MP 1,1-5,1 10.15 won't support MP5,1 anymore, support starts with MP6,1

[redheeler]

No, I'm not getting exhausted. I've been exhausted. It's just stupid. There's never a chance to "catch one's breath", so to speak...everything is continually a moving target. As you point out, it makes stuff obsolete too quickly, and when a software company only supports the last, say, three systems, they're basically dropping support for a system that may have been current just over a 2 years ago! Nuts! Then there's the mad rush for Apple programmers to stay on this schedule and make sure new features get shoved in, regardless of how well-polished things are. I just don't understand why a company w/ at least a few smart people like Apple wouldn't scratch their chins and say, "Yeah, I think 2-year cycle is a reasonable one for an ENTIRE OS."

It gets worse when you consider that Apple releases a new OS every year, then drops support for the previous version less than six month later with Xcode, before the new OS version is even fully mature. For iWork apps it's usually a year before you aren't getting security or bug-fix updates, but even that is absurd for basic productivity / office apps when you think about it.
[doublepost=1560993644][/doublepost]Yearly updates and the current support cycles are fine for iOS devices, but these days neither Mac hardware nor MacOS software is supported for as long as it should be.

 

[fhturner]

It gets worse when you consider that Apple releases a new OS every year, then drops support for the previous version less than six month later with Xcode, before the new OS version is even fully mature.

Apple for a long time has seemed to eschew anything older than the very latest thing they've released. Even TV ads. Remember the "Hello, I'm a Mac" spots? There used to be a page on the site where you could look at all of those. Once they were done w/ that campaign, it was like they had never made them or had any knowledge of Justin Long's existence. Poof...gone. Similarly, many support pages have a little toggle/pulldown in the top left that you can change the version/applicability from 10.14 Mojave all the way back to....10.13 High Sierra. No mention of anything prior. "You want support info about this topic for macOS prior to 10.13?? Are you mad?? We've never heard of such silliness! We began w/ 10.13! We snapped our fingers last year and Macintosh came into being w/ macOS 10.13.6!"

 

[Derived]

Not giving the 5,1s Catalina will eventually make them less secure, not more secure. This is the conclusion I always come to when I think about this from a practical standpoint, instead of trying to speculate on Apple's motives.

Anyone running Mojave (or High Sierra, for that matter) is still getting security updates. So they have no reason to believe their system is insecure even though it is on an older OS version. There is really nothing to gain from dropping support, unless cutting down on Apple's testing / support costs is counted (and this brings no benefit to the consumer).

Nothing to gain? Are you serious? They don’t have to spend thousands of hours troubleshooting every possible hacked-together combo of hardware that cMP owners have compiled, at this point. They don’t have to support ancient CPUs and a large backlog of ancient GPUs. They don’t have to worry about packaging all this old cold with an OS for new machines. These things are a decade old, almost. Not sure what you want. There are tons of things to gain from them dropping support. MacBook Pros are now more powerful than cMPs. Time to move on. “Planned obsolescence” is not a thing with computer hardware. That’s just how math and physics work.

 

[redheeler]

Nothing to gain? Are you serious? They don’t have to spend thousands of hours troubleshooting every possible hacked-together combo of hardware that cMP owners have compiled, at this point. They don’t have to support ancient CPUs and a large backlog of ancient GPUs. They don’t have to worry about packaging all this old cold with an OS for new machines. These things are a decade old, almost. Not sure what you want. There are tons of things to gain from them dropping support. MacBook Pros are now more powerful than cMPs. Time to move on. “Planned obsolescence” is not a thing with computer hardware. That’s just how math and physics work.

These "ancient" Mac Pros easily outperform plenty of supported Macs by 4x in multicore and 5x or more in graphics with an aftermarket GPU upgrade. Newer Macs have nothing to suddenly gain from 5,1s losing support.

 

[Zdigital2015]

These "ancient" Mac Pros easily outperform plenty of supported Macs by 4x in multicore and 5x or more in graphics with an aftermarket GPU upgrade. Newer Macs have nothing to suddenly gain from 5,1s losing support.

You’re casting aspersions...and single core performance is absolutely abysmal among all of the 1,1-5,1 Mac Pros, regardless of how much DRAM or how fast the SSD. No QuickSync, no Thunderbolt 3, limited memory bandwidth, legacy I/O, unpatchable security security issues, et al.

They are still workhorses, no doubt, but it won’t be long before they have reached their absolute limit and the uphill becomes too much for some if not most. That will be a sad day, but inevitable.

 

[redheeler]

You’re casting aspersions...and single core performance is absolutely abysmal among all of the 1,1-5,1 Mac Pros, regardless of how much DRAM or how fast the SSD. No QuickSync, no Thunderbolt 3, limited memory bandwidth, legacy I/O, unpatchable security security issues, et al.

They are still workhorses, no doubt, but it won’t be long before they have reached their absolute limit and the uphill becomes too much for some if not most. That will be a sad day, but inevitable.

That day will come with any computer, sooner or later. The requirements of the software eventually surpass what the hardware is capable of, though it's happening at a much slower rate now than once was the case.

The point I'm trying to make here is that for many different uses, an upgraded 5,1 with apps that are able to properly take advantage of multi-core performance can still have plenty of headroom before it reaches its "absolute limit". Because it can be upgraded to be several times more capable than it was in its stock configuration, simply dismissing it a 9-year-old is misleading at best. That number doesn't take into account the upgrades that have happened since, nor that performance doesn't always correlate with release year in the first place.

 

[johnbono]

o, I'm not getting exhausted. I've been exhausted. It's just stupid. There's never a chance to "catch one's breath", so to speak...everything is continually a moving target. As you point out, it makes stuff obsolete too quickly, and when a software company only supports the last, say, three systems, they're basically dropping support for a system that may have been current just over a 2 years ago!

MS is a software company. Every OS they release will work on any machine made in the past 10 years, if not 20, because it means more software sales. Apple is not a software company. Their OS drives sales of hardware. If they don't program obsolescence into their OS, they won't be able to compel users to buy a newer Mac.
[doublepost=1561005012][/doublepost]

These "ancient" Mac Pros easily outperform plenty of supported Macs by 4x in multicore and 5x or more in graphics with an aftermarket GPU upgrade. Newer Macs have nothing to suddenly gain from 5,1s losing support.

Sure they do. Who is going to buy them if old reliable cMP is still sitting under the desk chugging away? Apple is a HARDWARE COMPANY. Using their OS to obsolete hardware makes them money.

 

[startergo]

no Thunderbolt 3

How is Thunderbolt 3 better than PCIE2x16?

 

[Zdigital2015]

How is Thunderbolt 3 better than PCIE2x16?

I didn't say it was better, but all Macs with the exception of the MacBook have Thunderbolt 2 or 3, which opens up plenty of expansion possibilities for Macs that don't or can't ever have PCIe, like the MacBook Pro or the Mac mini. Each pair of TB3 ports on a Mac mini gives the user access to the equivalent of a PCIe x4 slot for practically anything. The price of admission is higher, but PCIe expansion is the exception, not the rule in today's modern computing.

The only thing a PCIe 2.0 x16 slot gets you is a GPU. The 4,1 and 5,1 Mac Pro have 2 PCIe 2.0 x16 slots and two PCIe 2.0 x4 slots. One is taken up by the GPU, leaving three slots. You better be judicious in how you use those slots, because they go quick while you try to modernize a 10 year old Mac Pro. Adding a 10GbE card and an USB-C card leaves you with a single slot.

For the most part, modern Macs already have these things built-in or as BTO, or you can add them via Thunderbolt 3 AND are much more compact and/or portable Mac than the cMP. They use less power and they either approach or surpass the power of the cMP.

I have a 3,1 and it's a great machine, but it takes up a ton of room and has a healthy appetite for electricity. Both have their pluses and minuses.

Why Apple chooses to deprecate the 5,1 on macOS Catalina is a bit of a mystery, although I can think about a dozen reasons why Apple did it. I think most everyone using one knew the day was coming, 10 years of macOS updates is a pretty good run.

 

[bookemdano]

Why Apple chooses to deprecate the 5,1 on macOS Catalina is a bit of a mystery, although I can think about a dozen reasons why Apple did it. I think most everyone using one knew the day was coming, 10 years of macOS updates is a pretty good run.

I think the most likely reason was that Intel decided to not patch any of the MDS vulnerabilities for Westmere and earlier CPUs. At least some of the risk can be mitigated by disabling Hyperthreading, but potentially not all of it. I think MacPro5,1 was on track to get Catalina until the MDS thing was disclosed to Apple and Intel made the decision to cut off microcode updates.

Of course the release of MacPro7,1 was a factor also, but I don't believe Apple always intended to block the cMP from Catalina. They usually only drop compatibility every other release and they had already axed a bunch of machines from Mojave.

 

[danallen]

Saw this article that says otherwise, it would run on any mac that supports Mojave : https://www.gottabemobile.com/5-things-to-know-about-the-macos-catalina-update/

At the risk of kicking a dead horse*, that article's statement about Catalina (10.15) going onto any machine running Mojave is slightly mangled. It's true that 10.15 will run on any machine Apple announced as Mojave-eligible. However, Apple is not supporting 10.15 on all the same devices it supports running Mojave. Specifically MacPro 4,1 (2010) and MacPro 5,1 (2012) are on the Mojave (10.14) device list and not on the Catalina (10.15) list.



*Then again, no horse is too dead to beat.

 

[danallen]

The following fell off my fingers in a moment of reflection. I am actually kind of choked up thinking about end of the Great Cheese Grater Era. For awhile now, in the strange world that is my mind, the Great Cheese Grater MacPros (the last of these are from 2012) are a pinnacle in the history of computers. So durable. So much capacity. So cool how it looks inside, without any tangled cables. So practical. it just worked and it still works. It is one of the many shining stars Apple put into the sky, brighter than any other stars. Congratulations to Tim Cook for doing the job Steve hired him to do, guiding the company to increasing financial heights. As for heights achieved in product innovation, some might call the Great Cheese Grater a relic. I call it a monument and supremely useful and economical. I have tears right now, facing the fact that with Catalina, the Great Cheese Grater is cast to the outer world, no longer allowed in the arena where it was the Big Boss.

In a way, running Catalina on one of the Great and Honored Classic Cheese Graters crosses a threshold that changes the Most Honored Machine from a Mac into a ***** taking a deep breath, bowing my head, barely able to write this ***** Hackintosh.

********************************************

UPON FURTHER REVIEW - NOT SO SURE THIS IS A HACKINTOSH
Non-Apple computers running macOS are Hackintoshes. That is clear. One of the headlines in the macOS End User License Agreement is "For use on Apple-branded Systems"

When it comes to running macOS on Apple-branded computers not supported by the particular version of macOS (e.g., running Catalina on one of the Great Cheese Graters), the macOS End User License Agreement is not as clear-cut.

IF I WERE TIED TO A STAKE in front of a firing squad with live rounds aimed at me, ready to fire at me the moment I utter a falsehood, and the question I am compelled to attempt answering is: "Is a Great Cheese Grater running Catalina a Hackintosh?", my answer would be: "It is sort of a Hackintosh. It is not a mac supported by Apple. I am on my own (not completely alone thanks to the crowd here on MacRumor Forums) responsible for making it work without Apple's tech support, but the difference between the Great Cheese Grater with Catalina and a Genuine Mac under Apple Support is a lot less than the difference between the Genuine Mac under Apple Support and the computer assembled entirely with non-Apple components running Cataliina.

After saying that, if I still am alive but the rifles still are aimed at me and the firing squad members are waiting for the Jeopardy judges to sound **DING** (I live) or **BUZZZZ** (I die), and I have reason to believe my honest perceptions are my best hope at garnering the judge's support, I'd say, "The Great Cheese Grater could never be a Hackintosh, even when it finally is buried under tons of other material discarded as being of no further practical use."

My mind's eye now sees the rifles no longer aimed at me, but in various positions in the gunmens' hands or even set on the ground, as the binds to the stake are untied. The firing squad relax and nod their heads in agreement that the Great Cheese Grater could never be a Hackintosh, even if all its internal components were replaced with fake made with scraps in a desolate village basement, such is the unique and special quality of the Great Cheese Grater case, and its place in history as the fortress protecting the sensitive internals for the greatest personal computer ever built, taking into consideration when it was built.

Introduction by Tim Cook, who earned the honor to do this, followed by a statement by Steve Jobs.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

You’re casting aspersions...and single core performance is absolutely abysmal among all of the 1,1-5,1 Mac Pros, regardless of how much DRAM or how fast the SSD. No QuickSync, no Thunderbolt 3, limited memory bandwidth, legacy I/O, unpatchable security security issues, et al.

They are still workhorses, no doubt, but it won’t be long before they have reached their absolute limit and the uphill becomes too much for some if not most. That will be a sad day, but inevitable.

Compared to a still supported 2012 mac book air, the 5,1 is light speed even under single core performance. You might want to try again with a better apple approved apology. IMO, this is pretty clearly an incentive to get people to upgrade to something new. Unfortunately, with apple's options, many will go to non-apple solutions. There simply is no enthusiast apple product to replace the cMP. As far as I'm concerned, the message to enthusiasts from apple is: you're no longer relevant, needed, nor wanted.

 

[flyproductions]

Why Apple chooses to deprecate the 5,1 on macOS Catalina is a bit of a mystery, although I can think about a dozen reasons why Apple did it. I think most everyone using one knew the day was coming, 10 years of macOS updates is a pretty good run.

Yes, it surely is!

But reading all this gets me the feeling that my 5,1 will immediately stop working, just because it isn't supported by the latest OS. I hope it will not! Because, for the NV-reason not even in the first place, i am happily using HS with not really missing anything. So i know a nice place where Apple can put their Catalina.

 

[minifridge1138]

Of all the "wild claims" I've heard (and that's all anyone knows unless they work for Apple and actually know why 10.15 drops support for the 5,1) I think the most likely is the speculative execution security flaws in the Intel CPUs. Apple was doing a lot of work adding support/features/fixes to the MP 5,1 firmware that they didn't have to do. That was a sign that SOMEONE at Apple wanted these to continue to run. But once Intel decided the CPU was dead, there isn't much Apple could do. What options did they have?
1 - Try to pressure Intel to provide the upgrade? Sure, Apple buys a lot of Intel stuff, but it's unlikely the could just ask nicely and get that.
2 - Keep hardware with known security flaws listed as supported. "Hey, it's possible hackers could get into this system, but that's your problem." <-- That doesn't sound like Apple.
3 - Issue 10.15 for the Mac Pro but force whatever security measures they can do in the OS because Intel won't fix the hardware. Forced disabling hyper threading? Some other performance killing software that leaves the Mac Pro slower? And now it would be an on-going problem where everytime a new vulnerability is found in 10+ year old hardware Apple has to figure out how to mitigate HW they didn't even make.
4 - Magic. Support the 5,1 in 10.15 with some amazing performance boosting software that also patches Intel's bug.

They didn't have a good option.

 

[macguru9999]

Recently I UPGRADED a mac server installation running Filemaker pro 11 server and 10.4.x server supporting 20 staff from 2011-2017 on a G5 MAC to -> Filemaker pro 17 server and 10.12.x server running on a 2008 3,1 Mac Pro using the dosdude hack. It has been running incident free all year and i decided after a lot of testing in my office first that the platform was not only stable, but performance was excellent. (I am using a pci SSD backed up to other drives) . In fact I have tested mojave as well on my spare 3,1 and it appears good too.

All I can say is that, if the dosdude hack on a 5,1 to run Catalina is as good as the above, I would have no hesitation in running this as my main machine. My only reservation is that some of my programs contain 32bit code and would not be supported by catalina.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Of all the "wild claims" I've heard (and that's all anyone knows unless they work for Apple and actually know why 10.15 drops support for the 5,1) I think the most likely is the speculative execution security flaws in the Intel CPUs. Apple was doing a lot of work adding support/features/fixes to the MP 5,1 firmware that they didn't have to do. That was a sign that SOMEONE at Apple wanted these to continue to run. But once Intel decided the CPU was dead, there isn't much Apple could do. What options did they have?
1 - Try to pressure Intel to provide the upgrade? Sure, Apple buys a lot of Intel stuff, but it's unlikely the could just ask nicely and get that.
2 - Keep hardware with known security flaws listed as supported. "Hey, it's possible hackers could get into this system, but that's your problem." <-- That doesn't sound like Apple.
3 - Issue 10.15 for the Mac Pro but force whatever security measures they can do in the OS because Intel won't fix the hardware. Forced disabling hyper threading? Some other performance killing software that leaves the Mac Pro slower? And now it would be an on-going problem where everytime a new vulnerability is found in 10+ year old hardware Apple has to figure out how to mitigate HW they didn't even make.
4 - Magic. Support the 5,1 in 10.15 with some amazing performance boosting software that also patches Intel's bug.

They didn't have a good option.

That is really an excellent point. I’d like to think that is the reason too.

 

[Zdigital2015]

At the risk of kicking a dead horse*, that article's statement about Catalina (10.15) going onto any machine running Mojave is slightly mangled. It's true that 10.15 will run on any machine Apple announced as Mojave-eligible. However, Apple is not supporting 10.15 on all the same devices it supports running Mojave. Specifically MacPro 4,1 (2010) and MacPro 5,1 (2012) are on the Mojave (10.14) device list and not on the Catalina (10.15) list.



*Then again, no horse is too dead to beat.

Mac Pro 4,1 was the Early 2009 model and it was supported up to macOS High Sierra, dropped when Mojave was announced at WWDC 2018. Although it can be updated to a 5,1 model via an EFI patcher. The 5,1 is any Mac Pro from Mid 2010-Mid 2012.
[doublepost=1568667084][/doublepost]

Yes, it surely is!

But reading all this gets me the feeling that my 5,1 will immediately stop working, just because it isn't supported by the latest OS. I hope it will not! Because, for the NV-reason not even in the first place, i am happily using HS with not really missing anything. So i know a nice place where Apple can put their Catalina.

No, it won't quit working...but at some point it become more work to keep it working than to simply replace the computer. I abhor High Sierra (it was and still is crap), but if it works for you and allows you to continue to be productive with your Mac Pro 5,1, then I wish you Godspeed and many more happy years with it.

 

[Zdigital2015]

Compared to a still supported 2012 mac book air, the 5,1 is light speed even under single core performance. You might want to try again with a better apple approved apology. IMO, this is pretty clearly an incentive to get people to upgrade to something new. Unfortunately, with apple's options, many will go to non-apple solutions. There simply is no enthusiast apple product to replace the cMP. As far as I'm concerned, the message to enthusiasts from apple is: you're no longer relevant, needed, nor wanted.

Thanks, but I don't ask Apple's approval for my opinions. Light speed? Uh, no...a better overall CPU compared to the 2012 MacBook Air, maybe...but not light speed.

The 2006-2012 Mac Pro had it's day and if you're still happy with the performance, bully for you. If not, or if your workload needs more horsepower than a 5,1 can give you, it was time to upgrade last year. Again, everyone had to know that the Mac Pro 5,1's supported life was coming to an end. If you can live with just macOS Mojave, live with it. macOS Catalina is not the bees knees, this beta cycle has been horribly mismanaged and haphazard as hell. I won't be updating for quite a while, other than on my 2012 15" MacBook Pro (which is running the Public Beta), until Apple gets their sh*t together.

Also, Apple has been moving in this direction ever since Steve Jobs took over and gave us the "Magical"™ 4 product matrix. Tim's mistake was in thinking they could ignore the Professional market without repercussions and thought giving people a truck-based SUV (MP 6,1) would placate Professionals who wanted and needed a truck. Now they have a truck (2019 Mac Pro), moreakin to a 3500/4500 truck, because they aren't making a 1500/1500HD. You either buy the 3500/4500 or you go build the truck yourself with your own parts.

It's not that you aren't relevant (you're not, but that's me saying it, not Apple), needed (most of you are not, but Apple took the shotgun approach instead of a sniper rifle, which is on them) or wanted (Apple always wants your money, but on their terms...which is upsetting and a bit condescending of them), it's that the world has changed and Apple is selling so many different types of SUVs and CUVs that even the traditional cars are starting to fall by the wayside. They're down to two sedans now, and they sell well enough, just not well enough to make more than two models. Minivans got the boot back in 2004. Also, if you want a truck, you can have a truck, but the only trim level available is the Denali/King Ranch/Limited and you have the option of gas, diesel or two Diesel engines and that's it. Like it or lump it. The kit car division was shelved a long time ago.

Does Apple lose out on some revenue? Sure. Do they lose a lot of sleep over it? No. No, they don't. Not one bit...not one wink. Their dreams (or nightmares) center around those three small CUVs (Thing 1, Thing 2 Pro and Thing 2 Pro Maxi-Snaxi) they sell a metric crap ton of every single day. It would be like Honda worrying more about the CR-Z than the CR-V...no one in their right mind is going to run a company that way. The CR-V keeps the lights on so that some crazy engineers can build the CR-Z, even if hardly anyone ever buys it.

You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Reality can be one bad b****, sometimes.

 

[tsialex]

Mac Pro 4,1 was the Early 2009 model and it was supported up to macOS High Sierra, dropped when Mojave was announced at WWDC 2018. Although it can be updated to a 5,1 model via an EFI patcher. The 5,1 is any Mac Pro from Mid 2010-Mid 2012.

MP4,1 not flashed with MP5,1 firmware had support dropped with Sierra, last officially supported macOS is El Capitan.

 

[Schismz]

The following fell off my fingers in a moment of reflection. I am actually kind of choked up thinking about end of the Great Cheese Grater Era.
...

IF I WERE TIED TO A STAKE in front of a firing squad with live rounds aimed at me, ready to fire at me the moment I utter a falsehood, and the question I am compelled to attempt answering is: "Is a Great Cheese Grater running Catalina a Hackintosh?", my answer would be: "It is sort of a Hackintosh. It is not a mac supported by Apple. I am on my own (not completely alone thanks to the crowd here on MacRumor Forums) responsible for making it work without Apple's tech support, but the difference between the Great Cheese Grater with Catalina and a Genuine Mac under Apple Support is a lot less than the difference between the Genuine Mac under Apple Support and the computer assembled entirely with non-Apple components running Cataliina.

I feel ya, I like my Apple ][+ with shift-key mod too. That was my favorite, followed by NeXT cube, Cheesegrater is at #3 ... I haven't ever formed an emotional bond with an SGI or Sun, go figure.

OTOH, I mean, the replacement is another Cheese Grater, so just think of it as an opportunity to evolve your love and joy, because they obviously just caved in to what our tiny target demographic wants... which is, a Cheese Grater! And then, after that, they'll update it again in 5 years! But, it haz slots instead of magical pixie dust & superglue, so we'll survive to complain another day.

 

[DPUser]

I always figured Apple supported the 5,1 into Mojave because it had yet to release the 7,1. Sure the 6,1 was there, but it is such a different machine, Apple would have alienated an awful lot of power users by dropping 5,1 support before the 7,1 was ready to roll. Apple clearly devoted some time to the 5,1, what with the various EFI updates and Metal-GPU compatibility. I, for one, am pleased things rolled out the way that they did, as Mojave is running very nicely on my 5,1s.

Now the 7,1 is about to be released, Apple can say goodbye to 5,1 support for good. Regardless, I'll keep using mine, most likely for more than a few years to come.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Thanks, but I don't ask Apple's approval for my opinions. Light speed? Uh, no...a better overall CPU compared to the 2012 MacBook Air, maybe...but not light speed.

The 2006-2012 Mac Pro had it's day and if you're still happy with the performance, bully for you. If not, or if your workload needs more horsepower than a 5,1 can give you, it was time to upgrade last year. Again, everyone had to know that the Mac Pro 5,1's supported life was coming to an end. If you can live with just macOS Mojave, live with it. macOS Catalina is not the bees knees, this beta cycle has been horribly mismanaged and haphazard as hell. I won't be updating for quite a while, other than on my 2012 15" MacBook Pro (which is running the Public Beta), until Apple gets their sh*t together.

Also, Apple has been moving in this direction ever since Steve Jobs took over and gave us the "Magical"™ 4 product matrix. Tim's mistake was in thinking they could ignore the Professional market without repercussions and thought giving people a truck-based SUV (MP 6,1) would placate Professionals who wanted and needed a truck. Now they have a truck (2019 Mac Pro), moreakin to a 3500/4500 truck, because they aren't making a 1500/1500HD. You either buy the 3500/4500 or you go build the truck yourself with your own parts.

It's not that you aren't relevant (you're not, but that's me saying it, not Apple), needed (most of you are not, but Apple took the shotgun approach instead of a sniper rifle, which is on them) or wanted (Apple always wants your money, but on their terms...which is upsetting and a bit condescending of them), it's that the world has changed and Apple is selling so many different types of SUVs and CUVs that even the traditional cars are starting to fall by the wayside. They're down to two sedans now, and they sell well enough, just not well enough to make more than two models. Minivans got the boot back in 2004. Also, if you want a truck, you can have a truck, but the only trim level available is the Denali/King Ranch/Limited and you have the option of gas, diesel or two Diesel engines and that's it. Like it or lump it. The kit car division was shelved a long time ago.

Does Apple lose out on some revenue? Sure. Do they lose a lot of sleep over it? No. No, they don't. Not one bit...not one wink. Their dreams (or nightmares) center around those three small CUVs (Thing 1, Thing 2 Pro and Thing 2 Pro Maxi-Snaxi) they sell a metric crap ton of every single day. It would be like Honda worrying more about the CR-Z than the CR-V...no one in their right mind is going to run a company that way. The CR-V keeps the lights on so that some crazy engineers can build the CR-Z, even if hardly anyone ever buys it.

You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Reality can be one bad b****, sometimes.

TLDR; thanks for confirming you were wrong.

 

[frou]

I always figured Apple supported the 5,1 into Mojave because it had yet to release the 7,1. Sure the 6,1 was there, but it is such a different machine, Apple would have alienated an awful lot of power users by dropping 5,1 support before the 7,1 was ready to roll. Apple clearly devoted some time to the 5,1, what with the various EFI updates and Metal-GPU compatibility.

Exactly. It's blindingly obvious that this was the situation that caused the 5,1 to be stretched to Mojave.

 

[Zdigital2015]

TLDR; thanks for confirming you were wrong.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.