Likelihood of Mojave on Unsupported Systems


You expect developers to write for TWO NEW versions of macOS at once? They’ve already got their hands full updating their apps every year because of the fetish Apple has with releasing new OSes every year to keep the kiddies happy.

The simple truth is that Apple releases versions of macOS with new features to entice customers to buy new Macs. If you don’t want to, after 7 years of good use, then Apple doesn’t care about you - you’re dead to them :slight_smile:


Looks like we have two very different takes on this and will never agree. I don’t agree with what Apple is doing, nothing I say will change it.


Yet, despite it being 3 days later, you’re still at it on a macrumors forum, whinging about how Apple is not doing the right thing by people like you, who expect 10 years of support because “macs are very very expensive” lol


Ahh this old chestnut again.

Here’s an idea: how about instead of throwing out an old Mac simply because it won’t run Mojave and saying “Apple hates the environment”, you keep using them exactly as you are now. Nothing changes, you still have a perfectly useable Mac, and the world hasn’t come to an end.

This “Apple hates the environment because I can’t update my 7 year old Mac” is really quite a baffling argument, and is just getting tiresome.


Go away. I can discuss what I want on another forum. You’re still at it bitching about other people’s opinions because you can’t handle criticism of Apple apparently.


That is incorrect. Many places require a current or -1 for OS support for hardware to be supported, which instantly means machines need to be turfed. The end of OS support means the end of updates to iWork and iLife and often iCloud compatibility, which causes problems in using machines as they have been being used.

It’s honestly not that baffling. The longer a product remains viable to use, the longer its lifespan is and the less of an environmental impact its lifespan has. Simple facts. Loss of software support limits the viability of a machine to be used. The most environmental damage in the lifecycle of a Mac is done in the production and shipping stages, so spreading out the amount of time between this occurring reduces the environmental impact of an individual’s computer usage over a set period of time.

If you don’t like the argument, bloody ignore it. Just as tiresome to have the opposing argument every year again, even when I never replied to you.


True. But many such places that do have such a policy also tend to keep their machines within warranty, meaning that any 7-year old Mac would have been rotated out a long time ago, to find a second life as someone else’s internet + email machine. How’s that for environmental impact?


No, I can handle valid criticism of Apple. Your problem is that you’re looking at having to buy a new Mac if you want to keep using an uptodate macOS next year, and you haven’t planned for it. You whine on about Apple having so much money that they can easily keep building macOSes that work on older machines, yet not appreciate the fact that people want the best from Apple, not some retarded macOS held back so people with really old Macs can continue using them.

And developers aren’t interested in building apps for two new OSes every year, one for people with modern Macs and one for the fossils out there. There’s no money in it. The people who haven’t keep up aren’t worth supporting, hard a fact that is for you to accept.


Which in turn supplies a market wanting cheap old Macs that still do enough of a good job for the price that people accept their limitations. When I upgraded from an old MacPro 1,1 I gave it to a friend… it didn’t become landfill.


Is there weather really cold were you are, too? Chilly here in Geelong. Not sure it’ll warm up any time soon either, being winter now and all.


Hey settle down. You posted an opinion on a discussion forum. You have to expect it will generate discussion, and some of that discussion will either differ from your opinion or seek to better understand it.


Plenty of businesses and individuals do send machines to landfill.

Those cheap old Macs would be far more useful and secure if they had support.

No you can’t. You feel the need to defend them by childish argument on two separate forums.

Why would the 2012 MacBooks be loosing support next year? There is no rational reason, epsically considering they sold them till late 2016.

News flash, plenty of developers already support multiple previous versions of MacOS.

I’d be more concerned about apple’s lack of a viable classic MacBook Pro replacement than money. My Mac is still not three yet so it has a while to go.

I don’t care about differing opinions, I care about @Matreya feeling the need to make this a personal thing and feel the need to carry that over two seperate forums. Tell him to settle down for inferring that my argument is whinging like a little bitch.


The current Mac Pro was released a year after that. We really haven’t seen much progress in computers since 2012 - other than battery life and thinness. :man_shrugging: As much as I hate to stoke this fire, I think it’s about time we started designing electronics to last as long as cars.


Yes, they would be, but there’s NO MONEY in it.

Pointing reality out to you is hardly childish. It’s more more childish to incessantly whinge about something you can never change, which is Apple’s policy on supporting Macs.

Do some math. You’re asking them to go from say, supporting 10.8 to 10.14, then adding an extra 2 new major macOS builds every year. Just to support users who haven’t supported the hardware platform for many years - it really does come down to not enough money in it to do so.


I (think) I’m well known for dragging my years-per-computer out for a considerable amount of time - at least 4-7 years per machine, whether I buy them new or 2nd hand.

However I do accept that “Planned obsolescence” is ultimately a fact of consumer life. If Apple truly made their hardware - with free software updates - to last easily for a decade+, they would either go out of business due to lack of repeat sales, or need to charge a whole lot more up front for their wares.

Apple in particular within the electronics market (given their price) should be producing machines that last a long time - and we should be able to expect support for them for a reasonable time (counted in multiples of years). But whilst my comment above indicated an ire for Apple ceasing support for Machine X, this was based on my understanding (correct or otherwise?) that they were cutting machines off based purely on their CPU speeds, rather than actual ability. Something as arbitrary as that should not, imo, be a deciding factor. Specific actual hardware limitations are another matter.

(And to their credit, for example, I was running older Macs on newer OS’s in the not too distant past, that would have certain features disabled - like the transparent menu-bar etc. Presumably this could have been an option for Apple to simply not support the older machines that could not perform that task.)

(And… whilst we may say that Apple has “enough money” to throw into building software capable of continued support for older machines - any company that creates a business model that loses money is being reckless. The pin has to be pulled at some point…)

I do think that Apple have gone down a bad pathway with this whole glue era of hardware. To me that just reeks of “don’t even bother opening this up to for repairs - buy a new one instead”. I don’t think the price point warrants that attitude - they are after all still making one of the the world’s top line pro-sumer computers.


There usually isn’t money in being environmentally friendly, but being so is the right thing to do.

You are being childish. Making attacks about me is not needed, especially the way you’ve done it across two forums. I still don’t see how you can whinge about me making a point, calling it whinging and have a straight face. Not to mention the strange pleasure you seem to have about my machine running 10.14 badly, or not being supported next year.

Apple could make it into a fairly simple compile option in Xcode. I mean I don’t really care if developers supported the hardware or not. They can choose not to and that would solve the problem.

I’m so done arguing this. My opinion is well known, I am entitled to hold and express it, just as you are. I have better things to do today then aimless arguing.


I really don’t think they’d loose money. I mean iOS device sales have continued to increase despite increasing iPhone and iPad suppport cycles.emphasized text


Only if you let it, it is very simple to opt out.


Say what? The environment argument is to do with Apple’s pathetic lack of replacement of memory and storage on modern machines and its insistence that the entire machine be shipped for repair (or usually replacement) which has a MASSSIVE environmental impact.
All Apple seem to care about is money and making things thinner, lighter and less repairable, and lets not even start on how far behind in CPU technology they are at the moment - its quite pathetic.


But they have a lot of solar panels, so thus you must be wrong!