+1, the stragglers need some motivation at this point
I can see an argument for retaining it for some specific use cases, though. x86 translation support in virtualization framework is extremely useful for developers.
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.
Intel Macs Won't Get Updates After macOS Tahoe
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I can see an argument for retaining it for some specific use cases, though. x86 translation support in virtualization framework is extremely useful for developers.
My one working G5 tower is a frankenstein’s monster made of parts from 4 G5s, I keep the other 3 hulks around as part mules
As much as I hate siding with Apple (because I advocate for consumer rights over planned obsolescence and big tech profits), I have to on this one.
Something like the mockup above is not actually reflective of the general longevity of Apple’s product support. They typically flag an item as “vintage” after 4 years, and absolute after 7 years. So you’re basically getting 5 years of feature updates and 8 years of security support at the low end.
Sometimes you get lucky and find support even longer. For example, my 2017 iMac Pro I’ve been able to upgrade to the latest features for over 8 years and will likely continue to receive security updates for over 10 years. So when you consider the average for all Apple products, it’s likely higher than your arbitrary “market average” range.
Windows on the other hand doesn’t even release a new OS annually like Apple and generally waits 24-36 months between version updates. There are no guarantees that the new OS would actually support your existing system as well (needs to support new minimum specs), which sometimes not all do. So on the low end you could see feature support cut in as little as 2-3 years.
It’s also harder to calculate an average for PCs given the longer version timeline for windows. Looking at Windows 10 for instance, it came out in 2015 and EOL support for features and security will be later this year (~10 years), however, new PCs were sold with windows 10 up until October 2021 (not even 4 years ago).
Those PCs effectively have less than 4 years of both feature and security support if they are not able to upgrade.
Lastly, only Apple sells you both the hardware and OS. Other manufacturers only sell you the hardware and you are free to install whatever OS you can find that supports it. Why should Apple be forced to market a “disclaimer” when in reality I am also free to install windows 11 on my intel based iMac Pro (or any supported Mac), Linux (or any other OS that supports my hardware) just like a PC buyer and still have new OS Feature and security updates beyond what Apple provides?
Would other manufacturers like Dell or HP have to slap their products with just the 1 year warranty support (because that’s all they provide)?
Apple: "pay up!"
This is totally expected given Apple's way. I've been waiting for the shoe to drop ever since the Apple Silicon announcement.
That said, had one opted to purchase an equivalent Windows PC at that time instead of a Mac, their computer will still be supported by Windows 11 for 8 more years at least and decades more under Linux.
This is totally expected given Apple's way. I've been waiting for the shoe to drop ever since the Apple Silicon announcement.
That said, had one opted to purchase an equivalent Windows PC at that time instead of a Mac, their computer will still be supported by Windows 11 for 8 more years at least and decades more under Linux.
It's hard for me to believe that a 2018 MBP is not capable of running Taco OS.
Ecology they said...
Ecology they said...
I might say "I don't care" if it was a 6-7 year old Mac that was paid for $2,000. But Apple must know that it sold the Mac Pro (7,1) until June 2023 and that it was a very serious professional computer that in some configurations exceeded $52,000. Tim Cook said at the time that Intel would be supported "years to come". That's a workstation that's only two years old and if Apple doesn't provide support for these machines for at least five years, I'm afraid a civil lawsuit could happen.
I see three possibilities:
1) Apple extends support for these most expensive and newest machines.
2) Apple offers a fair buyback of these machines in exchange for new Mac Pros on the M architecture.
3) Apple releases an MPX module for the Mac Pro (7.1) with the M4 processor, making it compatible with new systems. This would not be unprecedented, there were such upgrades in the PowerPC era.
I see three possibilities:
1) Apple extends support for these most expensive and newest machines.
2) Apple offers a fair buyback of these machines in exchange for new Mac Pros on the M architecture.
3) Apple releases an MPX module for the Mac Pro (7.1) with the M4 processor, making it compatible with new systems. This would not be unprecedented, there were such upgrades in the PowerPC era.
Exactly. Consumer PCs are lucky to get a few years of BIOS updates.
On the PC side, the oldest PCs supported by 11 are 8th gen Intel CPUs (with one 7th gen exception). And you still need secure boot and a TPM (which Macs have had standard since '06, but I digress). Those are equivalent to the 2018 MacBooks. Intel has announced microcode updates are over for those processors as of June of '25, so no updates from them either. This is why Intel Macs were dropped over the years, BTW, as Apple bundles microcode updates with macOS updates.
There is also no guarantee that MSFT will not drop support for those CPUs in some future version of 11 - there is precedent for this.
Windows is tricky, because it used to be that if you bought "good" higher-end hardware, you could generally expect to use it longer.
The most extreme example of this was Vista. If you had a decent system with discrete graphics, you got Aero Glass. My recollection is that the oldest cards to support Aero Glass came out in 2002 or 2003, so if you had one of those, you were set. If you had a 6-month-old elcheapo i915 "Vista-capable" system, too bad, so sad, no Aero Glass for you.
And Microsoft's financial incentives were aligned with upgrades. They made way more money on retail upgrades, so they were better off selling you a boxed copy than selling Dell/HP/Lenovo a new OEM licence for a new system.
Windows 11 is the opposite. High-end hardware from 2017 (or maybe even 2018 for AMD), sorry, your processor is too old. El-cheapo Celeron with 4 gigs of RAM, eMMC storage, etc from 2018 or 2019, all good.
As someone whose last home-built Windows machine fell on the wrong side of the official Windows 11 line, I am still pissed. How dare they tell me my high-end 4-year-old desktop doesn't meet their 'performance and reliability expectations'? And then tell me a two-year newer el-cheapo POS does?
The great question is, what will happen with Windows 12? Will they go back to the old ways? Or will they throw up some new requirements, e.g. "must have a Copilot+-capable NPU" and obsolete high-end systems again? And it's one reason I've been hesitant to build a new Windows machine - you just can't predict how long your $800 Ryzen might be supported anymore...
If you are using a Mac Pro it's probably for business. Depreciation for that would be over 5 years.
And... here's the problem - everybody buying a $50,000 Mac in 2023 was buying it because they had some very high-end, Intel-only workload, possibly including Intel-only PCI-E expansion cards. Even if macOS 29 supported Intel, would that Intel-only workload support macOS 29?
Also, everybody buying that Mac Pro in 2023 knew what happened to the trash can Mac Pro. Discontinued in 2019, got its last major OS upgrade in 2021.
People buying $50,000 workstations are sophisticated. There was no reason to believe that the last remaining Intel machine was going to get new OSes for a long time.
That's what I think too, but... guess what? No currently shipping desktop processors, last I checked, have Copilot+-capable NPUs.
But yes, that's one of the things that has dissuaded me from building a new Windows box. I am very worried that the $800 Ryzen would get cut off from Windows 12 or whatever due to not having an NPU...
The fact that Microsoft makes money only when you buy a new system and not from retail upgrades has completely messed everything up and made it impossible to predict lifespans of a Windows machine.
A bunch of device drivers for Intel and the related hardware will be dropped from the system. That always helps.
Windows dropped support for a ton of PC's with Windows 11, and even more recently with Windows 11 24H2 which no longer supports Intel CPUs from 2020 and earlier.
Yup, it's straight up ********. They should commit to at least 6 years of new OS support starting at the last date of sale of the device. Then security updates for 3 years after that providing 9 years of a functional machine. I don't give a **** if it's intel or not.
Are you talking about real support or official support?
Official support, yes, they dropped a ton with Windows 11, they didn't drop any with 24H2 for upgrades I don't think. Only for new systems. But if you have, say, an Intel i5-8xxx, you still get 24H2 just fine. Whereas a 7xxx has never been offered Windows 11 and the installer will tell you to get lost if you don't add some registry keys to bypass the CPU check.
Unofficially, the baseline for pre-24H2 versions was the 45nm C2D/C2Q, 24H2 requires an instruction that was added in... Nehalem?... I think. I have run 23H2 on a C2Q Q9650 and 24H2 on an Ivy Bridge in BIOS/MBR mode too, both actually work just fine.
This is part of what makes me so angry at Microsoft. At least when Apple drops support for something, they actually remove the code and the OCLP people have to add it back somehow. Microsoft left all the standard NT 6 code still there, but just put these additional checks in the installer at the last minute.
Microsoft provided zero years of new OS support for people who bought new systems in 2017 or some systems in 2018 or later...
And? That deserves criticism too. Not sure what point you are trying to make.
So that means a 2019 Mac Pro—whether maxed out or mid-tier—a computer that once cost up to $50K, won’t be supported beyond 6 years? Or even worse, does that mean the 2013 “trash can” Mac Pro actually had a longer support lifespan (10 years) than the Intel 2019 Mac Pro? Honestly, this news only gives me more reason (especially considering the price drop) to buy a used 2019 Mac Pro with good specs. It’s still a fully capable and powerful machine, and giving it only 6 years of support feels like an insult.
Don't forget about the iMac Pro. It's extremely capable as well and run the latest macOS perfectly but it was dropped.
Windows 11 officially supports Intel 8th gen CPUs or later (from 2018). The 24H2 announcement is for OEMs - they're not supposed to sell old CPUs in new products anymore, but Windows 11 still supports those CPUs.
They haven't gotten quality updates in a while. My 2020 Intel MacBook Air ran like complete crap for the last year because Apple doesn't care about making older devices run well, despite officially "supporting" them (same thing happened as they phased out spinning platter hard drives). Then, FedEx lost my trade-in, costing me almost $300, which they and Apple refused to do anything about. I'm stuck with the iPhone ecosystem for now, but doubt I'll buy another Apple tablet or laptop after the bad experiences I've had.
How are you comparing? The 2013 got its last full OS release in 2021, so that's eight years; the 2019 gets its in 2025, so six years. Only a two year difference between the two... and still a lot better than what the Power Mac G5 got...