4 ms·

I would question why anybody is still running High Sierra at this point. Any hardware that far back has to be miserable to daily drive.

beebmam 5y ago
It doesn't have to be that way. Linux works great on extremely old hardware
- Klonoar 5y ago
  But it is that way, and it's not changing.
rogual 5y ago
I can only speak for myself, but I'm running Mojave because there are 32-bit apps I need to use for my current project, which any newer version of MacOS will refuse to run.
- Maursault 5y ago
  If you have any interest in compiling 32-bit applications, you'll need to downgrade or set up another machine with High Sierra. Mojave will still run 32-bit applications with a warning, but it can not build for i386, will build only for x86_64.
GhettoComputers 5y ago
Based on what? CPUs haven’t significantly improved performance for 10 years.
jsjohnst 5y ago
12 core Xeon Mac Pro @ 3.33ghz w/ 128gb RAM and PCIe SSD. Yep, it’s “miserable”. ;) That said, I’ve upgraded the video cards and applied an EFI “fix”, so it runs later releases with full FV2 boot support (hence the EFI “fix”).
roody15 5y ago
Honestly not really. Even a 2012 MacBook Pro i5 with 16 gigs of ram and a SSD is a solid machine. High Sierra runs well on this device.
adrianN 5y ago
Until this year I used a 2009 Macbook Pro. I finally switched to Thinkpad because I wanted to use an OS that gets security updates. It's not miserable at all if you have sufficient RAM.
bilkow 5y ago
It actually runs pretty well for most things. The hardware is still good unless you're doing high intensity computing or trying play AAA games on it (for which it was never good anyway).
Maursault 5y ago
I would question Apple's fast and furious update schedule. Fundamentally there is very little difference between Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah and macOS 12 Monterey. The operating system itself has probably seen very little changes since NeXTSTEP's first release in 1989, it only appears different, and the vast majority of changes are in the graphical interface. It begins to appear like the software philosophy pioneered by Adobe: buy the same software every 2 years. But Apple upped that game to every stinking year. Why? What is the benefit to the user? Wouldn't it have been far better to not place so much attention on a constant, never ending stream of so many new features so few use, and instead focus on the necessary features everyone uses, as well as security, and fixing the bugs. I also don't understand Apple's philosophy of abandoning compatibility. Was 32-bit compatibility really all that crippling to Apple's 64-bit endeavors? Or is it just an easy way to break production software to force purchase of new software? Imagine if the automobile industry changed fuels every 10 years starting in the 1940's, such that every decade that passes, any car older than 10 years would no longer function for lack of access to fuel. I don't think we would have let that stand. And yet we eat what Apple puts on our plate. I like macOS, but this "new OS every year!" sucks, has no benefit to the user, and it is, fundamentally, a lie.
- mthoms 5y ago
  >Fundamentally there is very little difference between Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah and macOS 12 Monterey. The operating system itself has probably seen very little changes since NeXTSTEP's first release in 1989, it only appears different, and the vast majority of changes are in the graphical interface. Well, that range covers three different CPU architectures(!) and at least one complete file system rewrite. But your point is fair - to the layperson there hasn't been much change.
  - Maursault 5y ago
    > Well, that range covers three different CPU architectures(!) The exercise proves that hardware is irrelevant to an operating system > and at least one complete file system rewrite. Which filesystem was completely rewritten, and why? Unless you're referring to AFS... which wasn't rewritten, but developed. > But your point is fair - to the layperson there hasn't been much change. Pretty sure not a whole lot has changed for the experienced expert, either. What has incrementally changed (but not so much it's unrecognizable) is the graphical user interface. A GUI is not an operating system.

beebmam 5y ago

It doesn't have to be that way. Linux works great on extremely old hardware

Klonoar 5y ago
But it is that way, and it's not changing.

rogual 5y ago

I can only speak for myself, but I'm running Mojave because there are 32-bit apps I need to use for my current project, which any newer version of MacOS will refuse to run.

Maursault 5y ago
If you have any interest in compiling 32-bit applications, you'll need to downgrade or set up another machine with High Sierra. Mojave will still run 32-bit applications with a warning, but it can not build for i386, will build only for x86_64.

GhettoComputers 5y ago

Based on what? CPUs haven’t significantly improved performance for 10 years.

jsjohnst 5y ago

12 core Xeon Mac Pro @ 3.33ghz w/ 128gb RAM and PCIe SSD. Yep, it’s “miserable”. ;) That said, I’ve upgraded the video cards and applied an EFI “fix”, so it runs later releases with full FV2 boot support (hence the EFI “fix”).

roody15 5y ago

Honestly not really. Even a 2012 MacBook Pro i5 with 16 gigs of ram and a SSD is a solid machine. High Sierra runs well on this device.

adrianN 5y ago

Until this year I used a 2009 Macbook Pro. I finally switched to Thinkpad because I wanted to use an OS that gets security updates. It's not miserable at all if you have sufficient RAM.

bilkow 5y ago

It actually runs pretty well for most things. The hardware is still good unless you're doing high intensity computing or trying play AAA games on it (for which it was never good anyway).

Maursault 5y ago

I would question Apple's fast and furious update schedule. Fundamentally there is very little difference between Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah and macOS 12 Monterey. The operating system itself has probably seen very little changes since NeXTSTEP's first release in 1989, it only appears different, and the vast majority of changes are in the graphical interface. It begins to appear like the software philosophy pioneered by Adobe: buy the same software every 2 years. But Apple upped that game to every stinking year. Why? What is the benefit to the user? Wouldn't it have been far better to not place so much attention on a constant, never ending stream of so many new features so few use, and instead focus on the necessary features everyone uses, as well as security, and fixing the bugs. I also don't understand Apple's philosophy of abandoning compatibility. Was 32-bit compatibility really all that crippling to Apple's 64-bit endeavors? Or is it just an easy way to break production software to force purchase of new software? Imagine if the automobile industry changed fuels every 10 years starting in the 1940's, such that every decade that passes, any car older than 10 years would no longer function for lack of access to fuel. I don't think we would have let that stand. And yet we eat what Apple puts on our plate. I like macOS, but this "new OS every year!" sucks, has no benefit to the user, and it is, fundamentally, a lie.

mthoms 5y ago
>Fundamentally there is very little difference between Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah and macOS 12 Monterey. The operating system itself has probably seen very little changes since NeXTSTEP's first release in 1989, it only appears different, and the vast majority of changes are in the graphical interface. Well, that range covers three different CPU architectures(!) and at least one complete file system rewrite. But your point is fair - to the layperson there hasn't been much change.
- Maursault 5y ago
  > Well, that range covers three different CPU architectures(!) The exercise proves that hardware is irrelevant to an operating system > and at least one complete file system rewrite. Which filesystem was completely rewritten, and why? Unless you're referring to AFS... which wasn't rewritten, but developed. > But your point is fair - to the layperson there hasn't been much change. Pretty sure not a whole lot has changed for the experienced expert, either. What has incrementally changed (but not so much it's unrecognizable) is the graphical user interface. A GUI is not an operating system.