Is There Anything Stopping Apple from only supporting Macs with a certain RAM amount?

[Yebubbleman]

This is probably a dumb question, so I apologize in advance.

In the Intel era, Apple had, at some points, gated Macs from being able to run newer macOS releases by how much RAM it had and/or what kind of graphics or CPU it has. Seeing as the installer could detect the system's configuration and seeing as all methods for installing the operating system were ultimately the same (whether using Recovery Mode, Internet Recovery Mode, or a bootable installer, the installer more or less ran the same; it was only a difference of where the installation bits were located and whether or not they needed to be downloaded during install time). While the T2 made some of this different in terms of initial considerations, it didn't change this to any serious degree.

With Apple Silicon Macs, yes, you still have a recovery mode and you still have the option of booting to a bootable USB installer, even if there's no longer an Internet Recovery mode. However, restoring via Apple Configurator 2 is night and day different installation experience, much closer to how iPhones, iPads, and iPod touches generally install. Furthermore, as things currently stand, there is only one single .ipsw for all supported Mac models (with special variants only put out for new machines with the machine-specific initial build created for them). iPhones and iPads generally (with only a few recent exceptions in home-button-less iPad Pro models) are the same in this regard. Any given iPhone model has one RAM amount for that model. All iPads, iPad Airs, and iPad minis also only ship with one RAM configuration. It's not like Apple has different ipsw files for different iPads based on RAM amount.

So, my question is this: Let's say that Apple, at some point down the road, decides that 16GB needs to be the minimum supported RAM configuration and that all Macs that have at least that amount are supported (while those that have 8GB do not). Or, maybe they decide that 24GB is the minimum even further down the road (thereby nixing support for M1, and all but the maxed out RAM configurations of M1 Pro, M2, and M2 Pro). Either way, are they going to be able to bake in some sort of thing in the ipsw files to prevent Macs with unsupported RAM sizes from being able to be DFU restored via Configurator 2 to a version requiring more RAM compared to those same models with a supported RAM amount? I'm guessing that this is somewhat new territory when it comes to restoring from an ipsw file (which, itself, is new territory for being a macOS installation method).

I'm more wondering if this presents any difficulty or inability for Apple to gate Macs based on installed RAM in the Apple Silicon era.

 

[leman]

Any OS can trivially refuse to boot on a configuration with less than some threshold of installed RAM and any OS installer can be made to refuse to proceed on such a configuration. So no, I don't see anything stopping them from doing something like that if they wanted to.

I mean, they could also refuse install or boot if the user sitting in from of the camera looks overweight or has a beard. But then again, what would be the point?

 

[Yebubbleman]

Any OS can trivially refuse to boot on a configuration with less than some threshold of installed RAM and any OS installer can be made to refuse to proceed on such a configuration. So no, I don't see anything stopping them from doing something like that if they wanted to.

I mean, they could also refuse install or boot if the user sitting in from of the camera looks overweight or has a beard. But then again, what would be the point?

I get all that. More was wondering if there was anything inherent to restoring via an ipsw that would otherwise make being able to gate, let's say "MacBookAir10,1" or "MacBookPro17,1", for example with 8GB of RAM vs. with 16GB of RAM. I guess it's moot seeing as Apple could always update this process to allow for such nuances. But, this is definitely new for the Mac platform and iOS/iPadOS devices have - again, excluding 2018-present model iPad Pros - largely had only one RAM configuration.

 

[quarkysg]

I get all that. More was wondering if there was anything inherent to restoring via an ipsw that would otherwise make being able to gate, let's say "MacBookAir10,1" or "MacBookPro17,1", for example with 8GB of RAM vs. with 16GB of RAM. I guess it's moot seeing as Apple could always update this process to allow for such nuances. But, this is definitely new for the Mac platform and iOS/iPadOS devices have - again, excluding 2018-present model iPad Pros - largely had only one RAM configuration.

Unlikely to use installed RAM size. Apple will likely decide based on the base configuration of a Mac model being sold.

For example, if Apple decides one day that MacBook Air M1 8GB is not capable to run a new version of macOS, but 16GB is acceptable, they will likely not allow macOS to run on any flavour of MacBook Air M1, 8GB or 16GB RAM.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Unlikely to use installed RAM size. Apple will likely decide based on the base configuration of a Mac model being sold.

For example, if Apple decides one day that MacBook Air M1 8GB is not capable to run a new version of macOS, but 16GB is acceptable, they will likely not allow macOS to run on any flavour of MacBook Air M1, 8GB or 16GB RAM.

I had that thought too, but historically RAM size has been a significant factor when it comes to dropping support for iOS and iPadOS versions. It hasn't for Intel Macs in the last ten years because it's only been since the last five years that we've even been able to get 15/16-inch MacBook Pros to have more than 16GB of RAM and only since 2020 that we've had 13/14-inch MacBook Pros be able to get past that same goal-post. I'd imagine it'll pick up again soon, especially since - at least in my own experience - 8GB of RAM as a configuration option on a Mac is really not aging that well in 2023 with Ventura and later.

 

[mmkerc]

Its been a while (decades) since I last looked at this type of issue, however Apple has historically not limited new OSes from be installed on computers with less then the minimum recommended ram (or for that matter CPU). I have had to help several people uninstall OS updates, and reinstall old OSes due to sluggish performance issues. So as several people has suggested Apple could start limiting OSes based on ram configuration it is highly unlikely.

 

[mcnallym]

If there is one thing Apple like to do is keep things simple.

ie can I use an iMac 2020 with the new OS.

apple don’t want to do the

what spec is it

i9 64Gb 5700

oh that is fine

or

i5 8gb 53000

ok that is not good enough.

Apple want the iMac 2020 model, that is fine/not fine

 

[Gudi]

Apple drops a configuration when keeping it supported by software adds additional workload on programmers or complicates future development.

 

[dmccloud]

With Apple Silicon Macs, yes, you still have a recovery mode and you still have the option of booting to a bootable USB installer, even if there's no longer an Internet Recovery mode. However, restoring via Apple Configurator 2 is night and day different installation experience, much closer to how iPhones, iPads, and iPod touches generally install. Furthermore, as things currently stand, there is only one single .ipsw for all supported Mac models (with special variants only put out for new machines with the machine-specific initial build created for them). iPhones and iPads generally (with only a few recent exceptions in home-button-less iPad Pro models) are the same in this regard. Any given iPhone model has one RAM amount for that model. All iPads, iPad Airs, and iPad minis also only ship with one RAM configuration. It's not like Apple has different ipsw files for different iPads based on RAM amount.

I'm a bit confused with the wording of this "one single .ipsw" line. Are you saying that there is one IPSW that covers all supported models, or that each model has one IPSW?

The reason I bring this up is that while there is just a single restore image that covers all AS Macs, there are multiple IPSWs for iPads. Some of the IPSWs are for multiple models of iPad, but there is not a universal IPSW like we see on the Mac side. On the iPhone side, there are individual IPSWs for each model of iPhone 13 and 14, and you don't see a combo file unless you go back to the 12 and 12 Pro, 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max, or XS/XS Max.

Additionally, since these IPSW files are model-specific, all Apple would have to do to not support a given model of iPhone or iPad is to not make new IPSWs for the model(s) in question. On the Mac side, it's hard to say how Apple might sunset support from an OS perspective, because even if they implemented a baseline RAM requirement of 16GB, that would only "lock out" 8GB models of the Mac, while 16GB+ configs with the same generation of Apple Silicon would continue to work.

 

[theorist9]

In the Intel era, Apple had, at some points, gated Macs from being able to run newer macOS releases by how much RAM it had and/or what kind of graphics or CPU it has....are they going to be able to bake in some sort of thing in the ipsw files to prevent Macs with unsupported RAM sizes from being able to be DFU restored via Configurator 2 to a version requiring more RAM compared to those same models with a supported RAM amount

Sounds like you're talking about them doing this purely based on RAM size, even within the same model—i.e., something like "mid-2012 15" MBP 9,1 with 8 GB can run the new OS, but with 4 GB it can't". Have they ever done something like this and, if so, when is the last time it happened? I don't know of any instances myself.

I mean, they could also refuse install or boot if the user sitting in from of the camera looks overweight or has a beard.

Ah, that must be why I'm having install issues.

 

[leman]

Ah, that must be why I'm having install issues.

You have a beard? Good to know 😁

 

[Abazigal]

So, my question is this: Let's say that Apple, at some point down the road, decides that 16GB needs to be the minimum supported RAM configuration and that all Macs that have at least that amount are supported (while those that have 8GB do not). Or, maybe they decide that 24GB is the minimum even further down the road (thereby nixing support for M1, and all but the maxed out RAM configurations of M1 Pro, M2, and M2 Pro). Either way, are they going to be able to bake in some sort of thing in the ipsw files to prevent Macs with unsupported RAM sizes from being able to be DFU restored via Configurator 2 to a version requiring more RAM compared to those same models with a supported RAM amount? I'm guessing that this is somewhat new territory when it comes to restoring from an ipsw file (which, itself, is new territory for being a macOS installation method).

It's not impossible, but I am guessing that for the sake of simplicity (remember that most people tend to opt for the base version of a model like the MBA), Apple will likely just support based on processor naming (eg: M1, M2 etc).

 

[Yebubbleman]

Its been a while (decades) since I last looked at this type of issue, however Apple has historically not limited new OSes from be installed on computers with less then the minimum recommended ram (or for that matter CPU). I have had to help several people uninstall OS updates, and reinstall old OSes due to sluggish performance issues. So as several people has suggested Apple could start limiting OSes based on ram configuration it is highly unlikely.

They did do this in the earlier half of the Intel Mac era. I suspect they haven't since because 8GB of RAM has been a configuration option in Macs for the vast majority of the Intel Mac era.

If there is one thing Apple like to do is keep things simple.

ie can I use an iMac 2020 with the new OS.

apple don’t want to do the

what spec is it

i9 64Gb 5700

oh that is fine

or

i5 8gb 53000

ok that is not good enough.

Apple want the iMac 2020 model, that is fine/not fine

Apple is doing this with later era Intel Macs. I don't know that there's anything stopping them from doing it with Apple Silicon Macs. Furthermore, 8GB on an M1 Mac seems to have gotten worse in recent years. On Ventura or Sonoma, it does not take much to get that memory pressure into the yellow area.

Apple drops a configuration when keeping it supported by software adds additional workload on programmers or complicates future development.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Sounds like you're talking about them doing this purely based on RAM size, even within the same model—i.e., something like "mid-2012 15" MBP 9,1 with 8 GB can run the new OS, but with 4 GB it can't". Have they ever done something like this and, if so, when is the last time it happened? I don't know of any instances myself.

They did it in the early Intel era. It otherwise worked out coincidentally that they discontinued support for models that couldn't take 4GB and, later 8GB for different reasons. It's otherwise taken 8GB as a RAM amount a LONG time to go from "this is a lot of RAM" to "this is what the average user should have in their computer" to "this is on the low-end of RAM capacities that you can outfit a PC or Mac with".

I don't see why they couldn't do this again, seeing as they routinely have done this in the iOS/iPadOS side of things.

It's not impossible, but I am guessing that for the sake of simplicity (remember that most people tend to opt for the base version of a model like the MBA), Apple will likely just support based on processor naming (eg: M1, M2 etc).

There's definitely merit to going about it that way. Though, RAM capacities have been a serious consideration for Apple when dropping iPad and iPhone models in the past.

 

[altaic]

Is there a way to permanently block users where you have to tap through a disclaimer to unblock? E.g. “Unblocking this user may cause you undue brain injury”

 

[Yebubbleman]

Is there a way to permanently block users where you have to tap through a disclaimer to unblock? E.g. “Unblocking this user may cause you undue brain injury”

Unsure. I can offer you this disclaimer now ahead of you blocking me if it's more convenient. 🤣

 

[chabig]

8GB of RAM as a configuration option on a Mac is really not aging that well in 2023 with Ventura and later.

I have to disagree. My 2020 M1 MacBook Pro doesn't limit any of the activities that I use it for.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I have to disagree. My 2020 M1 MacBook Pro doesn't limit any of the activities that I use it for.

Highly likely you aren't doing much with it then. I consistantly hit yellow and red memory pressure levels with only twelve Safari tabs, four PDFs open in Preview, Mail, and Facebook Messenger all open and running at once. That's not much!

 

[leman]

They did do this in the earlier half of the Intel Mac era. I suspect they haven't since because 8GB of RAM has been a configuration option in Macs for the vast majority of the Intel Mac era.

When? I don’t recall a time when Apple would limit OS based on RAM configuration. As far as I remember, it was always hardware generation, not configuration.

 

[chabig]

Highly likely you aren't doing much with it then. I consistantly hit yellow and red memory pressure levels with only twelve Safari tabs, four PDFs open in Preview, Mail, and Facebook Messenger all open and running at once. That's not much!

I do all of those things too, except Messenger. You'd probably have green memory pressure if you just stopped running Messenger.

 

[Yebubbleman]

When? I don’t recall a time when Apple would limit OS based on RAM configuration. As far as I remember, it was always hardware generation, not configuration.

Snow Leopard required 1GB of RAM. If your Intel Mac had less, it wouldn't upgrade. This was correct-able on all of the Macs that this disparity applied to. Similarly, Lion upped that to 2GB where it stayed until Catalina upped it to 4GB. By that point, you met the RAM requirement automatically by meeting the model requirement. Monterey was the first macOS release to only do it by model number. But, incidentally, any Mac capable of running Monterey has no less than 4GB of RAM. Ventura and Sonoma don't support any Mac that could've possibly come with less than 8GB of RAM. Even then, that's not to say that there isn't a minimum RAM requirement to macOS; just that the model years are currently a simplification of it.

I do all of those things too, except Messenger. You'd probably have green memory pressure if you just stopped running Messenger.

Nope. Messenger only eats up 318MB. Incidentally, Messenger is not a heavy app and I'm not about to say that an entry level Mac is fine so long as one doesn't use ONE similarly low-footprint Mac app. That's the kind of "you're holding it wrong" hot-take that still doesn't equate to "good" in my book.

 

[leman]

Snow Leopard required 1GB of RAM. If your Intel Mac had less, it wouldn't upgrade.

Thanks, didn’t know that!

 

[Yebubbleman]

Thanks, didn’t know that!

Sure thing! I think it's becoming a less publicized requirement due to (a) it taking longer for 8GB to be out of style than it did 4GB or 2GB during the heydays of those being the average thing that people got and (b) Apple more aggressively pruning support for Intel Macs for other reasons. I'd imagine, it'll become a factor again for macOS the way it has been for other Apple Silicon platforms like iOS/iPadOS.

 

[leman]

Sure thing! I think it's becoming a less publicized requirement due to (a) it taking longer for 8GB to be out of style than it did 4GB or 2GB during the heydays of those being the average thing that people got and (b) Apple more aggressively pruning support for Intel Macs for other reasons. I'd imagine, it'll become a factor again for macOS the way it has been for other Apple Silicon platforms like iOS/iPadOS.

I think that personal computing has changed significantly in the past fifteen years, so I'd probably deem your concerns as less urgent. I do agree that we are likely to see 8GB configurations becoming obsolete and being replaced by 12GB or 16GB as a new baseline, but 8GB machines will still be fine for everyday personal computing for years to come. At any rate, I would expect that the next cut will come on the basis of features rather than basic performance. Newer hardware will likely come with new advanced functionality (new ML accelerators, more capable GPU, new vector extensions), and Apple would want the ecosystem to embrace these. The simplest way to achieve it is by streamlining the hardware capabilities and software platform across the board, so that if your application targets OS version X you know that you can use feature Y.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I think that personal computing has changed significantly in the past fifteen years, so I'd probably deem your concerns as less urgent. I do agree that we are likely to see 8GB configurations becoming obsolete and being replaced by 12GB or 16GB as a new baseline, but 8GB machines will still be fine for everyday personal computing for years to come.

Yellow memory pressure on low-tab usage, Apple Mail, Preview, and Facebook Messenger, none of which are doing anything terribly crazy and on a base model M1 Air makes me think that you are at least incorrect about what I've quoted in bold. I know others with those configurations will swear up and down that it's fine for them and that there's nothing wrong with it for them, but I think the period of time in which 8GB of RAM isn't enough for everyday personal computing for ANY given person is already upon us.

At any rate, I would expect that the next cut will come on the basis of features rather than basic performance. Newer hardware will likely come with new advanced functionality (new ML accelerators, more capable GPU, new vector extensions), and Apple would want the ecosystem to embrace these. The simplest way to achieve it is by streamlining the hardware capabilities and software platform across the board, so that if your application targets OS version X you know that you can use feature Y.

When it comes to platforms wherein it's already been their chips running their software, Apple has cut support for RAM just as much as other SoC features. There's nothing to suggest that they won't do this once macOS is entirely Apple Silicon-only too. I think you're thinking more along the lines of what is triggering them to drop support NOW.

 

[Gudi]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

I’m saying memory size is not an issue as it makes no difference whatsoever on the programming effort. The OS might run a little slower on 8GB RAM, but that’s about it. Supporting both M-series and Intel CPUs however is a burden that causes many thousand additional programming hours. So Apple will stop supporting an Intel i9 with 64GB RAM before they drop support for the M1 with 8GB.