly touched my MacBook since I built it!


#3

For some having white or coloured text on a dark grey background is a sight for sore eyes :slight_smile:


#4

I love Dark Mode and choose that option on any apps that support it on my Mac/iPhone/Android.

And with OLED displays, it should contribute to better battery life on those devices too since black areas of the screen will be completely off rather than dimmed.


#5

I think Mojave is a fine update, assuming there are no High Sierra/Low Expectations moments, but it wasn’t Jobsian Revolutionary or anything. I like the dark theme, but it’s been around already for a couple of years now. I had a similar reaction to “lol night shift” and just kept using the same Flux I’d been using for YEARS.

If Mojave still runs on my Mac Pro 3,1, I will be quite pleased. I’m of the “if it ain’t broke, only minor modifications please” school. It’s true that after El Cap/Sierra/High Sierra I can’t really go back to anything before. Although Leopard Rebirth is tempting enough that I am considering going back to Leopard on my old MacBooks (probably wouldn’t work with SnowLeo or Lion? Maybe need to investigate) is looking really nifty.

I know a lot of people complained about the flat looking UI of macOS for the last few versions, but I think it looks very nice, and have been happy to see the interplay between Linux desktop environments and macOS. Windows 10 actually takes it a step too far, in my opinion, and while I have a Win10 installation on my Mac Pro, I only use it if I must.


#6

Wow just took a look at their website, really nice.

I think of all the Mac OSes I have used, my favourite was Mountain Lion, followed closely by El Cap (but that only with the benefit of hindsight. at the time, I was less than impressed)

Mojave looks OK but my Macbook (2010 white) can’t have it, and I have not got much intention to upgrade my Mac Mini either. We are on Sierra and plan to stay there at this stage.


#7

It’s real, too. Not vaporware at all:


#8

I am really not a fan of the fact that Apple can limit which machines can / cannot even attempt to load a system. More forced obsolescence. I understand that there is a point at which the machine honestly will not run the software, but if it’s just a matter of - it’s going to run a bit slow - that should be a user decision.

Indeed - trying out a new OS on a slow computer could be the impetus people need to buy a new Mac, after exploring the features they are missing.

I guess however that probably doesn’t fit the reality of mass computing - it’s no longer just the nerds who own and use computers, and I would dare say that most consumers - just as they never upgrade their computer hardware - never upgrade the OS…

(Using my dad as an example - the only reason he upgraded the HDD to SSD was because the old one died and the Apple Tech he took it to said to do it.)


#9

I just got done servicing a client’s MacBook Pro. It was still running Lion. Now it’s running High Sierra. (also 16GBs of RAM, SSD, new fan, new feet).


#10

Its such a joke. Windows 10 will run on machines that Apple stopped supporting in 2011…

Mojave doesn’t introduce any revolutionary features, nothing power sapping. The reason is that they’ve limited it to Macs that have GPUs capable of Metal. Wouldn’t have killed them to keep compatibility.

This cuts out 2 iMacs and 2 MacBooks in my household that otherwise run very well. What a shame. I’m glad they didn’t talk about the environment in this keynote because the hypocrisy would have been too great.


#11

That should give you an idea about how little changed between Windows 7 and 10. They just put lipstick on a pig.

How would you know how much effort it takes to keep various years of Macs viable to run a new OS? Maybe it’s arbitrary, maybe it’s inbuilt obsolesense, although there’s nothing stopping you from continuing to use it with your current macOS…

And they will run very well as they are, with security updates coming along for the next couple of years. 8 years of support is pretty good in my books.


#12

You must be kidding. Windows 10 is easily the best Windows OS in decades. And it gets better with each iterative update.


#13

I’m not so sure. I saw a comment over on Macrumors about this:

They’re one of the developers working on patches to run newer macOS versions on unsupported machines. It seems that because Apple has moved toward providing video drivers for only machines supported by Metal, that even if older machines successfully booted into Mojave, the lack of drivers means they would have no video acceleration.

Apparently Mac Pro 2010 and 2012 machines will support Mojave provided they have an upgraded video card, which makes sense if Metal support is the cutoff.


#14

Windows 10 is a pretty good operating system, and very different to Windows 7. I’d say that 10.14 is closer to 10.6 than Windows 10 is to Windows 7.

And how would you know it isn’t easy? Apple is absouelty loaded, they have the resources. Microsoft manages it with Windows. Well yeah there is the fact that Apple seems to change file formats for iWork every update and is useless at supporting older versions of MacOS with it. Given how many changes in iOS frequently require a MacOS update in order to work provides more of a problem.

The reason that support is gone is because Apple has REMOVED the ability for MacOS to run without metal.

It’s not good enough in the context of these Macs being more capable than some of the supported Macs, the fact that Apple continually releases very, very small MacOS updates that don’t introduce hugely power sapping features, and that the rate of improvement in performance has slowed right down to the extent that 7 year old computers are still really quite capable.

Macs are so much more expensive than the competition. My 2008 White MacBook cost $1800, where as my 2008 Compaq Presario cost $300. The Mac got cut off in 2012 and lost security support in about 2014, where as the Compaq is still going with Windows 10 (boots faster than the Mac as well) and getting security updates.


#15

On the surface it looks like a totally new operating system, but it’s not. Even the control panel dialogs are as old as XP.

Microsoft manages it because they have in essence put a new body on an old chassis.

Why should Apple devote resources to customers who can’t keep up? There’s no money in it.

If they were truly more capable, then they’d be able to run Metal, which is the new standard on macOS. You’re still getting functionality if you don’t upgrade.

You really should dump macOS and use Windows if you think it’s so good…


#16

That’s just not true. Sure, the Control Panel exists, but it’s only there for legacy’s sake. Everything it does is accessible in the Settings application which is modern UI.

Again completely untrue. Where are you getting this nonsense?

Why is it a zero sum game? There’s room in the world for both, and more.


#17

Update:


#18

I tried Windows 10 and I wasn’t impressed. Especially how Windows 10 spies on you, using your personal data.

Of course, if you need to use both, use both. But the incessant whinging of a few disgruntled people with old hardware is getting to the point of being pathetic. If you get 6-8 years out of a Mac, that’s very good in my view. The desire that 10 year old hardware must be supported by macOS is just flying in the face of reality.

As mentioned above, the entire of Mojave uses Metal, so it’s a valid requirement to need a Mac with a GPU that’s capable and won’t burn out from the constant use of the GPU to render the OS.


#19

I have 2 drives in my 2010 MacPro - 1 with Mavericks - clone of my '09 iMac - and 1 with High Sierra… But I only boot in Mavericks…

I guess, based on the above, if I do want to get with the times, I’ll have to look at the graphics card issue first… :}


#20

I have a metal compatible GPU, so hopefully they can patch or emulate what they need to do. I’ll happily wait until GM. High Sierra is mostly behaving recently.

UPDATE: just finished the entire thread, this is promising:

  1. The kernel panic on MacPro3,1 is in fact caused by missing SSE4.2. This is bad in a way, but also good because it means all we need is a SSE4.2 emulator (which can be ported from hackintosh AMD kernels) but we need to wait until GM for the kernel source.

I’ll wait.