Calling Last Release

[tankerthebub]

I will say this after working for Apple for over 10 years and with there last transition Mac OS Bigsur will be the last release for Intel....bigsur unlike recent is is released yearly with a minimum of three years of support....make sense snow leopard was supported for four years...I’m calling it now this will be the last version for Intel!

 

[Woochoo]

I actually prefer that and the fact they wanted to make a really fast transition over 2 years rather than being 4-5 messing around. That avoids having to carry lots of backwards compatibility in next OSses, and just focus on ARM.

One Microsoft's engineer (can't recall which one) said they actually wanted to move forward, remake a lot of stuff or just make new one, making everything better and more efficient, but they simply couldn't due to the huge amount of legacy stuff they had to keep supporting. And that Apple's big advantage was just that: they can move forward. Many people won't like it as it forces them to adapt, and not always Apple offers a good solution rather than just assuming it, but that's what actually allows them to keep making things better.

The moment you work only on one thing instead of having to support many different ones, things get easier and better.

 

[ccollinsradio]

There will be OS updates for at least 2 more years. Apple isn't going to sell you a new machine now, then not give you updates.

I wouldn't be surprised if they did OS updates for 3-5 years. XCode still makes it very easy to code for all versions of the OS.

This will go quick, I agree there. I just don't expect Apple to screw over someone who just bought a 4K MBP with all the bells and whistles either. There are many of us that still need to run Windows as well. It could be Rev 2 or 3 of Apple Silicon where they have the chip features to emulate X-64 Windows at a reasonable speed.

 

[the8thark]

Apple have been pretty generous with all their previous major transitions as well.

68k -> PPC
16bit -> 32bit
Classic OS -> OSX/MacOS
PPC -> Intel
32bit -> 64bit

In every occassion Apple have had a decent transition time with the ability for universal binaries and more recently Rosetta and similar.

 

[leman]

MacOS will support Intel for at least other 5-6 years. They can’t release newIntel Macs and then drop software support for them a year later. I also think that Rosetta will stick around for a while.

 

[dmccloud]

I will say this after working for Apple for over 10 years and with there last transition Mac OS Bigsur will be the last release for Intel....bigsur unlike recent is is released yearly with a minimum of three years of support....make sense snow leopard was supported for four years...I’m calling it now this will be the last version for Intel!

Apple is on record as stating that the Intel based Macs will be supported for a while after the transition. With the transition planned to take two years, we would not see an all AS lineup until 2022, which would mean that at a minimum the next two versions of MacOS after Big Sur would also support Intel, most likely the 2023 version as well since many of the Pro users will hold out as long as possible before replacing their current machines with an Apple Silicon rig.

 

[Sarajiel]

As rule of thumb for patch support you can basically take the day when the last Intel Mac is replaced with its AS counterpart and add 3 years to it. Apple isn't risking some frivolous class-action lawsuit from someone with Apple Care in case that there may be some serious future software issue that needs fixing.
For example a Dec. 14th 2022 release of the AS Mac Pro would mean patch support until the end of 2025 for macOS 11.2 "Little Timmy".

Depending on how well the AS switch will be received by users and devs, they may or may not release an Intel version of 11.3, 11.4 or 11.5 since that would mean at least another 2 years of support on top of that.

 

[the_phantom]

I will say this after working for Apple for over 10 years and with there last transition Mac OS Bigsur will be the last release for Intel....bigsur unlike recent is is released yearly with a minimum of three years of support....make sense snow leopard was supported for four years...I’m calling it now this will be the last version for Intel!

I think we're two releases away from the last Intel-supported OS, based on history. Tiger was actually the current OS in use when the first Intel Macs shipped, not Snow Leopard. After Tiger, there were two full releases that supported both architectures

 

[thenewperson]

I think we're two releases away from the last Intel-supported OS, based on history. Tiger was actually the current OS in use when the first Intel Macs shipped, not Snow Leopard. After Tiger, there were two full releases that supported both architectures

Depends. We were still in the ~2 year cycle for OS updates at the time. If we go in terms of years, the last release will be 3 years after whatever comes in 2022.

 

[Boyd01]

When do you think Apple will stop selling Intel Macs? And, more importantly, when will they stop selling Intel refurbs? Seems to me they will have to provide a number of years of updates beyond that date (at least until AppleCare expires for those systems).

Personally I'd love it if Apple took the time to actually fix the bugs in the current version of MacOS instead of rolling out new updates every year.

 

[ChromeCloud]

Not gonna happen. I’d expect at least 2 more major macOS releases for Intel Macs after Big Sur.

Also, judging by the timeline announced by Apple, the transition from Intel to Apple Silicon will take two years, which means that some Intel Macs will still be on sale when the next big release of macOS will come out in 2021.

 

[MisterMe]

I think we're two releases away from the last Intel-supported OS, based on history. Tiger was actually the current OS in use when the first Intel Macs shipped, not Snow Leopard. After Tiger, there were two full releases that supported both architectures

You are mistaken. MacOS X 10.4 Tiger saw the transition from PPC to Intel. MacOS X 10.5 Leopard supported both PPC and Intel. It was the last full release of MacOS X 10.5 to support PPC. MacOS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, the second version of MacOS X after the transition to Intel was Intel-exclusive.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

You are mistaken. MacOS X 10.4 Tiger saw the transition from PPC to Intel. MacOS X 10.5 Leopard supported both PPC and Intel. It was the last full release of MacOS X 10.5 to support PPC. MacOS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, the second version of MacOS X after the transition to Intel was Intel-exclusive.

Yeah, two full releases supporting PPC including partway through Tiger, but how many years was that? Back then there wasn’t a new OS release every year either. Just checked. So the first release of Tiger with Intel was in January 2006 with 10.4.4 and the last release of Leopard was August 2009.

So three and a half years...I personally think we’ll see Big Sur + 3 more releases, if they are yearly, before Intel is dropped from the the latest macOS release.

However, Rosetta for PPC architecture apps was supported all the way through Snow Leopard’s final release in July 2011. So there is a question of how you define support for PPC (Hardware vs Software) - 3.5 years for hardware and 5.5 years for software.

 

[Waragainstsleep]

I will say this after working for Apple for over 10 years and with there last transition Mac OS Bigsur will be the last release for Intel....bigsur unlike recent is is released yearly with a minimum of three years of support....make sense snow leopard was supported for four years...I’m calling it now this will be the last version for Intel!

There is no way in hell this will be the case. 2019 Mac Pros will still be under AppleCare, 11.1-11.4 will almost certainly have Intel versions. Up to 11.2 is 100%. Otherwise I shall be demanding a free upgrade of my 16" MBP.

One Microsoft's engineer (can't recall which one) said they actually wanted to move forward, remake a lot of stuff or just make new one, making everything better and more efficient, but they simply couldn't due to the huge amount of legacy stuff they had to keep supporting. And that Apple's big advantage was just that: they can move forward. Many people won't like it as it forces them to adapt, and not always Apple offers a good solution rather than just assuming it, but that's what actually allows them to keep making things better.

The moment you work only on one thing instead of having to support many different ones, things get easier and better.

This has always been among Apple's strengths that almost no other companies have found the focus and discipline to emulate.
Their willingness to burn down their old tech and replace it despite customer complaints and their ability to say no to features that aren't ready or people won't use is another one. Their lack of product diversity too. Other companies make so many different things or just different models within a range but Apple keeps it simple and streamlined.

 

[Spock]

I think people forget how bad PPC was back in those days like having a 166 MHz system bus.. The only PPC chip that could kind of keep up with intel at the time was the G5 and that thing was like a space heater. This transition to Apple Silicon is not as extreme as the PPC to Intel transition, supporting PPC and Intel was difficult back then because of how different in speed PPC was compared to Intel, they were limited with what software features they could incorporate and still maintain compatibility with even the G3. Im guessing that Apple will still offer Intel releases for at least the next 5 years if not more. My 2012 iMac is just now out of software updates.

 

[thenewperson]

Also would be a bit weird if iOS devices are getting longer support than Macs, I think.

 

[CWallace]

We may not see more than one or two macOS 11 releases that support Intel, but Apple will continue to provide security updates and bug fixes for those macOS11 releases for years to come until the hardware moves to the "Obsolete" column.

 

[Waragainstsleep]

I don't know why you think Apple is going to start nerfing 3 year old Macs. That Mac Pro is a $10k-$50k machine. They are not going to hang those customers out to dry with no software updates. What if you buy one 18-20 months from now? You get one OS update? Don't think so.

 

[MisterMe]

I think people forget how bad PPC was back in those days like having a 166 MHz system bus.. The only PPC chip that could kind of keep up with intel at the time was the G5 and that thing was like a space heater. This transition to Apple Silicon is not as extreme as the PPC to Intel transition, supporting PPC and Intel was difficult back then because of how different in speed PPC was compared to Intel, they were limited with what software features they could incorporate and still maintain compatibility with even the G3. Im guessing that Apple will still offer Intel releases for at least the next 5 years if not more. My 2012 iMac is just now out of software updates.

We all have our own metrics. I find myself in the position of having to stick with PowerMac G5s running Tiger because Tiger is the last version of MacOS X to support Classic. I have decades of investment in mission-critical software that was never ported to MacOS X. At any rate, my Power Mac G5s are more than useful 15 years after they went out of production.

I have two Intel-i7-based MacBook Pros and an older i7-based HP laptop currently running Windows 10. [It shipped with Windows 7.] At any rate my first i7-based MacBook Pro is a pain. My i7-based HP is worse than that. My second i7-based MacBook Pro is still useful.

The downside to living with a G5 is that websites have abandoned the Tiger version of Safari. However, Floodgap Systems maintains a current version of ESR version of Firefox entitled TenFourFox.

Other software and security issues are forcing me to rely on my second MacBook Pro. However, this is primarily a software issue--not a hardware issue. The fact that my 15 year old Power Mac G5 is still useful is probably astounding to those who know only Intel. There are vendors online that specialize in selling ancient Macs including PPC-based Macs--G3, G4, and Power Mac G5s like mine.

 

[Waragainstsleep]

The downside to living with a G5 is that websites have abandoned the Tiger version of Safari. However, Floodgap Systems maintains a current version of ESR version of Firefox entitled TenFourFox.

I'm surprised you aren't set up just to run the G5 headless and remote control it from something with a working browser. Or is the web browser somehow key to your mission-critical apps?
You might even consider throwing an Xserve G5 in a data centre somewhere.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I will say this after working for Apple for over 10 years and with there last transition Mac OS Bigsur will be the last release for Intel....bigsur unlike recent is is released yearly with a minimum of three years of support....make sense snow leopard was supported for four years...I’m calling it now this will be the last version for Intel!

You are quite mistaken. So much so that I'd be willing to bet you the cost of the current Mac Pro on it.

That would leave every current Mac user in the cold in under a year. That would effectively be the death of the platform. No way in hell.

I actually prefer that and the fact they wanted to make a really fast transition over 2 years rather than being 4-5 messing around. That avoids having to carry lots of backwards compatibility in next OSses, and just focus on ARM.

One Microsoft's engineer (can't recall which one) said they actually wanted to move forward, remake a lot of stuff or just make new one, making everything better and more efficient, but they simply couldn't due to the huge amount of legacy stuff they had to keep supporting. And that Apple's big advantage was just that: they can move forward. Many people won't like it as it forces them to adapt, and not always Apple offers a good solution rather than just assuming it, but that's what actually allows them to keep making things better.

The moment you work only on one thing instead of having to support many different ones, things get easier and better.

Why do you prefer pretty much every Mac user needing to buy a new Mac in the next two years? This is not 2003.

Also, it really shouldn't be hard to support both platforms concurrently for at least 5 years (Apple has been supporting both ARM64 and x86-64 concurrently for many years already). There will come a time when Apple cuts the cord and all future major macOS releases are ARM64 only; we have a minimum of five years following the launch of the first Apple Silicon Macs and a maximum of ten until that comes to pass. Be patient. Your Macs will become paperweights yet.

Not gonna happen. I’d expect at least 2 more major macOS releases for Intel Macs after Big Sur.

Also, judging by the timeline announced by Apple, the transition from Intel to Apple Silicon will take two years, which means that some Intel Macs will still be on sale when the next big release of macOS will come out in 2021.

Most Intel Macs will likely still be on sale at that point; unless Apple releases a quarter of the lineup this fall and another quarter of the lineup in the spring. Nothing I've read about makes that seem at all likely. At best, we'll see an Apple Silicon based MacBook Air, and Apple Silicon based 13" MacBook Pro, and an Apple Silicon based 24" iMac to replace the 21.5" iMac.

 

[the8thark]

Be patient. Your Macs will become paperweights yet.

Well not exactly. My daily driver is a 2011 iMac. Does everything I need it to and has many up to date apps on it. The only issue with it is the HDD is getting a little long in the tooth. I'd like an SSD Mac. People keeping their Macs for 10 years as their daily driver is not as uncommon as you think.

Actually I'm considering a new Mac purely because of the Apple silicon transition. If not for that, I'd have just replaced the HDD in the 2011 with an SSD.

In relation to intel support. I feel we'll get at least 2 years of direct MacOS support after the line is fully Apple Silicon transitioned. That being around 2024. I think intel code will be depreciated once the full transition to intel happens by the end 2020. Heck some could say it's depreciated now because we know it has an end of life on Mac sometime in the next 5-10 years at the absolute longest, probably less in reality.

 

[Spock]

We all have our own metrics. I find myself in the position of having to stick with PowerMac G5s running Tiger because Tiger is the last version of MacOS X to support Classic. I have decades of investment in mission-critical software that was never ported to MacOS X. At any rate, my Power Mac G5s are more than useful 15 years after they went out of production.

I have two Intel-i7-based MacBook Pros and an older i7-based HP laptop currently running Windows 10. [It shipped with Windows 7.] At any rate my first i7-based MacBook Pro is a pain. My i7-based HP is worse than that. My second i7-based MacBook Pro is still useful.

The downside to living with a G5 is that websites have abandoned the Tiger version of Safari. However, Floodgap Systems maintains a current version of ESR version of Firefox entitled TenFourFox.

Other software and security issues are forcing me to rely on my second MacBook Pro. However, this is primarily a software issue--not a hardware issue. The fact that my 15 year old Power Mac G5 is still useful is probably astounding to those who know only Intel. There are vendors online that specialize in selling ancient Macs including PPC-based Macs--G3, G4, and Power Mac G5s like mine.

I’m not saying that PPC machines can’t be useful, I’m just saying that PPC really fell behind back then compared to Intel in 2006.

 

[MisterMe]

I’m not saying that PPC machines can’t be useful, I’m just saying that PPC really fell behind back then compared to Intel in 2006.

Steve Job's stated reason switching to Intel is that Intel had developed a process for producing cool chips while IBM was not interested in producing processors that were suitable for consumer products. This is the reason that Apple was never able to produce a PowerBook G5. Intel's cool chip manufacturing process was a surprise based on its history going back to the 386. The 386 ran hot. For those who remember, IBM was late to the market with 386-based systems because it had trouble managing the heat generated by the 386. This helped to end IBM's domination of the IBM-compatible personal computer space.

Saying "PPC really fell behind" is a very broad statement. Where it fell behind was in the area of heat production. It did not so much fall behind as IBM has always thought of itself as the producer of Big Iron. It did not concentrate on designing processors suitable for the consumer market. After Jobs announced the switch to Intel, then IBM suddenly saw the error of its ways. By then, it was too late.

However, heat production is not the only system metric. Having used a number of Intel-based systems going back to the 1980s and more recent systems going back to 2007 or so to present and having used PPC systems going back to 1994, I can state without fear of contradiction that PPC-based systems are much easier to live with than Intel. By this, I mean that my PPC-based Macs allow me to get my work done without hassle. I find the difference is subtle, but Intel-based Macs do not age as well as PPC-based Macs.

 

[Spock]

Steve Job's stated reason switching to Intel is that Intel had developed a process for producing cool chips while IBM was not interested in producing processors that were suitable for consumer products. This is the reason that Apple was never able to produce a PowerBook G5. Intel's cool chip manufacturing process was a surprise based on its history going back to the 386. The 386 ran hot. For those who remember, IBM was late to the market with 386-based systems because it had trouble managing the heat generated by the 386. This helped to end IBM's domination of the IBM-compatible personal computer space.

Saying "PPC really fell behind" is a very broad statement. Where it fell behind was in the area of heat production. It did not so much fall behind as IBM has always thought of itself as the producer of Big Iron. It did not concentrate on designing processors suitable for the consumer market. After Jobs announced the switch to Intel, then IBM suddenly saw the error of its ways. By then, it was too late.

However, heat production is not the only system metric. Having used a number of Intel-based systems going back to the 1980s and more recent systems going back to 2007 or so to present and having used PPC systems going back to 1994, I can state without fear of contradiction that PPC-based systems are much easier to live with than Intel. By this, I mean that my PPC-based Macs allow me to get my work done without hassle. I find the difference is subtle, but Intel-based Macs do not age as well as PPC-based Macs.

I have been a Mac user since I got a hand me down Macintosh Plus way back in the day, I was around for the 68k to PowerPC transition. I know the benefits that PPC brought to the Mac and I know that in it’s day it was fantastic hardware. I’m not disagreeing with you at all with that, I have a MDD PowerMac G4 set up on my desk right now. I’m just saying that at the time, PowerPC was no longer a viable platform and the switch to Intel was much needed. It was more than just power consumption and heat, it was about embarrassing low spec numbers that Apple was stuck defending. Steve even comments about his 3 GHz promise in the keynote announcement.