How Old is too Old for an iMac????

[Guy Clark]

Mid 2011 21.5" iMac (Dual Booting Sierra and High Sierra)

Late 2009 21.5" iMac (Sierra)

Early 2008 24" iMac (Snow Leopard)

Late 2006 24" iMac (currently under restoration)

Just added Late 2015 21.5" 4k iMac

 

[EugW]

Mid 2011 21.5" iMac (Dual Booting Sierra and High Sierra)

Late 2009 21.5" iMac (Sierra)

Early 2008 24" iMac (Snow Leopard)

Late 2006 24" iMac (currently under restoration)

I'm curious. Why are you running Snow Leopard on the 2008?

 

[tallPete]

Too old is when the OS is no longer upgraded by Apple. I wouldn't stop using a machine I already owned but I wouldn't buy one off somebody else if the OS was no longer being upgraded.

 

[EugW]

Too old is when the OS is no longer upgraded by Apple. I wouldn't stop using a machine I already owned but I wouldn't buy one off somebody else if the OS was no longer being upgraded.

Heh. I bought a 2008 aluminum MacBook in fall 2017, even though the last OS it officially supported was 10.11 El Capitan. The last point release of El Capitan was in summer 2016. (It's gotten security updates into 2018 though.)

However, the difference though is that I knew I could hack the installer to update the machine to High Sierra.

 

[kwikdeth]

i have an old, ancient, abandoned 24" imac from 2007, the 2.16ghz version. 4GB RAM, 7300GT
it still meets the system requirements for Windows 10. Installed Windows 10, installed win 7 drivers from apple, which worked fine, onto a 120GB SSD installed in the machine.
works fine for Netflix and other basic internet tasks. still use 10.6.8 on a firewire 800 external with another 120GB SSD.

its a great media viewer for the bedroom. I also removed the wifi card and installed a Broadcom h264 decoder to help with media playback not taxing the system too much. its right by a wired hub anyway, so no loss there.

as i understand it, the 5,2 model is the one without a dedicated graphics card, so not sure how much mileage you'll be able to get out of that ancient GMA950 chipset.

 

[Mikebike125]

Well, I have deleted probably 40GB of jun off of it and it seems to be running rather well. I also upgraded it from 10.6.8 to 10.7.5 and all seems to be well so far.

 

[tgdbowler]

I'm still using my mid 2010 21.5" iMac. I replaced the OEM HD with a SSD last year and is running like the day I pulled it out the box. I compared(visually) the performance between my iMac and a 2017 iMac w/ SSD I bought for my parents and couldn't tell a difference in performance on basic tasks. Until another component fails, I don't have the urgency to purchase a replacement.

 

[Azeroth1]

It’s only too old if it doesn’t do what you need it to do. Old is beautiful!

 

[Guy Clark]

Well, I have deleted probably 40GB of jun off of it and it seems to be running rather well. I also upgraded it from 10.6.8 to 10.7.5 and all seems to be well so far.

It seems as though you have got lucky as Lion is a heavyweight compared to Snow Leopard. Also you have not gained anything by upgrading as remaining support from third party software vendors for Lion is as bad as Snow Leopard. For increased performance if you are satisfied with the current setup consider a Seagate SSHD (Solid State Hybrid Drive)
https://www.seagate.com/gb/en/solutions/solid-state-hybrid/
https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/iMac+Intel+17-Inch+Hard+Drive+Replacement/891

 

[Mikebike125]

Yes, I know the SSD will increase performance. Right now, my 14 year old is who I have put this together for and what its doing now should be enough to hold her attention for now.

In her mind, since it runs MINECRAFT, she is happy!!!

 

[Marty80]

My late 27” 2013 IMac which is speced out is still working well but is starting to feel it’s age. I would like a 5k retina display, but I tend to hang on to my Mac until a design refresh.

With scarce rumours of a new design for this years IMac, who knows maybe I may be able to push some more life out of my beastie.

 

[TallManNY]

My mid-2011 27" died over the weekend. Black screen with blue lines. Won't reboot; hangs at grey apple screen and tries to boot again and again. So I guess it is too old!

 

[tpivette89]

Have a pair of early 2009, 24" iMacs... one with maxed out 8GB RAM and a 240GB SSD that the wife uses as her main machine, and the other that I threw a T9900 into that my son uses. Both perform exceptionally well for their intended uses (web browsing, youtube, etc). El Capitan is still fine and supported, so until that operating system gets left behind, they won't be "too old" for everyday use.

 

[Kevbasscat]

It’s only too old if it doesn’t do what you need it to do. Old is beautiful!

Thank you lol. I feel that way about myself sometimes, well not beautiful, more like rusting grey, and my GPU needs reballing

 

[Guy Clark]

I'm curious. Why are you running Snow Leopard on the 2008?

Snow Leopard 10.6.8 is rock solid stable and ideally suited to older intel Macs.

 

[EugW]

Snow Leopard 10.6.8 is rock solid stable and ideally suited to older intel Macs.

Wow. 4 month old post.

10.6.8 doesn’t have any mainstream modern browser support.

Anyhow, a 2008 Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz iMac with 6 GB RAM and SSD (internal or FireWire) runs 10.11 El Capitan just fine.

It can even run 10.12 Sierra and 10.13 High Sierra fine. In fact, my 2008 MacBook and 2009 MacBookPro are both on 10.13 High Sierra with SSD and 8 GB RAM.

 

[mreg376]

Wow. 4 month old post.

10.6.8 doesn’t have any mainstream modern browser support.

Anyhow, a 2008 Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz iMac with 6 GB RAM and SSD (internal or FireWire) runs 10.11 El Capitan just fine.

It can even run 10.12 Sierra and 10.13 High Sierra fine. In fact, my 2008 MacBook and 2009 MacBookPro are both on 10.13 High Sierra with SSD and 8 GB RAM.

I don't think the 2008 iMac can run anything later than El Capitan without a processor upgrade. No?

 

[redheeler]

I don't think the 2008 iMac can run anything later than El Capitan without a processor upgrade. No?

You're thinking of the 2007 iMac not being able to run Sierra or later without a CPU upgrade. But even it is natively supported by El Capitan, provided it has 2 GB or more of RAM.
[doublepost=1532187472][/doublepost]

I'm curious. Why are you running Snow Leopard on the 2008?

Snow Leopard does offer far better performance on older Macs with the original HDD. The difference running Snow Leopard and Mountain Lion on my Late 2006 iMac was definitely noticeable, and it wasn't until after putting in an SSD that I decided having Snow Leopard installed was no longer necessary (now dual-boots Linux Mint and OS X Mountain Lion)

 

[EugW]

You're thinking of the 2007 iMac not being able to run Sierra or later without a CPU upgrade. But even it is natively supported by El Capitan, provided it has 2 GB or more of RAM.
[doublepost=1532187472][/doublepost]
Snow Leopard does offer far better performance on older Macs with the original HDD. The difference running Snow Leopard and Mountain Lion on my Late 2006 iMac was definitely noticeable, and it wasn't until after putting in an SSD that I decided having Snow Leopard installed was no longer necessary (now dual-boots Linux Mint and OS X Mountain Lion)

Yeah but my point was if you can’t even run a modern browser or run current software then it’s a huge problem. I suppose I’d you don’t browse on it though and just use legacy software then it’s ok.

 

[redheeler]

Yeah but my point was if you can’t even run a modern browser or run current software then it’s a huge problem. I suppose I’d you don’t browse on it though and just use legacy software then it’s ok.

Indeed; that's why I installed Linux Mint, a supported and modern OS that runs fine on older hardware and even comes with a UI dark mode similar to the one added in Mojave. But I get why someone would run Snow Leopard if web browsing isn't the Mac's primary use.

 

[Micky Do]

I am inheriting an old Core 2 Duo 1.83 17" iMac 5,2 with 2GB of RAM. It is functioning but very slow at the moment probably because of all the garbage loaded on it.

What I would like: My wife would like to be able to get on the internet and get recipes and look at news and maybe some email. Nothing more.

What I plan on doing: I would like to wipe the hard drive clean and then reload OSX. Not sure which version would run the best or if I should just get the latest that it can take.

Is this reasonable to do? Will it work and be relatively useful? Do you have any suggestions? How old a Mac do you have and does it still run well?

My only computer is an early 2009 Mac Mini waive came with with a 2 Ghz Core 2 Duo CPU, 1 GB RAM and a 120 Gb HDD. It came with Leopard, which I upgraded to Snow Leopard. It ran sweetly for 3-4 years, when it got very slow. I got the shop to check it out, install Mountain Lion, add 4 GB of RAM (now 5 GB RAM), and blow the dust out. When I got it back a couple of days later it was running well, like new....better than new.

About three years on the 6-7 year-old Mini got very slow again. Temperatures rising, thus fan spinning up, and probably throttling. It was all but unusable..... took it to the shop again asking them to clean it out, check it out, and change the HDD if they felt it was advisable. It came back to run sweetly again. It still does to this day, now over 9 years old, still with the original HDD (I also use an external HDD for archiving photos and other files) and upgraded to El Capitan, the last version of OS X to support the 2009 Mac Mini.

My only complaint is that Photos 1.0 replaced iPhoto. Photos 3.0, which comes with the latest MacOS looks to have the functionality of iPhoto, but it is not available for OS X 11.6.

I suggest that an older Mac is fine as long as you are not expecting all the latest bells and whistles. Clean out dust from the interior, and add as much RAM as it will support. Upgrade to the most recent version of OS X that supports the computer...... you can get that info from the Apple website.

 

[EugW]

With 2 GB RAM and hard drive it will still be slow after a clean install of 10.7.5, Plus 10.7.5 is problematic even just for surfing since no modern mainstream browser supports it. And I wouldn’t even consider running anything older than 10.7.5. 10.7.5 is already bad but 10.6.8 is even worse for support.

Honestly, I’d consider installing CloudReady Chrome OS on it. That’s pretty limited but at least it includes the latest version of Chrome browser and it will make that machine feel fast.

https://docs.google.com/presentatio...59Xjm9ELf9EEY/preview?slide=id.ga9588ab56_131

To do this you’d want to get a copy of the 10.7 installer just in case you want to go back to OS X, and save that. Then create the CloudReady single-boot 64-bit installer on a USB drive then boot off the USB drive to perform the install. That will wipe the Mac and install Chrome OS. The easiest way to create the installer is on a Windows machine though since it’s all automatic. On a Mac you need to manually create the installer.

https://www.neverware.com/freedownload/

I was in a similar situation with my MacBook4,1 since that too is limited to 10.7.5. I replaced it with a MacBook5,1 to run a modern version of macOS and then put Chrome OS on the MacBook4,1 as an additional surfing machine.

I stopped using CloudReady on this. The OS isn't robust enough, unless you just want to surf and use very specific pre-made apps.

Using Linux instead now.

Indeed; that's why I installed Linux Mint, a supported and modern OS that runs fine on older hardware and even comes with a UI dark mode similar to the one added in Mojave. But I get why someone would run Snow Leopard if web browsing isn't the Mac's primary use.

I am using Ubuntu 17.10 which works pretty well for it. I tried 18.04, but there was some weird bug with the system settings so I reverted to 17.10 for now. Note though, I have an SSD and 4 GB RAM in my early 2008 MacBook4,1 though. Also, 17.10 was an interim release and is now deprecated. The ones that get long term support are 16.04 and 18.04. I didn't use 16.04 since it uses an older interface. 17.10 has the newer interface but without the 18.04 bugs. I'll try 18.04 in a while once they've had more time to deal with the bugs.

https://mongoose.ubuntu.com/download/desktop

I didn't do Linux Mint because Ubuntu has more developer support.

 

[bunnspecial]

add 4 GB of RAM (now 5 GB RAM), and blow the dust out. When I got it back a couple of days later it was running well, like new....better than new.

I'd strongly suggest maxing it to 8gb.

I've found Yosemite+ with less than that to be somewhat uncomfortable...

BTW, an SSD can really make it scream. Folks are consistently amazed at how fast my Mini 1,1 feels(although it chokes if you really start beating on it) and that has a lot to do with it...even though I did run it for a while with a 2ghz T7200 Core2Duo and now have a 2.3ghz T7600.

 

[EugW]

I'd strongly suggest maxing it to 8gb.

I've found Yosemite+ with less than that to be somewhat uncomfortable...

BTW, an SSD can really make it scream. Folks are consistently amazed at how fast my Mini 1,1 feels(although it chokes if you really start beating on it) and that has a lot to do with it...even though I did run it for a while with a 2ghz T7200 Core2Duo and now have a 2.3ghz T7600.

Yes, 8 GB. It's about $65 US for that these days, which is OK. Plus a 120 GB SSD is only about $35 to $60, so total cost is $100-$125, for HUGE upgrade.

Micky, With those upgrades, El Capitan will run quite well. Even High Sierra will be decent, but High Sierra takes a bit more effort to get installed and some of those old 2009 Mac minis won't have functional WiFi in High Sierra (although Ethernet works fine).

 

[Micky Do]

I'd strongly suggest maxing it to 8gb.

I've found Yosemite+ with less than that to be somewhat uncomfortable...

BTW, an SSD can really make it scream. Folks are consistently amazed at how fast my Mini 1,1 feels(although it chokes if you really start beating on it) and that has a lot to do with it...even though I did run it for a while with a 2ghz T7200 Core2Duo and now have a 2.3ghz T7600.

Yes, 8 GB. It's about $65 US for that these days, which is OK. Plus a 120 GB SSD is only about $35 to $60, so total cost is $100-$125, for HUGE upgrade.

Micky, With those upgrades, El Capitan will run quite well. Even High Sierra will be decent, but High Sierra takes a bit more effort to get installed and some of those old 2009 Mac minis won't have functional WiFi in High Sierra (although Ethernet works fine).

For a geek with an inclination to meddle taking replacing the HDD with an SSD, plus more RAM than the Apple advised maximum, and embracing the challenge to install a more recent OS than officially supports older computers, to get them to "scream" can provide immense satisfaction.

For the average Joe or Jill, who just wants to do some relatively undemanding stuff, just a dust out every three years or so, and upgrade / update within officially supported specs and OS, can keep an older Mac good for day to day use for ten or a dozen years, maybe more, with minimal hassle.

Each to their own, but I fall into the average Joe camp.

I got the first Mac Mini in 2005 because I wanted something that was easily occasionally portable. When the HDD and power supply failed in 2009, my situation and requirements had not changed. I reckoned that replacement was more cost effective than repair..... a good decision as it turned out.

My needs have changed a bit now. Going ahead, as a teacher, I'll be using a lot more computer based material, so need something I can take to work most days. I'm going to get a MacBook Air, mainly for work, and continue to use the Mini as my main machine at home for another couple or three years.

When some part of the Mini does fail, as sooner or later it must, replacement will again probably be more cost effect than repair from the point of an average Joe. A geek, on the other hand, may see it as a project to be improved and pushed to see what is possible.