How long will Core 2 Duo Macs be supported by new OS X releases?

[GermanyChris]

I've had stupid fast hackintoshes reasonably fast Mac Pros but I also have a C2D 17" MBP. If the Ps File is under a gig the difference between the all my computers has been seconds.

C2D is not in anyway out of date they'll keep trucking just fine for the next few years.

 

[trbartholomew]

Yes...

As long as you can run 64 bit OS, you should be fine. Apple probably won't bump up the memory requirement from 4GB for a while since a lot of their machines aren't coming with more than 4 stock. I'd guess Mavericks won't be the last you can run. I have the mid 09 15" MBP and bumped it to 8 GB and put in a 128 GB SSD, and now, 4 years from when I bought it, it is plenty fast. I won't be getting rid of it soon.

 

[komki]

I have an Early 2009 24" iMac C2D 2.93 MHz and was wondering how long Apple will continue to support Macs with the C2D processor with new releases of OS X?

I have iMac from 2007 (24 inch screen, 2.4GHz C2D, 4GB ram, 1 TB hard disk). Works fine, does everything I ask it to do.

I don't believe Apple deprecates old machines for the fun of it. Usually it happens because there is some major new feature which requires newer hardware and Apple does not want to make fallback mode or rewrite software to support old hardware.

Mountain Lion runs kernel only in 64-bit mode, which requires all kernel extensions (like device drivers) to also be 64-bit code. I think this was the reason for the latest round of deprecated machines, Apple didn't want to rewrite drivers for old machines.

What could be the next jump, that would need extra work to be supported on old machines? Maybe some change to graphics stack, which would not be supported by old GPUs or its drivers? Maybe some beneficial CPU instruction, that can be found only in newer CPUs?

I believe my old machine will be supported for few more years. At least I don't believe C2D would be the problem.

 

[Mike in Kansas]

It will be supported for as long as they use Intel processors. The only time they quit supporting a processor is when they change architecture, such as when they switched from power processor to Intel. Now speed wise you are talking something different. I would say max out ram, maybe put in an SSD and you will be fine for several more years for most tasks.

Wrong. Some times it's the graphics card that dictates what OS it will run.

 

[comatory]

Yes some old PowerPC Macs were limited in running OS X when it came out, especially original G3s - this was due to their GPUs, I think it was 10.3 that introduced Core Image/Quartz rendering.

Sometimes it's simply memory. But I've been pretty impressed in how their handle cutting of old machines. It wasn't until Lion that some of the early Intel Macs couldn't run it - those were 2006 and I believe very few 2007 machines - to me that's not bad at all, since Snow Leopard still works for a lot of things.

I am optimistic as well, I believe my mid 2009 MBP will run Mavericks just fine, even next version of OS some time in 2014. I think 2015 might be cut off year for C2D Macs and maybe aluminium Mac Pro's.

By that time I think I'll be looking into purchasing new machine.

 

[fa8362]

Except that people tend to code new software to the latest OS X. Or at best they go back 1 or 2 major versions. I'm running at least one piece of software that requires 10.8.x. How soon before someone makes software that is 10.9.x only?

I'm also running a few iOS apps that require 6.0 or 6.1 - that was part of what caused me to replace my 3rd gen iPod Touch. The other part of the iPod touch upgrade was that it was time for a new battery and how much I was able to get for it even needing a new battery.

You're one person. Like I said, almost no one needs to run the latest operating system.

 

[RayK]

With my 2.93 Early 2009 iMac i Upgraded the video card to the 4850, Upgraded to 8GB RAM and just added a fusion drive with a new HDD as well. Its plays most every game I throw at it. Works great. I use it sparingly, but its really quick when I do use it.

Glad to hear I'm not the only one doing this.

 

[iHorta]

I have an iMac 2007 2.0GHz C2D and it's running 10.8.4 fine. This machine is almost 6 years old and I do plan to upgrade to 10.9. I think this will be its last OS upgrade.

 

[SkyBell]

Sell that p.o.s. Honestly that's the best answer anyone can give you. Even a simple i3 would be faster than your computer and that's like almost 3 years old. Core 2 Duo processors is dinosaur technology....... I could never imagine doing the work I do with such old tech. Editing, Photoshop, I mean anything current from the past 2+ years would rain at snail pace.

Your best bet is to sell asap and replace with a new model.

Strange, I have a 2006 C2D iMac that runs Lion without so much as a whimper; Photoshop, DVD ripping and conversion, you name it. Sure, it isn't running the "latest and greatest" OS, but nevertheless, I feel I must inform it of these new orders to be really, really slow; it needs to catch up with the times!

Heck, I'm selling it ASAP because my MacBook and eMac, running Snow Leopard and Tiger respectively, provide more than enough horsepower to accomplish these tasks within reasonable time periods.

Honestly, unless someone needs a machine to complete certain tasks within the time-frame of "RIGHTFREAKINNOWIMMEDIATELYWHATSTHEHOLDUP?!!!" this mentality of "Oh no, There's a new shiny machine/OS! I must dispose of this now-worthless pile of junk and upgrade as quickly as possible!" (that Apple is a master of propagating) is just...sad. Not to mention a huge waste of time, resources, finances and, well, just about everything.

 

[Bear]

You're one person. Like I said, almost no one needs to run the latest operating system.

Want to guess on what the minimum version of OS X the next upgrade (or maybe even major update) of iPhoto, iMovie, Pages, Keynote and related are going to need? I'm betting 10.8.5 with some features not available unless you're running 10.9.

 

[talmy]

Want to guess on what the minimum version of OS X the next upgrade (or maybe even major update) of iPhoto, iMovie, Pages, Keynote and related are going to need? I'm betting 10.8.5 with some features not available unless you're running 10.9.

This has always been the case. In fact, you need to save the application packages because when Apple updates them the older versions are no longer available. This almost caught me when I wanted to re-download iMovie from the Apple Store to a system that was running Snow Leopard less than a year after Lion came out. No go! But luckily I had another system that had the SL compatible version and could copy it.

 

[Mr Rabbit]

Honestly, unless someone needs a machine to complete certain tasks within the time-frame of "RIGHTFREAKINNOWIMMEDIATELYWHATSTHEHOLDUP?!!!" this mentality of "Oh no, There's a new shiny machine/OS! I must dispose of this now-worthless pile of junk and upgrade as quickly as possible!" (that Apple is a master of propagating) is just...sad. Not to mention a huge waste of time, resources, finances and, well, just about everything.

<slow clapping>

I think this "OMG, that machine is 4 years old! That's ancient! How could you even look at a PDF on it?!?" mentality is thanks to Apple's increasing appeal over the past few years to long time PC users, who are coming to the Apple side still thinking that one calendar year is equal to 4 computer years.

All of my personal Macs that I use regularly (Late 2010 11" MBAir, Late 2009 iMac, Early 2009 Mac mini) are Core 2 Duos. The iMac has 12 GB of ram, the Mac mini has 4GB of ram and the MBAir has 4GB of ram. They all run Mountain Lion with no issues whatsoever. The MBAir has spent a lot of time running Mavericks and aside from the usual beta hiccups it performs VERY well. Being accustomed to Apple's "retirement" schedule over many years I fully expect these to all run the release following Mavericks and possibly two releases after Mavericks when it comes to the MBAir. The two other Macs will likely stay in rotation, being used as file servers, televisions, conversion boxes, etc.

Simply put, they're not cheap $300 PCs that will be recycled on their 4th birthdays if they don't die before then.

 

[dwilliams8545]

When Will C2D be obsolete?

Well listen icemantx, if you like your iMac and you feel that it does everything you want it too, then don't worry about these other guys telling you to sell your P>O>S. They are way out of line to even say something of that nature to anyone. Snobs, don't degrade a person's means and wealth. Im here to tell you that these C2D Macs actually run pretty good when upgraded to the latest OS X. For Example: I also have a 2009 iMac 2.4GHz 4GB Ram operating on 10.10 Yosemite. I downloaded the Beta key and gave it a test drive, guess what? It operates great. A much different look than accustom to, but nice. No pizza wheels as these guys are saying, great performance. So my thought to your question, I think that the C2D will actually be around for a while longer. Why I think this, There are many machines operating with C2D all the way up to 2010. That only puts these 1200 - 2000 dollar machines a few years old then losing support. Apple users will be very unhappy having to repurchase a computer they thought would last them at least 6 years of excellent use. That is why we buy Apple and not Windows. Better performance, virus non existence, life, programs, and many other reasons. So if my Macbook Pro Early 2008 and early 2009 iMac will support Yosemite, then we have no worries for at least another 2 years. But those are my thoughts. Oh and wait before upgrading to 10.10, it is based around IOS and not OS X. I think Apple is trying to make the turn to IOS and cut out OS X.

 

[JohnPi314]

I have an Early 2009 24" iMac C2D 2.93 MHz and was wondering how long Apple will continue to support Macs with the C2D processor with new releases of OS X? T

Since Mavericks was supported on iMacs from 2007 and later, it follows then that your mac won't be orphaned until one (or two) releases after Yosemite.

However, I think Yosemite was built with different architecture in mind so it may not run adequately; but you won't know unit you try, right?

You might consider giving this article a read:http://www.everymac.com/mac-answers...icks-compatible-macs-system-requirements.html

----------

Sell that p.o.s. Honestly that's the best answer anyone can give you. Even a simple i3 would be faster than your computer and that's like almost 3 years old. Core 2 Duo processors is dinosaur technology....... I could never imagine doing the work I do with such old tech. Editing, Photoshop, I mean anything current from the past 2+ years would rain at snail pace.

Your best bet is to sell asap and replace with a new model.

That why I like GNU/Linux - it runs on old hardware like this; without worry of planned obsolesces. But, Linux has headaches of its own.

 

[Nothingfaced]

My late '09 C2D imac runs Mavericks fine, but even simple tasks like opening iPhoto and GarageBand? I get the spinning pinwheel of death.


That said, all I use this machine for really is listening to music, youtube, surfing, and email, so it's fine.

No point fixing it if it isn't broken.

 

[jfalberti]

I have a 15" 2007 MacBook Pro with 6 GB RAM, and a 500 GB HD. This is a Core 2 Duo processor and I am running Public Beta 2 of Yosemite just fine. I use the machine for Office apps as well as surfing the Internet, video playback, and all the usual suspects. I've thought about upgrading, but I really can't justify it because what I have is running so well. What I will do though, is replace the Super Drive with a SSD, and combine it with the internal HDD and make a Fusion drive. Did that with my 2006 Mac Pro, and Mavericks runs great and all my apps fly on it.

 

[Kyle-K]

Since Mavericks was supported on iMacs from 2007 and later, it follows then that your mac won't be orphaned until one (or two) releases after Yosemite.

I would agree probably got at least two major upgrades.

 

[donstenk]

Downgrading from Yosemite on C2D 2.4

Well, the question that started this thread has been answered for another year: 10.10 is supported provided you have enough ram.

I had installed Yosemite on my 2009 MacBook Pro C2D 2.4 8GB RAM/256GB SSD and whilst it runs fast enough I found the Wifi really unstable and the UI unpolished with transparency switched off. The new default fonts don't look good on a non-retina display.

I have now downgraded to Mountain Lion and it works smoothly except iWork 2013 does not run on it. The simple grey UI gets out of the way and lets me run my business in Mail, Office, Aperture and Photoshop without trouble.

 

[dogslobber]

I have an Early 2009 24" iMac C2D 2.93 MHz and was wondering how long Apple will continue to support Macs with the C2D processor with new releases of OS X? Thankfully Mavericks is supported on my iMac, but I am thinking this may be the last major release to support my iMac. The Core 2 Duo was last released by Intel in 2009 (best I can research) and the last Apple products introduced with C2D were in mid-2010 (MacBook/MacBook Pro).

Possibly one more release after Mavericks then that's it?

Thoughts?

The advantage you have is that you can still run 10.6 and 10.9. If you buy a new system then you are forced to use 10.10. I'd stuff an SSD drive in your iMac to give it a new lease of life. Processor speed is irrelevant for the majority of the people and the performance increase from an SSD is second to none.

 

[redheeler]

My 2010 2.66 Core 2 Duo Mac mini is happily running Yosemite

----------

I have now downgraded to Mountain Lion and it works smoothly except iWork 2013 does not run on it. The simple grey UI gets out of the way and lets me run my business in Mail, Office, Aperture and Photoshop without trouble.

Mavericks looks very similar to Mountain Lion and will run the 2013 iWork apps just fine.

 

[donstenk]

My 2010 2.66 Core 2 Duo Mac mini is happily running Yosemite

----------



Mavericks looks very similar to Mountain Lion and will run the 2013 iWork apps just fine.

That's what I found. Mavericks is rock solid and faster than ML on my MacBook pro with C2D.

Annoyingly however, the pages files opened in Yosemite don't open in pages for Mavericks and the pages file format used in Mavericks don't play nice with OwnCloud and email as they are not zipped.

This is not what I expect from Apple.

 

[Zeebedy]

Hey guys,

My early 2009 iMac 24" is running real snappy on 10.10, I know its only 2.66 C2D but with the SSD and 8G RAM upgrade its not severely slower than my 2014 MBA...

Hope 10.11 will support C2D and with the recommend specs for 10.10 I would not rule that out as a possibility.



RTJ

 

[Aggie83]

Sell that p.o.s. Honestly that's the best answer anyone can give you. Even a simple i3 would be faster than your computer and that's like almost 3 years old. Core 2 Duo processors is dinosaur technology....... I could never imagine doing the work I do with such old tech. Editing, Photoshop, I mean anything current from the past 2+ years would rain at snail pace.



Your best bet is to sell asap and replace with a new model.

Hahaha. That's pretty funny. I have a 21.5 C2Duo 3.06 late 2009. My retina 27 is on order.

This old 2009 is running as fast as it can but I've had enough beachballs.

We have a technology foodchain at my house. I've got a nice Win7 boot camp partition on this old iMac and my wife will start using it. She hates Win8 and this old iMac runs win7 pretty snappy overall.

Yep sell that old POS!

Dude we've got 5-6 years use out of our iMacs. Not a lot of folks keep computers for 6 years.

 

[AlliePallie]

How Long? versus is more needed?

I have a 2010 Mini (2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo) with 8 Gig of RAM and a slow disc drive. It currently runs OS 10.10.2 quite nicely. For email, web browsing, some graphics work and the occasional newsletter it is quite satisfactory.

Is it as fast as current machines? No. Does it have to be? Also no.

Use what you have and be happy. Use the money you save on other entertainments.

 

[MacsandCheese]

I have a mid 2010 3.06 21.5" iMac with the spinning 500gb drive. 8GB of RAM. She's starting to slow down under Mavericks, but hopefully she'll last another year and, at the very least, until the next wave of 21.5" iMacs are released.

I have no desire to upgrade to Yosemite, so I'll just hold on until I need to upgrade.