Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Here Are All the Macs Compatible With macOS Monterey
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this already, but Mac's that aren't supported by this new OS will still receive a few years of secuirty updates for their current OS. So you should in theory still be protected against vulneribilities for a few years.
But what use is SECURITY when I CAN’T spin a globe????
/s
But it makes a nonsense of Apple’s ‘green’ credibility. Halting OS progression pushes people into disposing of machines prematurely. Surprised they don’t feel a need to compete with Microsoft in this way. My 2014 MBP comes to the end of the line, whilst my 2010 PC easily handles W10 and, by the looks of it, W11. Fair enough if particular features are not available when there are hardware limitations, but my feeling is that Apple are just after my money and expecting me to buy a new laptop When they decide to retire a model for business reasons.
You DO know there’s a bunch of folks still rocking 2012 macs and earlier, right? Still working fine as it did when it got it’s last update. Anyone that tosses their computer into the trash because it didn’t get a software update, well, they’re gonna toss it in the trash anyway, nothing Apple can do to stop them.
However, if they take that computer to an Apple store, Apple’s ‘green’ credibility says they’ll take it off their hands and have it recycled for free. But, again, if an individual wants to NOT be green, Apple can’t stop them, Apple can ONLY make being green as easy as they possibly can.
I think you should show Apple what’s what! Take that 2014 MBP that’s still in working order, but not getting a software update, throw it in the trash (darn them for trying to make it easy to be green) and then NOT buy a new laptop.
Alternatively, you could just not buy a new Mac and keep using the old one until it just doesn’t work anymore. Might even be able to hand it down to someone else and then THEY can try to outlive it, too.
There are such things as security updates and I will not operate an iMac, connected to the Internet, when it does not get any security updates.
I have an iMac 2014 and an iMac 2020 side by side on my desk, boot where maxed out at the time of purchase And the iMac 2014 is still perfectly capable of performing every day tasks.
Sound like this is the last one for my iMac which suits me just fine (as it's little more than a media server for me at this point).
If I absolutely have to (when the security updates & such stop), I might throw down on a base model Mac Mini, but that'd be it.
If I absolutely have to (when the security updates & such stop), I might throw down on a base model Mac Mini, but that'd be it.
Again, if you want to toss your computer (which is perfectly capable of performing every day tasks) into the trash rather than have it recycled responsibly, there’s nothing Apple can do to force the recycling to happen.
Fortunately for you, though, OS releases are not security patches, and those continue to be released years after a system has stopped receiving OS updates. You’ve likely got three years to think about which landfill you want your computer to end up in.
Wow my late 2015 iMac juuuuust makes the cut for this OS. I suppose it’s the last big one I can expect to get.
Apple puts much emphasis on how environmental friendly they are. They should back up this claim by providing at least security updates much longer as they do at the moment. The most environmental friendly computer is not the one that gets recycled but the one that is used as long as it can handle its tasks.
Because they are environmentally friendly. They could be continuing to source 100% unrecycled raw materials, but, instead they’re using the least amount of raw materials and energy during manufacturing. AND, they have a system in place where they can recover the greatest amount of raw materials from devices that are brought back for recycling. The only way they could be significantly more environmentally friendly would be to just not make computers.
They back up the claim with the above. How long do they provide security updates at the moment anyway? How long would be enough for you in particular? Would 60 years of security updates be enough?
Using the computer for a longer time is always better than to recycle it prematurly. And Apple has chosen to position themself as environmental friendly.
How long can I use a Windows PC, that is much cheaper than anything Apple sells with an fully patched operating system? I would expect Apple to do better than that, at least when there are no technical reasons at all.
You seem to think “environmentally friendly” means “ENVIRONMENT ABOVE ALL!” If it was environment above all, they wouldn’t be making computers. And, again, if a computer is perfectly capable of performing every day tasks), however a USER has determined that “If it doesn’t get security patches, then I can’t use it,” that is the USER making a decision that a computer, that’s perfectly capable of performing every day tasks, is going to be trashed.
There’s nothing Apple can do as a company to FORCE that user to continue to use the computer.
Well, since YOU are the one so concerned about it, one would think that you KNOW how long you can use a Windows PC as a comparison. I had assumed you didn’t know, which would infer that this isn’t really something that concerns you all that much.
Your typical American quip "nobody's forcing you" is asinine and tiresome. Instead of dropping support for machines based on technical reasons, they chose an arbitrary cutoff year. My wife's 2015 MacBook Air will be supported, but my more powerful and expensive 2014 MacBook Pro won't? Apple also makes money selling services as well as hardware and software. You'd expect them to support hardware upgrade holdouts with the latest operating system in order to sell them services.
It just so happens, the chosen cutoff year accounts for the largest segment of their installed base. Apple has to appease Wall Street by setting new records every quarter. Since it no longer receives any help from Moore's Law, and got busted for slowing down the iPhone 6S, they're trying to force a new sales cycle by withholding OS upgrades. Unlike the Wintel, Apple is the sole vendor of both the hardware and operating system. Abusing its power to destroy their customer's investment in order to amass more profits is unethical and may even be illegal.
There will always be folks that find things that are obvious and true, asinine, tiresome, annoying, irritating or any number of other things. However, a person’s emotional response to something to something obvious and true does not make it any less obvious OR any less true.
Hmmm, force a new sales cycle. So, this may feel asinine and tiresome to you, but they’re NOT forcing a sales cycle. They can’t force a sales cycle. Maybe in other countries “trying to provide incentives for upgrading” is equal to “forcing”, but that’s not what forcing means in English anyway. It appears to me that someone who was just cut off from being able to use the latest OS would be the LAST person wanting to purchase another computer from the same company that will, undoubtedly, cut them off from the latest OS on THAT computer at some point in the future, too. So, instead of forcing people to buy a new Apple computer, it should realistically drive people to buy a NON-Apple system.
Unless, of course, there’s some new feature that person wants that’s not supported on their old computer. In that case, if they want it, they will buy it. If they want it and don’t have the money, they won’t buy it. If they don’t want it, they won’t buy it. In all of these cases, there’s no assumed “forcing” of the individual to spend ANY money at all.
Shiny isn't so important, but doing work is. My Retina 5k iMac with 32 GB RAM, 4GB GPU, quad i7 4.4 can certainly run Monterey but it will not allow me to.
No technical reason whatsoever, as I can install and run latest version of windows and linux no problem.
Try and make a multiplatorm app for iOS 15 on Big Sur. Dont want my code full of #ifs.
It pretty easy to understand when the cutoff is for NO TECHNICAL REASON, my 2014 retina iMac will run the absolute latest OS from MS and Ubuntu. The fact Im disabled and a poor app developer that cant afford a thousand dollars to upgrade right now. But I can't really do my work stuck on this API boundary.
Really has me contemplating painting the wall tbh.
Sometimes they cut the support for technical reasons such as Catalina relying heavily on metal so older GPUs don't get supported.
At the end of the day it's pretty simple. Apple certifying an OS on older machines costs them money and this gets worse as they go back. When Apple supports a machine it has to support everything on that machine. The logistics of testing macOS releases becomes immense the further back you support and this will inevitably spread their QA team thinner. I'm not trying to 'defend' Apple here but seriously there is a lot of testing that is done to get this certified.... how well new features will work on older machines and the cost of porting new features to older machines. And yes....they would rather you buy a new Mac.
The only other option I can think of is Apple lets people run the OS anyways and it's just not supported or certified but they would never do this as that could create bad image of Apple computers having issues which is what they nail Windows builds on.
I'm in the same boat. Got a 2014 5k iMac. Support probably ends 2023 for Big Sur so thats how long I have for that OS but it's not like the OS is going to catch fire the day after support ends. Browsers will continue to get security updates and frankly I will be on a newer computer by that time(Hopefully ARM iMac Pro).
There should be no surprises in how Apple operates. Either need to get out of MacOS all together, accept the MacOS end of life timeline or use other means(some methods on getting MacOS on unsupported Macs if you look hard enough).
At the end of the day it's pretty simple. Apple certifying an OS on older machines costs them money and this gets worse as they go back. When Apple supports a machine it has to support everything on that machine. The logistics of testing macOS releases becomes immense the further back you support and this will inevitably spread their QA team thinner. I'm not trying to 'defend' Apple here but seriously there is a lot of testing that is done to get this certified.... how well new features will work on older machines and the cost of porting new features to older machines. And yes....they would rather you buy a new Mac.
The only other option I can think of is Apple lets people run the OS anyways and it's just not supported or certified but they would never do this as that could create bad image of Apple computers having issues which is what they nail Windows builds on.
I'm in the same boat. Got a 2014 5k iMac. Support probably ends 2023 for Big Sur so thats how long I have for that OS but it's not like the OS is going to catch fire the day after support ends. Browsers will continue to get security updates and frankly I will be on a newer computer by that time(Hopefully ARM iMac Pro).
There should be no surprises in how Apple operates. Either need to get out of MacOS all together, accept the MacOS end of life timeline or use other means(some methods on getting MacOS on unsupported Macs if you look hard enough).
I'm another late 2014 iMac user who is wondering what exactly is different between my iMac (3.5 GHz quad-core intel i5, 32 GB RAM) and the 2015 iMac that appears to have the same processor?
Sure, it gives me some justification to upgrade (just as soon as Apple brings out their 27" iMac replacement), but I am curious as to what exactly the technical reason is for drawing the line between the 2014 and 2015 iMac?
Last edited:
Yeah you are correct on that. They really are just basing it on vintage status. The 1.4 2014 Mac mini can support it but the late 2014 27 iMac and mid 2015 27 iMac can't which have significantly newer and better hardware. RIP
If that is the case then it seems that the next macOS should be usable. I guess I'll wait and see.