Lifespan of 2020 iMac at this point?

[hky740]

I bought a mid-2020 27' iMac with 32 GB RAM not long after it came out. I was aware of the pending move to Apple chips but have become alarmed at the rate Apple is dropping support for Intel Macs. One model that was sold as recently as December 2019 didn't make the cut for Ventura.

I mainly use the iMac for office/web/streaming stuff, but have gotten concerned it could be obsolete as early as macOS 14 with how quickly models are being dropped.

How long does everyone here think a 2020 iMac has left in it?

 

[ADGrant]

I bought a mid-2020 27' iMac with 32 GB RAM not long after it came out. I was aware of the pending move to Apple chips but have become alarmed at the rate Apple is dropping support for Intel Macs. One model that was sold as recently as December 2019 didn't make the cut for Ventura.

I mainly use the iMac for office/web/streaming stuff, but have gotten concerned it could be obsolete as early as macOS 14 with how quickly models are being dropped.

How long does everyone here think a 2020 iMac has left in it?

The 2020 iMac was the last new Intel Mac model so I don't see Apple dropping support before they completely drop support for Intel Macs. Apple is still selling a couple of Intel Mac models, the inexpensive 2018 Intel Mac mini and the extremely expensive Mac Pro so I think they will support MacOS on Intel for a few more years at least.

The Mac you are referring to that was still sold in December of 2019 was the trash can 2013 Mac Pro. I don't know who was still buying that machine in 2019 though. Even the 2018 Mac Mini was a better option for most people.

The other surprising move was dropping support for the 2017 MBA only five years after it was introduced. That said the 2017 MBA was an old design even in 2017. Like the base 21" iMac it sold because of its low price, often to schools and other bulk purchasers. Most of them have probably not even been upgraded to Monterey. They will have security updates for a couple more years and I suspect, Google Chrome support for even longer.

The biggest shock for me was Apple dropping support for the Apple Watch Series 3 which they were still selling this year.

 

[rpmurray]

I picked up a 27 inch iMac 2020 from the Apple refurb store just a couple of months ago. We'll know how screwed we are when they start listing all the Mx-only features in Ventura.

 

[kvic]

How long does everyone here think a 2020 iMac has left in it?

I would bet as long as Mac Pro 2019. Hence, in your own interest, you may pray for Apple Silicon Mac Pro a "flop" in the market.

Given current track record of M1 Mac's, new Mac Pro is less likely a flop. Then, you have 3-5 year's support left. The more success Mac Pro is in the market, the more encouraged Apple will be dropping X86-64 support.

Given how aggressive Apple did in Ventura, I can hardly imagine by 2027 MacOS X86-64 images still being updated.

You can sell your iMac while it still holds value. Or use it for as long as you can. Quite a personal preference IMO.

 

[turbineseaplane]

You’ve got several more years I think

 

[ADGrant]

I picked up a 27 inch iMac 2020 from the Apple refurb store just a couple of months ago. We'll know how screwed we are when they start listing all the Mx-only features in Ventura.

They already have, Live Captions in FaceTime, Reference Mode with Sidecar capability (which also requires a 12.9" M1 iPad) and the ability to insert emoji using your voice while dictating on device.

 

[padams35]

Worst case MacOS 14 will be the last OS with support for the iMac 2020 5K.

Best case MacOS 15 will be the last OS with support for the iMac 2020 5K.

Two days ago I would have bet money MacOS 16 would have also supported the last 5K iMac, but today after seeing the Ventura system requirements that now seems naively over optimistic.

 

[turbineseaplane]

They already have, Live Captions in FaceTime, Reference Mode with Sidecar capability (which also requires a 12.9" M1 iPad) and the ability to insert emoji using your voice while dictating on device.

Sidecar works on intel machines, no?

 

[Andres Cantu]

They will probably drop support for the 2020 iMac and 2019 Mac Pro for macOS 16, so there would be two more updates after macOS Ventura, for a total of 5 upgrades. It seems like they want to drop support for the Intel macs quickly.

 

[ADGrant]

I would bet as long as Mac Pro 2019. Hence, in your own interest, you may pray for Apple Silicon Mac Pro a "flop" in the market.

Given current track record of M1 Mac's, new Mac Pro is less likely a flop. Then, you have 3-5 year's support left. The more success Mac Pro is in the market, the more encouraged Apple will be dropping X86-64 support.

Given how aggressive Apple did in Ventura, I can hardly imagine by 2027 MacOS X86-64 images still being updated.

You can sell your iMac while it still holds value. Or use it for as long as you can. Quite a personal preference IMO.

Before the new Mac Pro can be a success or flop in the market, it must first be announced and ship. Then we should be able to count on at least another two or three OS upgrades after that.

 

[ADGrant]

Sidecar works on intel machines, no?

Yes but for Reference Mode you need the iPad with the XDR display and an Apple Silicon Mac.

 

[zarmanto]

My primary iMac is a year older than yours, and while I find it infinitely fascinating to read all about the Apple Silicon transition, I'm not overly worried about how it will affect my own productivity and the use of my existing hardware. The reality is, the lifespan of computer hardware (particularly Macs) is often far beyond the support cycle of the operating system. I still have an old 2010 Mac Mini Server sitting in my basement, running Linux and serving up files and such like a champ; all I did to it was upgrade one of the two internal hard drives to an SSD for performance reasons. I also have a 2012 Mini running (I think) Mojave without a hiccup and a 2012 iMac primarily running (EEEEEEK!) Windows. Again, all three of these Macs are sporting new-ish SSDs which I installed to uncap that performance bottleneck, but other than that, they're just really reliable workstations.

Bottom line is, as long as the computer can still serve your needs in some fashion, it makes very little difference if the latest whiz-bang features are supported. Keep your web browser up-to-date and don't go to shady websites, and you should be okay for quite a few more years.

 

[FreemanW]

I picked up a 27 inch iMac 2020 from the Apple refurb store just a couple of months ago. We'll know how screwed we are when they start listing all the Mx-only features in Ventura.

Same here.
I looked at the MacStudio with a 27" Apple monitor.

I got a 27" Intel 3.6 GHz 10 Core i9 iMac with 128 GB memory and 4 TB SSD . . . . . for a skosh more than HALF the cost of a similarly configured MacStudio . . . . . and ZERO waiting.

The marketing folks at Apple still have a supply of crack available for their pricing sessions.

 

[ADGrant]

My primary iMac is a year older than yours, and while I find it infinitely fascinating to read all about the Apple Silicon transition, I'm not overly worried about how it will affect my own productivity and the use of my existing hardware. The reality is, the lifespan of computer hardware (particularly Macs) is often far beyond the support cycle of the operating system. I still have an old 2010 Mac Mini Server sitting in my basement, running Linux and serving up files and such like a champ; all I did to it was upgrade one of the two internal hard drives to an SSD for performance reasons. I also have a 2012 Mini running (I think) Mojave without a hiccup and a 2012 iMac primarily running (EEEEEEK!) Windows. Again, all three of these Macs are sporting new-ish SSDs which I installed to uncap that performance bottleneck, but other than that, they're just really reliable workstations.

Bottom line is, as long as the computer can still serve your needs in some fashion, it makes very little difference if the latest whiz-bang features are supported. Keep your web browser up-to-date and don't go to shady websites, and you should be okay for quite a few more years.

I agree with you in general. However there are a few potential issues:

If a Mac is being used to build software targeting apple platforms it needs to be running an up to date version of MacOS. Xcode drops support for superseded versions of MacOS very quickly. The Macs that have been dropped from support so far are quite old (2016 MBP, 2013 Mac Pro) or low end (2017 MBA) so this hasn't been an issue so far.

No T2 Mac has been dropped from support yet and it is possible that the T2 Macs will be the last Intel Macs to be supported by Apple. Your iMac is not a T2 Mac so it could be dropped from support sooner than the 2020 iMac. However, running a third party OS on a pre-T2 Mac is much easier since the hardware and firmware is much closer to a regular PC.

Running the latest version of Windows on a Mac is not supported either and Windows 10 will probably be out of support before the last Intel version of MacOS.

 

[dimme]

For some perspective First off I do have a 24" M1 iMac at home. At work I use a 2012 Mac mini and a 2014 MBP. They can't run the newest OS, but they get the job done. They still receive security updates.

 

[zarmanto]

If a Mac is being used to build software targeting apple platforms it needs to be running an up to date version of MacOS.

On this point, I will concur entirely; if you're using XCode for professional software development purposes, you clearly would be better off with an up-to-date system, both in terms of hardware and software. However, I don't think that necessarily applies to OP's use case of "office/web/streaming stuff". For that type of light use, any recent-ish computer (and likewise almost any operating system -- depending upon what "office" means) will likely suffice. It also doesn't apply to my own use case, which is primarily gaming and relaxing. Regrettably, I must live in a "Windows world" in my professional life, as do many others here, no doubt.

Running the latest version of Windows on a Mac is not supported either ...

Technically true -- but as many users of older Macs will happily tell you, "not (officially) supported" doesn't always mean "not able to run." A subset of Mac owners have made a practice for many years of shoehorning newer versions of macOS onto older "unsupported" Macs, in order to squeeze a little bit more life out of a perfectly serviceable piece of hardware. It's not always easy, but it is doable in many cases. Similarly, my 2019 iMac presently has Windows 11 running via bootcamp, without a hitch.*

... and Windows 10 will probably be out of support before the last Intel version of MacOS.

On that point, I'm not sure that I agree with you. Microsoft has backed themselves into a particularly thorny corner. By artificially limiting the officially supported hardware to such a small subset of the existing install-base of Windows 10 users, they have guaranteed that there will still be a not-insignificant Windows 10 userbase well beyond the official end-of-life date for Windows 10, which is (currently) October 14, 2025, according to Microsoft.

So will they just summarily stop issuing all updates for Windows 10 on that date? Not very likely. In fact, I don't even think we have to speculate; we can look at history. They've bumped up against this issue on multiple occasions in the past with older Windows releases; as long as there is a significant userbase, Microsoft is essentially forced by their own previous success to continue supporting those users with at least security updates, for longer than they would prefer. Although, who knows? Maybe instead they'll just cave in, and relax the hardware requirements for Windows 11 to try to migrate more of the legacy W10 users over to W11. (I know; it's not very likely... but weirder things have happened.)

* But no: For now, I would not bother to repeat the Windows 11 upgrade for any computer -- even if it's fully supported -- as long as Windows 10 is still able to work fine on it. In my opinion, while W11 generally works well enough, it brings nothing at all of actual value to the table that isn't already available in W10. (Literally. Absolutely nothing. Nada. Zilch.)

 

[Fishrrman]

"Lifespan" ...?

As long as it keeps running and doing the things one needs to get done with it, I'd reckon...

 

[pmiles]

Reality is, Ventura isn't for your 2020 iMac either. Sure it may run it, but it was not written for it. Your system will gain no benefit from it and it will likely degrade it's performance due to the lack of ARM architecture.

I have a 2010 Mac Pro tower running Mojave. Your computer is completely capable of doing exactly what you bought it to do for years to come.

You bought the system for a reason, that reason hasn't likely changed all that much since then. You probably needed native Windows support. Probably needed the larger display size. Probably have some legacy software/hardware that doesn't support ARM architecture. Perhaps you were or still are skeptical about its graphics scalability... they have yet to truly show if they can build a Mac Pro tower capable of competing with high end systems AND be scalable. So far everything has been soldered to the board with zero scalability on the ARM front.

You bought into legacy hardware or soon to be legacy hardware when you purchased an INTEL system when Apple's direction was purely going to be ARM going forward. You did so for a reason. Worrying about whether Ventura or the next OS upgrade will be available for your system now is kind of silly. Even if it could run, it was never written for your system. Truth be told, that is true for every Mac, ARM or otherwise, the OS that ships with it, is the only version of the OS written with that hardware in mind. Every subsequent OS is written for whatever current hardware there is, not last years models.

The lifespan of your computer is however long or short as you seem fit. If they can sell the original prototype Mac that still runs to this day, your iMac is completely capable of doing the same.

Look on the bright side... by the time the M3 or later arrive, all the M1 and M2 models will be in the very same boat. Depreciated, but not dead.

 

[ADGrant]

On this point, I will concur entirely; if you're using XCode for professional software development purposes, you clearly would be better off with an up-to-date system, both in terms of hardware and software. However, I don't think that necessarily applies to OP's use case of "office/web/streaming stuff". For that type of light use, any recent-ish computer (and likewise almost any operating system -- depending upon what "office" means) will likely suffice. It also doesn't apply to my own use case, which is primarily gaming and relaxing. Regrettably, I must live in a "Windows world" in my professional life, as do many others here, no doubt.

For running Google Chrome or Microsoft office you certainly don't need the latest version of MacOS. We have a couple of older MBPs running Moave and Big Sur. For most development tools an up-to-date system is desirable, for XCode it is mandatory (which is why my 2020 iMac is running Monterey). You can't install the latest version of Xcode on previous versions of the OS and previous versions of Xcode will not support the latest patch levels of iOS. I do expect cross platform tools such as Node, Docker, .NET to support Intel Macs longer than Apple does. Right now an Intel Mac is ideal for cross platform development as it lets you target Windows, Android and Linux in addition to the Apple platforms.

I do mostly use Windows for my day job which I access via employer provided Citrix and network access software none of which is Apple Silicon native yet.

Technically true -- but as many users of older Macs will happily tell you, "not (officially) supported" doesn't always mean "not able to run." A subset of Mac owners have made a practice for many years of shoehorning newer versions of macOS onto older "unsupported" Macs, in order to squeeze a little bit more life out of a perfectly serviceable piece of hardware. It's not always easy, but it is doable in many cases. Similarly, my 2019 iMac presently has Windows 11 running via bootcamp, without a hitch.*

Yes, that is definitely an option for running newer versions of MacOS on older Intel Macs though once Intel support ceases, that will no no longer be possible. Running Windows 11 in bootcamp is possible right now but Microsoft might in future release some update that breaks the work around or introduces an incompatibility with BootCamp (less of a risk if your Mac is not a T2 Mac).

On that point, I'm not sure that I agree with you. Microsoft has backed themselves into a particularly thorny corner. By artificially limiting the officially supported hardware to such a small subset of the existing install-base of Windows 10 users, they have guaranteed that there will still be a not-insignificant Windows 10 userbase well beyond the official end-of-life date for Windows 10, which is (currently) October 14, 2025, according to Microsoft.

So will they just summarily stop issuing all updates for Windows 10 on that date? Not very likely. In fact, I don't even think we have to speculate; we can look at history. They've bumped up against this issue on multiple occasions in the past with older Windows releases; as long as there is a significant userbase, Microsoft is essentially forced by their own previous success to continue supporting those users with at least security updates, for longer than they would prefer. Although, who knows? Maybe instead they'll just cave in, and relax the hardware requirements for Windows 11 to try to migrate more of the legacy W10 users over to W11. (I know; it's not very likely... but weirder things have happened.)

* But no: For now, I would not bother to repeat the Windows 11 upgrade for any computer -- even if it's fully supported -- as long as Windows 10 is still able to work fine on it. In my opinion, while W11 generally works well enough, it brings nothing at all of actual value to the table that isn't already available in W10. (Literally. Absolutely nothing. Nada. Zilch.)

You may be right. I wonder what Apple would do if faced with the same situation. They certainly seem to be trying to reduce their installed base of Intel Macs.

 

[urbanman2004]

Apple's some traitors 🙄😒

 

[T Coma]

I bought a mid-2020 27' iMac with 32 GB RAM not long after it came out. I was aware of the pending move to Apple chips but have become alarmed at the rate Apple is dropping support for Intel Macs. One model that was sold as recently as December 2019 didn't make the cut for Ventura.

I mainly use the iMac for office/web/streaming stuff, but have gotten concerned it could be obsolete as early as macOS 14 with how quickly models are being dropped.

How long does everyone here think a 2020 iMac has left in it?

🤦‍♂️

Concerned with what? You’re using it for “office/web/streaming stuff” how many updates do you think you’ll need? I use my 2011 imac for plenty more than that and it still works fine, and I have all the updates I need. Can’t run Ventura? So? I’m “stuck” on High Sierra so it must be so far past “obsolete” that it’s “antique” or maybe “ancient.” Still does more than you’re using your 2020 for.

Relax. You’ll be fine.

 

[jav6454]

I bought a mid-2020 27' iMac with 32 GB RAM not long after it came out. I was aware of the pending move to Apple chips but have become alarmed at the rate Apple is dropping support for Intel Macs. One model that was sold as recently as December 2019 didn't make the cut for Ventura.

I mainly use the iMac for office/web/streaming stuff, but have gotten concerned it could be obsolete as early as macOS 14 with how quickly models are being dropped.

How long does everyone here think a 2020 iMac has left in it?

You might get 1 more year, 2 more years or 3 more years. At this point it is unknown. However, if we evaluate based on the PowerPC to Intel Transition and use the same support periods for Tiger and Leopard.

OS X Tiger for Intel was released in June 2006 and support for PowerPC lasted until the release of Snow Leopard in August 2009. That's 3 years worth of support. That said, I can see that Ventura could well be the last release supporting Intel which should give you 1 more year based on historical transition records.

 

[ADGrant]

You might get 1 more year, 2 more years or 3 more years. At this point it is unknown. However, if we evaluate based on the PowerPC to Intel Transition and use the same support periods for Tiger and Leopard.

OS X Tiger for Intel was released in June 2006 and support for PowerPC lasted until the release of Snow Leopard in August 2009. That's 3 years worth of support. That said, I can see that Ventura could well be the last release supporting Intel which should give you 1 more year based on historical transition records.

I don't think looking at the Power PC transition is particularly valid at this point. The people running Apple are different and the installed base is much larger. BTW I believe the Darwin kernel was ported to PowerPC from Intel so OS-X had Intel support long before the transition. I wouldn't be surprised if Steve Jobs had planned for the migration as soon as he got back to Apple.

 

[jav6454]

I don't think looking at the Power PC transition is particularly valid at this point. The people running Apple are different and the installed base is much larger. BTW I believe the Darwin kernel was ported to PowerPC from Intel so OS-X had Intel support long before the transition. I wouldn't be surprised if Steve Jobs had planned for the migration as soon as he got back to Apple.

For historical context, Apple always had OS X running on Intel; Steve mentioned it so during the keynote highlighting the transition to Intel. The switch happened as Apple couldn't get G5 CPUs into the laptop space efficiently and Intel was demonstrating they could. The transition happened due to that fact in the year and half preceding it.

As per time of support, that's all we have right now to go on. I wouldn't suggest Apple might give more than a year. It's a gamble.

 

[zarmanto]

For historical context, Apple always had OS X running on Intel; Steve mentioned it so during the keynote highlighting the transition to Intel. ...

"Mac OS X has been living a secret double-life for the past five years!"
- Steve Jobs, WWDC 2005

And you can watch that moment in history on YouTube, if you wish. The entire clip is only about eight minutes and well worth watching in its entirety in my opinion, as Jobs -- ever the consummate showman -- does a great job of engaging the audience, in spite of what might otherwise seem to be a fairly pedestrian technical discussion and quite boring to most laymen... but if you just want the specific moment quoted above, skip to 4:37.

Interestingly enough, NeXTSTEP (the predecessor to Mac OS X) was actually Intel native before it was PowerPC native; it had been ported to several architectures before PowerPC, and was specifically ported to PowerPC for the purposes of replacing MacOS 9. So Jobs wasn't at all kidding when he said that "Mac OS X is cross-platform by design, right from the very beginning." (5:46)

(What can I say? I'm a long-time Apple geek... I love this stuff.)