+1 for the 2013 iMac. I don't expect my kit to be supported forever.... but.... purchased 5 years ago, nearly 4 grand spent - upgraded everything at BTO stage - SSD, 32GB RAM, i7, 4GB graphics. Compare this to my base model 2014 MacBookAir with 4GB ram and my base model 2014 MacMini with 4GB ram. So yes, my additional machines can run Big Sur, but my main production machine will not. I could always use the iMac as a screen for my MacMini, but that would be ludicrous. Not happy.
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.
List of Macs Compatible With macOS Big Sur
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe you can Hackintosh older Macs and Windows 10 and Linux are supported on older machines at least back to 2008.
I'll leave it to you that USD-CAD conversion makes Macs much less affordable though in Canada, I often forget about that.
As for the RAM (and SSD), I still disagree though.
In fact for 420 CAD taxes in, I can order 64GB DDR4-2666 on MacSales. For the same price, I managed to order 32GB DDR3-1600 back in 2013. Apple charges 1440 CAD taxes in in my province, to keep their 8GB and put 64GB instead.
Same with SSD. I bought a 1TB two years ago for 350 CAD taxes in, and two years later Apple still charges 720 CAD taxes in to keep their 1 TB Fusion and put a 1 TB SSD instead.
Their BTO config pricing are crazy nowadays. This wasn't nearly as bad in 2006, 2009 and 2013 when I ordered my iMacs. Of course I would expect to pay a little more for BTO configs, maybe 50% more than the component value, but never 3X the price of the component.
Not saying there is anything wrong. I was doing most of my daily work on a 2012 MBA until last year when my company switched it out. I just also wouldn't be too upset if I couldn't get the newest OS on top of it. If your workload doesn't require you to change out an 8+ year old computer, I can't imagine you require an updated OS either.
I'm not trying to judge people for sticking with old devices, just saying the disconnect is confusing. I'm not an Apple fanboy, but compared to most PC/Smartphone manufacturers, having support for even this long is quite decent. My Pixel 4 probably won't get updates past 2023 and it's the "latest" phone from Google.
I mean, I wish these companies that have crazy bankrolls would support their products for as long as feasibly possible (Google and Apple included), but, they didn't get those crazy bankrolls by doing that now, did they?
Can you show us a link for this patch. I'm not familiar with the "Inb4 patch" and couldn't find anything related to Mac's when I googled it. Thanks.
Not saying not cool. It was an honest question, not trying to tease people. I am all for not tossing out things that still work. I'm just saying, these machines aren't dying and aren't becoming broken. Whatever arbitrary reason that Apple does some of the things it does, it seems like people just have a case of FOMO when it comes to having the latest and greatest OS. They are still issuing security updates for a couple years after this aren't they? Nothing is being lost.
Also, was Apple really selling 2013 iMacs in 2015? They had 2014/2015 model years, why would they be selling 2013 models new? Not that I'm doubting you, but they normally only do this when they aren't replacing it with something else such as the 2012 MacBook Pro with disc drive that lived on for a few years....weird.
Wow, I'm on a mid-2012 non-retina MBP 13", and I'm surprised it's gotten support for this long. It might be time to upgrade, or just build a PC for the time being (until Apple adds ARM Macs to their lineup). The 16" MBP is tempting, but with Apple phasing out Intel, it's probably best to wait. I've got to say, for most things, my 2012 is still pretty snappy, but when I'm doing a lot of CPU intensive tasks like Photoshop, it starts to chug. Plus, as much as I appreciate the level of upgradeability/repairability of the non-retina Macs, I still think for my use, non-retina just isn't cutting it anymore (especially for Graphic Design). Overall, I'm excited to see how the switch from Intel to AMD gets executed.
Yes. I bought my Late 2013 model in April 2015 brand new from the online Apple store.
Yep... there was no 2014 model that I was aware of.
I stand corrected... there was one lone 2014 21" model. Garbage from what I'm reading.
2013 models had quad core Core-i5 cpu (2.7GHz/2.9GHz) and 2014 dropped to slower dual core Core-i5 at 1.4GHz.
2013 had upgradable ram slots.... hard to get at, but you can do it.
2013 1TB drive (upgraded mine to an SSD) 2014 only had a 500GB drive.
2013 also has a PCIe SSD connector (I used mine for a second SSD)... 2014 removed it.
If the 2013 is not supported, the 2014 shouldn't be either.
Last edited:
Sorry, by 'cool' I meant 'Chill, not angry, only complaining in good fun'. I was also trying to make a joke to point out that 99% of 8+ year owners had already lost support for the newest OS.
The 2013 was the desktop equivalent of the 2012 with disk drive.
The mid-2014 only replaced the early-2013 educational model.
The late-2014 was the premier 5K retina release added as a new higher tier.
The mid-2015 model was basically a 5K price-cut replacing the mid/top tier 27" models.
The full refresh replacing the the 21.5" and entry 27" late 2013 iMac didn't happen until October 2015.
Last edited:
2011 only had 2.0 USB.
[automerge]1592943725[/automerge]
This model was just discontinued 3.5 years ago. Imagine you are that person so this is truly shameful from Apple to ditch a machine that brand new.
I wondered if it'll be buggier or mostly fixed? We haven't upgraded to Catalina yet. I think we might skip to this one instead.
Apple seems to subtly push people towards newer machines: Perfectly capable computers like the 2012 mini drop off the official OS support list - and the 2020 iPad Pro requires something newer than Mojave (next year: newer than Catalina) to be accessible from the Mac ...
In their active time, the 6630M-equipped minis had an ambivalent reputation: Yes, the 6630M was a bit faster than the HD3000, partly because of the dedicated VRam.
On the other hand, 256MB VRAM were not that much even back then. And the 6630M wasn’t the fastest GPU to begin with. Thus you had little use from it for gaming or HD videos or whatever else you wanted to do on that mini.
Heck, the 6630M was only available as middle configuration, so if you needed CPU horsepower, you could not have a 6630M at the same time. Probably because of heat reasons.
Also - as with many dGPU’s in Apple products, the 6630M was infamous to die prematurely due to heat.
Consequently Apple did away with a separate GPU in the 2012 model - and imho rightfully so. Therefore I would not sign your claim of the 2011 mini w/ 6630M being a „pretty good“ machine. Too many cons for too little pros. Collector’s item maybe, but less useful than a proper 2012 model with a similarly capable iGPU and USB3 connectivity.
Sure. But the HD 3000 in the 2011 was worse than the GeForce 320M in the 2010, but the HD 4000 was Intel's first semi-decent GPU, and since then the Mac Mini got GT3 or GT3e iGPUs (the nicer intel ones, some with eDRAM) but then downgraded to the HD 630 in the 2018/20. Hopefully ARM will allow improved graphical horsepower and efficiency. I did not know about the failure rate in Mac Minis, I thought it applied mostly to the 6750M, 6770M, and 6970M chips in the 15" Pros. I remember hearing a while back that some video producers bought 2011s, and set them up to do distributed rendering using their GPUs in a rack. Not sure how efficient that was, but an interesting use nonetheless.
Welp, there it is... it was only a matter of time before my 2012 Mini would fall off the Upgrade Path.
But not looking to upgrade any time soon. This thing is a beast, especially since I put two SSDs inside. Pays for itself practically every single day.
But not looking to upgrade any time soon. This thing is a beast, especially since I put two SSDs inside. Pays for itself practically every single day.
I think this is a bad move for Apple for dropping older hardware for macOS, they need to keep all 64 bit Macs running Intel chips up to date until macOS is discontinued for the x86.
So when the "Snow Leopard" for ARM is released, the x86 will not receive that version just as the PowerPC G5 didn't receive Snow Leopard.
So when the "Snow Leopard" for ARM is released, the x86 will not receive that version just as the PowerPC G5 didn't receive Snow Leopard.
I have the 2012 iMac also, hyper-threaded core i7, 680MX gpu...performs great on Catalina, probably still outperforms any newer Macs using integrated Intel graphics...programmed obsolescence...I CALL SHENANIGANS! 😩...If Apple were ice cream, they’d be pralines and dick.
RIP to my 2012 non-retina MBP. One of the best MacBooks ever made. On the repairability/upgradability level
I'm also curious as to what the "cut-off" reasons for this specific collection of unsupported Macs are (especially the Late 2013 iMacs seem to not fit in), but "pLAnNeD ObsOLeSceNCe" certainly isn't one.
That's simply not a thing with Apple; if it was, why would Big Sur support the 2013 MBA that was discontinued long before the (unsupported) late 2013 iMacs were? Why would iPadOS 14 continue to support the ancient iPad Air 2?
Now we could go full conspiracy theorist and claim they're doing that all just so people don't suspect planned obsolescence, but that would be plain silly...
Last edited:
