Oops, you're talking about that iMac? Here we go, this lists the EFI's for different machines

Yeah, only the (1,1) and (2,1) Pros had the 32-bit EFI, the (3,1) was the first to have 64-bit EFI. People on the (1,1) and (2,1) Pros had to use a modified boot.efi to fool the the OS into booting the 64-bit kernel if they wanted to run El Capitan (unsupported).

Yeah, I still have an aluminium PowerBook G4 in my garage. But the reason it....and the G5 machines became obsolete was because they switched architectures....and they had numerous heat related issues with the G5. I still remember the photoshopped pictures of the 5 inch thick PowerBook G5's.

Still, I accepted that my PowerBook G4 would be unsupported with the Intel switch because they'd reached severe limitations with the PowerPC architecture.

The main reason I'm pissed is that this particular "obsolescence" is not due to technical issues.

I know my Mac Pro won't stop working....but I paid a premium for the machine and in a couple of years time, some of the Mac only software I use may not even run on El Capitan, despite the machine itself having higher specs than a lot of the "newer" machines that can run latest software.

Yes, because Windows will run all the Mac only copies of software I already have - some of which are only distributed on the Mac App Store. Good call.

Funny, considering all the unofficial guides to install Sierra on a Mac Pro (3,1) make no mention of needing to install drivers for it (unless you have a 3rd party graphics card), which suggests they're already in the OS.

These aren't iMacs that people check their Facebook and send a few e-mails on, they're Pro machines - designed for a completely different environment and completely different workloads. Given that, why shouldn't they be supported longer too?

You obviously have no idea how much these machines costed when they were released - especially fully loaded. Why should I not expect it to be supported longer, given the premium they demand on the Mac Pro machines?

Forced obsolescence of a perfectly capable, useful (and expensive) machine makes the Hackintosh camp a lot more appealing (mainly because of the apps I already have that are Mac only). Not to mention, the current Mac Pro's are very limited in how they can be customised after purchase.

The (1,1) and (2,1) Mac Pros were retired because they had 32-bit EFI and the new OS's needed 64-bit EFI....a technical limitation. Most of the Macs I've had that have lost support have been because of a technical limitation (be it RAM limits, 32-bit only processors, Power CPU's). This instance is just plain greed.

Microsoft obviously don't think the hardware is obsolete as Windows 10 runs flawlessly on mine in bootcamp for the Windows only stuff I do.

Being a MacPro (3,1)....you know, it only has 8 Xeon cores, 32GB and Samsung Evo 850 SSD's. But no, it's not "allowed" to run the latest OS anymore.

Soldier: Siri! Open my chute!
Siri: I'm sorry, the app "My Chute" is not installed.
Soldier: Fffffffuuuuuuu

*SPLAT*

Android is free and open source. The operating system isn't what makes the money.

Google makes money off the stuff that runs on top of the free operating system (which provides the APIs and runtimes, for free), not the operating system itself.

People are free to do what they like with that free operating system, just look at Amazon for example. They are not beholden to Google, they include and exclude what they require for themselves and that's fine. They don't pay Google a cent for that operating system that they base their devices' software off.

I'm in the same boat. I bought a second hand 3,1 octocore Mac Pro which is supported by El Capitan, bumped up the RAM to 32GB and added a SATAIII card + SSD's. It's a monster, does everything I want and more.

I went that route because I wanted something with some grunt for dev and graphics work (and a bit of gaming in Windows via bootcamp) and it still worked out about the same price or less than a Mac Mini once I'd added the extra bits. Difference is, it eats Mac Minis for breakfast!

It has 64-bit EFI like other modern Macs and has more grunt than some Macs do today, so I'm very disappointed that it's now going to be forced in to obsolescence within the next couple of years. I picked the 3,1 model because it still met the technical criteria for running modern versions of OS X / macOS.

I use it on my work laptop, which I also take home and sometimes use if I want to do something in Windows. Saves having to go hide away from the family on my bootcamped Mac Pro.

I think the main reason people go nuts over the data collection is because it's Microsoft....nevermind the fact that they probably have Facebook and Google accounts - for the record, I don't have an issue with either of these companies either and use services from both.

In this day and age, there is no privacy online. Don't kid yourself. What you can control is what you make available. And there's always a choice, if you don't like the terms, don't use the service.

For me....Windows 10 is fast, stable and has a few extra enhancements that I like over older versions of Windows. The store is also being cleaned up and expanding, and universal apps are interesting to me. It came bundled with the laptop....and I have one other PC that's eligible for a free upgrade before the end of July which I'll be taking advantage of too.

Windows is dead!

And then you can call it "Ubuntu Budgie Smuggler"

https://slashdot.org/comments....

I suggested a similar thing when the GPL purists were getting ansy about Ubuntu planning to include ZFS support.

I for one, welcome our new cyborg overlords