Will my Mac run OS X 10.10 Yosemite?

Will my Mac run OS X 10.10 Yosemite?

Summary: Here's a listing of the oldest Apple hardware capable of running the new OS X 10.10 Yosemite operating system. If you have this hardware (or better) then you're good to go.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Hardware, Apple
178

With Apple having allowed us a peek under the veil of secrecy surrounding the next version of OS X – 10.10 Yosemite – and a public beta scheduled to drop this summer, Mac users are asking the obvious question – Will my mac run Yosemite?

I've dug around in the published specs for and drawn up a list of hardware that should – assuming Apple doesn't change much between now and the release – run OS X 10.10 Yosemite.

Before you do that, you need to know what Mac you are running. To do this click on the Apple then select About This Mac and then click on More Info…. This will bring up a dialog box that tells you what hardware you are running.

With that out of the way, here's a listing of the oldest Apple hardware capable of running OS X 10.10 Yosemite.

  • MacBook – Late 2008 Aluminum, or Early 2009
  • MacBook Air – Late 2008
  • MacBook Pro – Mid/late 2007
  • Mac mini – Early 2009
  • iMac – Mid 2007
  • Mac Pro – Early 2008
  • Xserve – Early 2009

This, incidentally, is the same list of hardware that can run OS X 10.9 Mavericks.

So, if you have the above hardware or newer (of any configuration) then you should be good to go when Yosemite drops.

Topics: Hardware, Apple

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

178 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Nice.

    It is awesome that my 5 year old white
    MacBook will be able to run the latest and greatest. It has been a workhorse and looks tired but keeps on going despite a hard life. My older 2007 vintage MacBook is stuck at Lion, but it too keeps getting security updates.
    StandardsMan
  • 5 Years?

    A good machine should last at least that long. It is a shame with their high prices that they don't (not can't) support older machines. My 2007 HP laptop originally running Vista works great with Windows 8.1. I expect to be able to upgrade it again next year to Windows 9.
    toph36
    • Ah Vista

      My "wifi" crapped out on me on my Gateway right out of the box back in 2007 on Vista. Brand new machine from Best Buy and the drivers were not functional on Vista.
      YTjay
      • And?

        What was the point of your post?
        ye
        • Maybe the same as the O.P.'s

          Namely: none.
          He might have tried to RTFA, seeing as how machines from 2007 also support 10.10.
          .DeusExMachina.
      • Errr

        Blame HP for selling laptops with flakey drivers.
        Gisabun
    • It has to do with features that simply are not

      supported in older hardware/chipsets because the technology didn't exist then. Sometimes it means loss of a feature (airdrop), other times it affects the core aspect of the OS (graphic cards needing to have a certain abilities in order to render the screen).

      Apple has always been willing to leave hardware behind to optimize for new technology. MS has always been willing to sacrifice taking advantage of the newest technologies in favor of backward compatibility.

      It's a difference in philosophy. You can debate which one is the better approach. I like the Apple approach. Until I have a machine that is behind the technology curve. Then I like the MS model.
      baggins_z
      • Apple makes money selling hardware

        It is not in their best financial interest for long term support of their devices. That may sound simplistic, but it is the truth.

        Apple could easily support the older devices if they so choose to. The hardware isn't limiting them from doing so, it is a choice.
        Emacho
        • Not for OS X

          They haven't cut a lot of Macs out since they moved to Intel. The last time they cut was because some of their Macs lacked 64-bit EFI support.
          Michael Alan Goff
          • Ironically 64-bit versions of other operating systems work just fine on...

            ...those same systems.
            ye
          • Yes

            But Apple uses a different version of EFI. They cut out the 32-bit version to focus on the 64.
            Michael Alan Goff
          • Rationalization, not a reason

            Other operating systems do just fine on older hardware, both 32 and 64 bit. Apple chooses not to, because Apple is a hardware company.

            Reality is that Macs just don't matter to Apple as much anymore since iOS devices now drive almost all of their revenues. Interestingly enough, the discontinuation of older devices is now creeping into that area.
            Emacho
          • Re: Macs just don't matter to Apple as much anymore....

            Which is precisely the reason Apple have taken to refreshing OS X. Your comment doesn't hold up but I guess that should come as no great surprise.
            5735guy
          • I will explain it really slow for you. Try to follow

            I never said Macs were being abandoned, try not to imply things that were not said.

            Apple makes most of their money from iOS devices and content sales via those devices, which makes macs far less relevant to their bottom line.

            As such, forcing people to upgrades Macs is not as attractive to Apple as it once was, because their sales represent such a small amount of the companies revenues (and future).

            One only needs to look at the actual OSx and iOS updates to see which operating system is slowly morphing into the other by 1,000 cuts.


            Like I said, Apple could make OSx.whatever work on older machines if they choose to, but why bother? Some people act like there is some hardware limitation that cannot possibly be overcome, which apologetic nonsense.

            It doesn't make Macs bad, but they don't get the length of support other operating systems do for almost any hardware and iDevices are heading down the same path as well.
            Emacho
          • Maybe someone needs to explain to more slowly for YOU

            I won't bother with defending the O.P.'s point, but you seem to have missed it entirely.
            Baggins_z wrote:
            "Apple has always been willing to leave hardware behind to optimize for new technology. MS has always been willing to sacrifice taking advantage of the newest technologies in favor of backward compatibility."
            To which you replied:
            "Other operating systems do just fine on older hardware, both 32 and 64 bit."

            Yet you don't seem to recognize the fact that his point ENTIRELY misses the point. The point made is that it runs "just fine" because the things it does were tailored to older hardware. It runs "just fine" because MS elected NOT to have their OS take advantage of key new technologies or efficiencies, to maintain backward compatibility.
            Again, I am not speaking either to the truth or the merit of this argument, but your response ignores it altogether, and then has the audacity to do so in a snarky and condescending manner.
            Again, the only person who seems to have been missing the point, and needs the argument to be slowed down, is you.
            .DeusExMachina.
          • using a fallacy as the line for a point

            Is the way of the faithfully blind.
            All I see here are biased, one eyed, blind loyal assumptions that are not based on any technical fact.
            warboat
          • What you, with your grossly limited understanding, "see" is immaterial

            .DeusExMachina.
          • grossly limited understanding

            Are the Apple apologists like yourself suggesting that backwards compatibility and new technologies are mutually exclusive.
            warboat
          • No one said they were

            What they said was that SOME technologies ARE incompatible with backwards compatibility. Please argue against this and expose your ignorance and bias even more.
            .DeusExMachina.
          • you even said

            That 64bit OSX doesn't make concessions for 32bit code.
            Which is wrong as it handles 32bit with a 32bit kernel.
            In the end, it is running on a CPU that defaults to 32bit operands for speed, even in 64bit mode. Using 64bit operand actually comes with a performance penalty in the form of machine code bloat via operand type prefix. This affects databus bandwidth and cache efficiency.
            64bit is great, but saying that it is all designed for 64bit without concession for 32bit is ignorant bliss.
            64bit code is NOT all-round faster like you claimed.
            warboat