I need the 2022 27" iMac Replacement this Fall! (My 2014 iMac Won't Run macOS Monterey!!)

[Phil77354]

I just realized this - since Apple won't have the replacement for the 27" iMac until sometime next year, those of us with older iMacs (that won't be compatible with macOS Monterey) will be out of luck for probably half a year (or more) waiting for the new iMac!

Same situation for my wife's early 2015 MacBook!

We'll be frozen in time as of 2021!

Not fair!

 

[velocityg4]

While you won't have the latest OS. You'll still get security updates and software developers don't drop support that fast.

 

[mj_]

Shizzles! That means you won't be running the latest and greatest but a one-year old software? You will lose all respect. Your girlfriend will leave you for the next best guy with a much smaller yet much more recent 24" iMac. Depending on whether you rent or own you might get evicted by your landlord or foreclosed by your bank for being majorly out of date. Your car might break down very soon, too, and commit autocide because it's so ashamed of you and would rather end up in a car press than the garage of someone who isn't running Monterey.

Seriously, how are you going to cope? Is there any way we can help? Have you considered professional help? This is serious!

 

[CWallace]

Same situation for my wife's early 2015 MacBook!

Well there might never be another "MacBook" (at least in a 12" form factor), but the 13" Air and Pro are options now and 14" and 16" Pros look to be options by November.

 

[NC_Bulldog]

I have both an iMac, Retina 5K, 27-inch, Late 2014, and a MacBook Pro Retina, Mid 2012, that are running the Monterey Beta 5 successfully via OpenCore Patcher 0.2.3. I don't know which Monterey features will run with the release version using OpenCore Patcher.

OpenCore Patcher is neat software that is actively being updated so it may be an alternative to running Monterey, if you must, without buying new hardware.

 

[CWallace]

Heck, you might very well want to wait six months (until the 2022 iMacs might ship) before installing macOS 12 anyway, considering how rough the initial release usually is.

 

[Phil77354]

Well there might never be another "MacBook" (at least in a 12" form factor), but the 13" Air and Pro are options now and 14" and 16" Pros look to be options by November.

Heck, you might very well want to wait six months (until the 2022 iMacs might ship) before installing macOS 12 anyway, considering how rough the initial release usually is.

Sure, except I wasn't planning on buying TWO new computers this year (or next). Sheesh!

You do make a good point about the likelihood that macOS Monterey will be better sorted out by the time I have equipment that can make use of it.

I will have to make that somehow get me through the difficult times ahead . . .

 

[CWallace]

Sure, except I wasn't planning on buying TWO new computers this year (or next). Sheesh!

I feel you.

Just waiting to see how WFH works out as to whether I replace my 2017 iMac 5K with a 2020 iMac 5K or wait for the 2022 ASi replacement.

And I also have a 14" MacBook Pro in my future to replace my 2017 16" MacBook Pro and 2018 iPad Pro 12.9.

 

[MobiusStrip]

Considering that several 2014 and even 2013 Macs can run Monterey, I'd like to know Apple's excuse for boxing out the original Retina iMacs.

 

[Phil77354]

Considering that several 2014 and even 2013 Macs can run Monterey, I'd like to know Apple's excuse for boxing out the original Retina iMacs.

I believe that there is a distinction to be made in the processor or some feature in the hardware that is not present in the late 2014 iMac but was incorporated the next year. Someone more knowledgeable than I can be more specific, if they notice this discussion.

 

[Nebrie]

Considering that several 2014 and even 2013 Macs can run Monterey, I'd like to know Apple's excuse for boxing out the original Retina iMacs.

Being able to run a new OS and being obligated to spend the money and engineering resources to support it are two different things.

 

[mj_]

It may be just that, yes. In terms of CPU there isn't really much difference between the 2014 iMac (Intel Haswell) and the 2015 iMac (Intel Broadwell). The latter was a "tick" in Intel's tick-tock strategy meaning it was effectively a 14 nm shrink of the previous Haswell generation. I believe that someone at Apple decided that seven years of major upgrades are enough. Considering that most major PC manufacturers (Dell, Lenovo, Acer, etc.) offer support and driver updates for Microsoft's latest version of Windows for three to four years I dare say that eight years of OS upgrades plus another two years of security updates resulting in a total of ten years of software support are excellent.

The more important question is though: @Phil77354 How are you doing? Did your wife commit autocide, drive off with your car that was too ashamed to stay, and leave you for a younger and better equipped version of yourself?

 

[Phil77354]

Huh? Not sure I understand your point.

But we are both doing well, thank you, no changes in vehicles or computers since my original post, and I hope you are doing well too.

 

[mj_]

I was referring to my humorous Aug 16 post in this thread.

 

[Phil77354]

Ah, I see. Well done.

I've run into this difficulty as well here on these forums, sometimes humorous posts get misunderstood or at least not fully appreciated!

Cheers!

 

[Phil77354]

And I'm still looking forward to finally learning what Apple plans for the 27" iMac, hopefully early in the New Year!

 

[wilberforce]

There are many articles published about which models of Mac are compatible with each version of MacOS, and which iOS devices are compatible with each version of iOS, but there is hardly any explanation of the technical reasons WHY older devices are incompatible. I don't know if this is just lazy journalism (i.e., just repeat Apple's list with some vague mention of incompatible hardware and call it good), as it seems there would be some technically-minded people that would be interested to know, and articles on it would get readers.
It is not just a matter of Apple having an arbitrary cutoff date after X number of years. Some iPhones can be upgraded for many years (like the 6s), whereas others cannot.
For iOS devices it is sometimes explained by lack of RAM in older models, which makes sense.

In the case of the 2014 27" iMac vs 2015 27" iMac, there does not appear to be a significant architectural difference in CPU nor GPU, so it is a bit mysterious to me why one is compatible and the other is not. There are no technically knowledgable people that can investigate, ask or deduce why?

 

[CWallace]

This thread is super-long, but it might have options for you to shoehorn Monterey on the 2014 iMac: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/macos-12-monterey-on-unsupported-macs-thread.2299557/

 

[Phil77354]

There are many articles published about which models of Mac are compatible with each version of MacOS, and which iOS devices are compatible with each version of iOS, but there is hardly any explanation of the technical reasons WHY older devices are incompatible. I don't know if this is just lazy journalism (i.e., just repeat Apple's list with some vague mention of incompatible hardware and call it good), as it seems there would be some technically-minded people that would be interested to know, and articles on it would get readers.
It is not just a matter of Apple having an arbitrary cutoff date after X number of years. Some iPhones can be upgraded for many years (like the 6s), whereas others cannot.
For iOS devices it is sometimes explained by lack of RAM in older models, which makes sense.

In the case of the 2014 27" iMac vs 2015 27" iMac, there does not appear to be a significant architectural difference in CPU nor GPU, so it is a bit mysterious to me why one is compatible and the other is not. There are no technically knowledgable people that can investigate, ask or deduce why?

Yes, I was hoping that this thread would result in a better explanation too.

I posted this question on the Apple support communities forum, so if that results in a better technical explanation then I will share it here.

 

[gilby101]

2014 iMac (Intel Haswell) and the 2015 iMac (Intel Broadwell).

Being pedantic, for 27", the Late 2014 and Mid 2015 are Haswell, and the late 2015 is Skylake. The only Broadwell iMacs were the late 2015 21.5".

But I agree with the thrust of your point, that it is odd that Broadwell is supported for Monterey, but Haswell is not. For what it is worth, this is consistent with MBA and MBP where Broadwell is supported, but Haswell is not.

 

[wilberforce]

Here is an article that discusses in some depth compatibility with Monterey, instead of just copy/pasting Apple's list:

macOS 12 Monterey: The Ars Technica review

An iterative update to Big Sur that has a little something for everyone.

arstechnica.com

 

[Phil77354]

Here is an article that discusses in some depth compatibility with Monterey, instead of just copy/pasting Apple's list:

macOS 12 Monterey: The Ars Technica review

An iterative update to Big Sur that has a little something for everyone.

arstechnica.com

Very informative, thank you.

It seems that our quest to understand precisely why certain models are excluded from Monterey compatibility will be unfulfilled. From the arstechnica article:

". . . There's no readily identifiable technical reason why that isn't the case, since there are fourth- and fifth-generation Intel Macs on either side of the support line. . . ", ". . . Per usual, Apple wouldn't get into specifics with me about what is and is not on the support list. . . "

I had thought there was a thread here that did give a better explanation, but it seems not to be the case. Not that it would change the basic situation, still it would be more satisfying to at least understand the reasoning.

Thanks @wilberforce for the information!

 

[wilberforce]

Very informative, thank you.

It seems that our quest to understand precisely why certain models are excluded from Monterey compatibility will be unfulfilled. From the arstechnica article:

". . . There's no readily identifiable technical reason why that isn't the case, since there are fourth- and fifth-generation Intel Macs on either side of the support line. . . ", ". . . Per usual, Apple wouldn't get into specifics with me about what is and is not on the support list. . . "

I had thought there was a thread here that did give a better explanation, but it seems not to be the case. Not that it would change the basic situation, still it would be more satisfying to at least understand the reasoning.

Thanks @wilberforce for the information!

Yes, this article doesn't actually succeed in explaining anything, but at least they tried to find out, and pointed out the apparent inconsistencies in what is, or is not, compatible.

 

[mj_]

Which, again, points to only one possible explanation: Apple giveth and Apple taketh away. Someone in charge at Apple simply drew an arbitrary line and dediced it was good.

Humans are great at drawing arbitrary lines on paper without considering the consequences. Ask Africa and the Middle East how they feel about it

 

[wilberforce]

Which, again, points to only one possible explanation: Apple giveth and Apple taketh away. Someone in charge at Apple simply drew an arbitrary line and dediced it was good.

Humans are great at drawing arbitrary lines on paper without considering the consequences. Ask Africa and the Middle East how they feel about it

Coming from Africa (born and raised there), I intimately know about that.

There may be some complicated technical reason, like if the older processors do not have certain security features, or possibly Apple simply does not want to go to the effort and time to code the OS for older processors.
But this argument kind of falls flat when some, but not all, Macs with the older processors are compatible