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.
macOS 26 Rumored to Drop Support for These Five Macs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What did you buy instead? If you had bought it earlier this year you would’ve gotten around 3 years of it being somewhat up to date (this and next year of current macOS versions and an extra year after support drops). I bought an m1 mba in January for about 400 bucks (it was almost brand new). I’m thinking of upgrading in the holidays or next year. For the price it’s a really good value.
I will buy an M4 MBA during the education promotion next month. I can partially write it off so unless I can get a proper receipt for it, I tend to avoid buying used machines. I had purchased an M3 open box from Best Buy with proper receipt a couple of months ago but I could not get Apple to give me the full warranty on it. Overall the price was not that much better (at least for specs that meet our needs) than the edu promotion, so without the full warranty, I just decided to return it and wait for the promotion.
And that's Windows 11 with its artificial hardware requirements cutting off support for a lot of hardware...
Scarier thought: let's say you had walked into a PC store on August 6, 2006. The day before the release of the Intel Mac Pro. You could (barely - availability was limited) have walked out with a 65nm Core 2 Duo running Windows XP that could have been upgraded to either 32-bit or 64-bit Windows 10 and get security updates all the way to 2025. (2028 if you pay Microsoft) 19 years later. Can still run any of the major web browsers, too - Chrome, Firefox, etc all run just fine on a C2D running Windows 10 AFAIK.
Meanwhile, if you walked into the Apple Store, you left with a Power Mac G5 that didn't get the OS upgrade from fall 2009 (Snow Leopard) and last got a minor OS update in 2011. Hasn't had a current major web browser for... well over a decade.
I love Macs, but longevity of software support is an argument for Windows. Longevity of hardware is a different story because toy Windows machines sold at Worst Buy don't last...
They dropped support for iPad Pro 10.5 which is faster than iPad they still support. I think m1 might last a bit longer due to marketing, but don't expect that long. Their decision process is not rational, never was.
Pretty sure that was for architectural reasons since the A10X was a beefed up A10, a SoC that dated back to 2016. The A11 in the iPhone X/8 was also cut off fairly early. A12 proved to be a stalwart since it was deployed over several years.
This is where Microsoft is better. My mom has gotten a warning message several times that the support for Windows 10 will end. Why can't Apple do this?:
Is that so hard? I've met people recently that run macOS High Sierra and had no idea that it's unsupported… Believe it or not, not everybody even upgrades their Macs even when it does support the new OS, because they had no idea that the new OS has been released. Same with many Windows users. My mom would have had no idea that Windows 10's support will end.
I think when people see messages like this, most of them think something like, "Oh, well I guess I'm just going to stay on Windows 10 now. At least I know...", meaning people will see these messages and "accept" that they're just not going to see updates. None of these messages have ever made people immediately go out and buy a new computer.
In Apple's case, not saying anything at all probably is better for their bottom line. Mac sales are probably pretty far down their list of money makers, so even introducing something like this might just be enough of a stir to mess up their numbers, probably in a bad way. While for Microsoft, their OS is on like 90% of the computers around the world. They can afford to just tell you to spend more money. Most of that money will be spent by large companies refreshing their worker's computers.
Based on discontinuation dates, the 2018 MBP was discontinued im 2019 and became "vintage" (5 years from discontinuation) in May 2024. The 2020 was discontinued in late 2020 and doesn't become "vintage" until late 2025. Meanwhile, according to everymac.com, some of the 2019 MBPs were only discontinued in 2021.
So I think "vintage" status could be one major factor in when something gets dropped - regardless of whether or not there are any technical reasons - and (I also suspect) a bit of keep-it-simple (so they can just say Supports <year> <MBA/MBP/iMac/Mini/Pro> rather than get into details over specific models).
The inconsistency there is that the i5 and i7 Mac Minis were still being sold in 2023, so it's going to be mid-2028 before those become "vintage" - but I guess only Apple know how many they actually sold (esp. in non-US countries where there is some limited obligation to provide service & support for up to 5-6 years) - and it might be a case of "keep it simple".
Of course, the "supported" list could change - for better or worse - with the final release.
On the other hand, does Microsoft actually have a basis for warning a.n.other user that doom will prevail if they don't run a supported OS - or are they actually trying to drive new PC sales?
To put it another way - what horrible security flaws are lurking in unsupported MacOS versions that should concern a typical user? (as opposed to someone working in a more security-critical environment who has more of a responsibility to keep informed).
Also, a couple of things to bear in mind about Windows:
1. Regular updates are automatic and, essentially, compulsory (you have to jump through a lot of non-user-friendly hoops to permanently skip forced updates - especially with the "home" editions of Windows which lack "enterprise" features such as not having your work interrupted at a vitral moment by an update which risks crashing your machine). So, these "uninformed" users will be used to security updates being installed automatically, which will stop when Windows 10 EOLs.
2. Windows version numbers don't/didn't work the same way as MacOS version numbers. Windows 10 looks like it has had 10 years of continual support but it has seen a lot of major updates in that time that could easily have been billed as Windows 11/12/13). Even Windows 95/XP/etc. had "service packs" every year or two that would have counted as major MacOS releases - you'd see "Requires Windows XP Service Pack 2" or later on software requirements.
3. When Windows 10 came out MS actually said that they were going to stick with the "Windows 10" name from then on with incremental updates (which was absolutely not, in any way, influenced by Apple's policy for naming Mac OS X... /s). Launching something called "Windows 11" was actually a major U-turn (which was absolutely not, in any way, influenced by Apple's policy change for naming Mac OS 11 onwards... /s)
(Why do I think that "Windows 2027" will be making an appearance very, very soon...
To be fair, we've had Windows 95/98/2000 in the past...)That's an "or not" from me, I'm afraid. In my experience the "Upgrade to MacOS 'McArthur BART Station'" notifications start coming the millisecond Apple releases - and at least 3 months before anybody who uses their Mac for anything remotely important should consider upgrading. I even have to decline the "Upgrade to NewShiny" option in Software Update to install updates to an older, supported OS.
Now, "Saw the notifications and ignored them" vs. "Heard about the Windows 11 update because it was a once-in-a-decade event and the great wailing and gnashing of teeth made it to the mainstream media headlines" I can believe.
I really, really wish that Apple would stop this cycle of "if it works its obsolete" annual MacOS releases consisting of eye candy, gimmick features nobody asked for along with a metric shedload of bugs (because they don't have the capacity to properly test and fix a major OS revision every year) - please, please give us "Snow Sequoia" with no new features, all the bugs fixed and long-term-support it for 5 years. If only. But, believe me, the way Windows handles updates is not the way to go - their forced updates regularly break people's systems, or at least interrupt people's work. I've seen IT professionals with extensive tech knowledge get knobbled by broken updates.
But... if you build too much complacency, you end up with the XP/Vista debacle. XP was around too long, became too stable/mature (compared to every other Windows OS before it), people forgot about compatibility issues in the early day of an OS, etc. Then Vista comes along, wasn't particularly bad by new-version-of-Windows standards, but everybody had just forgotten what the first year of a new Windows OS was like and they ran away screaming says 'Vista sucks, it doesn't work with X/Y/Z, I don't want this garbage, just give me my beloved XP'.
Looking back with almost two decades' hindsight, the Windows platform never recovered from that. XP ends up supported until 2014, no one adopts the new developer frameworks in Vista/7. Windows reached a point where developers cannot use any of the new APIs in, say, Windows 10 until Windows 7 has gone EOL because no third-party software can afford to not run on a Windows version until its EOL. (And then Microsoft made this worse with Windows 11 by saying to owners of then-four-year-old hardware they couldn't upgrade). Really, people stop developing new Windows software entirely. Chrome becomes the new OS. Windows becomes just this thing on which you run Chrome and Electron and 'legacy' code bases.
So... while I agree Apple's annual releases could be better, I think the annual OS cycle avoids complacency. Everybody involved in the Mac ecosystem knows there are new OS upgrades every year, everybody knows they are adopted quickly, etc. Forces the third party ecosystems to stay in sync with the OS development. Much better than nothing for 3-5 years, then a Big Huge OS upgrade that generates huge backlash.
Except stability/maturity is generally a good and important thing unless you have a really good case for breaking it - and why should there be such serious compatibility issues at launch of a product developed by an organisation with the massive resources of Microsoft?
Vista should have been an easy launch compared to Windows XP which (for most people who hadn't been using the server/workstation-oriented NT or 2000) was the big switch from DOS-derived 95/98/ME to the all-new NT line. Vista faced one serious hurdle - having to apply a stricter security model than XP, resulting in endless "password" prompts when running XP or pre-NT software - but that was far from the only reason that people hated it.
Sure, the Vista hate got a bit disproportionate once it became a self-fuelling "story", but the reality is still that it failed to provide enough attractive new features to persuade the punters to put up with the teething problems or justify the significant expense of testing and rolling out a major OS upgrade (for serious/business/enterprise users).
As for the new APIs - if you expect developers to write software for new APIs for a new OS that nobody uses yet because there is no software that takes advantage of its new APIs then you are heading for disappointment. If you can't backport the new APIs to the established OS so that they can be easily installed.
In any case, Windows XP had multiple significant updates during its 6-year run, including two "service packs", so it's really not equivalent to a single major MacOS release. Also, from 2003 (Panther) to Lion (2011) Mac OS was on an approx. 18-month-to-2-year release cycle - which included "Snow Leopard", largely a clean-up release with few new features. The current annual treadmill for MacOS ionly really started in 2013.
The other problem with Vista (onwards) and current MacOS is that they're pushed out as the default more or less on day one (although MS have had to roll that back a couple of times). If you look at the major OS changes (i.e. shifting the user-base to what is a completely new OS) in the past they both had "soft" starts - both started as server OSs, then became options for people who needed the features - or just felt adventurous - and went through several revisions before they shipped as default to mainstream users (Windows NT 1/2/3/4/2000. Mac OS X Beta/10.0/10.1) and were often dual-booted in the early years.
These were simply a quaint scare tactic from Microsoft to juice sales. They could be PC sales, they used to be Windows upgrades though even now it’s difficult to explain why the average Windows 10 user should upgrade besides security updates. As such, Win11 has been fairly disappointing from a sales standpoint. Thankfully for Microsoft they evolved their business model beyond dependence on OS licenses.
By the time such a message above would show up, the (typically home) user would consult with the family geek for advice. You don’t see this in corporate or enterprise environments because of the shorter normal PC buying cycle. OTOH, besides the family geek a Mac user has the Apple Store for his/her convenience. But that gets to Microsoft’s reputation for nagging its users. That’s not Apple’s MO, probably will never be. And it led many Windows users to switch to Macs or even iPads.
Vista has a couple more hurdles, like the launch of a new driver model, the new 3D-based graphics engine that didn't run on most Intel integrated graphics, etc. And it doesn't help that you have the 32/64-bit transition in there too - certainly handing an ordinary consumer a 64-bit preload in 2007 would have been a recipe for disaster. They plug in their printer that had 32-bit XP drivers and... then what? But apparently some large OEMs did do 64-bit Vista preloads in 2007.
The problem, perhaps, is that Microsoft expected a repeat of the glory days of the second half of the 1990s. Certainly in 1996 plenty of people released software that required Windows 95, and if you didn't have Windows 95, too bad so sad, go and upgrade or buy a new PC. People used to want/need the new OS because third-party software had desirable new versions that only ran on the new OS. And the new OS needed better hardware and it created this loop.
But what happened with Vista is that everybody basically said. "Stop. My XP machine was good enough. The software that runs on it is good enough. The peripherals that I have plugged into it that have XP drivers are good enough. I am tired of handing over thousands of dollars every 3-4 years for new computers/accessories/etc. Enough is enough."
I don't think it's about UAC prompts or i915 graphics or any single thing like that, it was more a generalized "I've had enough of this. My XP machines work. Stop taking my money and giving me something that works less well today."
And, with two decades of hindsight, that was the end of innovation on the Windows platform.
More importantly, it led to a culture where you view your OS version as a choice. As soon as a new OS is seen as a choice rather than inevitability, you're on a path that doesn't end well for the platform. People start demanding that Dell/Lenovo/etc preload systems with the old OS. They start insisting that new third-party software run on the old OS. And the thing is - it's almost impossible in the OS X/NT/etc days for a new OS to be materially better on day one such that people actually want it. It was different in the 90s when all the OSes that ran on affordable hardware were architecturally flawed. So... in effect, everything stagnates.
This, I might add, is one of Apple's great strengths with their transitions. Because they control the hardware and the software, they can create inevitability. In many cases, your 'choice' of macOS version is set by the availability of hardware. Adobe can't say "oh, sorry, it'll take six months to support Sequoia" because, guess what, the new machines that will be the only machines available at retail a month later will only run Sequoia. Developers can't say 'oh we only support Intel Macs' when you can't buy new Intel Macs. So everybody needs to stay on-board with the newest OSes, the newest APIs, the newest everything. The only example I can think of of a Mac vendor who tried to do otherwise was Quark, and they blew up their own business by continuing to ship software only for the classic OS too late.
As a resident family geek, I... would have liked to think... that I would have implemented a plan to get machines under my watch on supported OSes before anybody got one of those popups from Microsoft. Don't family geeks do lifecycle planning?!? (Hell, I have spent the last five years telling my mom that her 2020 Intel MacBook Pro would have a shorter-than-normal lifecycle due to the Apple Silicon transition...)
Also, for the record, those popups tend to create more confusion than anything. People don't understand the concept of software lifecycles, security updates, etc.
But I do think that the idea remains a good one - someone could have an iPad running a 5 year old OS today and Apple doesn't tell them in any way that this is a security problem.
My twin brother, who is not a geek, got a M1 MacBook Air in Fall 2023, three years after I got the same machine and a year after I switched to M2. His previous machine was a 2013 MacBook Pro. Normals will go at their own pace. He asked me one day if that was a good time to buy and I said “absolutely.” That’s the extent of the advice I gave him.
No the real reason why A10X iPads didn’t get iPadOS 18 but the 7th Gen iPad did is because since the GOAT iPad, the iPad Air 2 getting 7 major OS Updates since iOS 8.1, the Pro lineup also ( for now) is getting 7 major OS Updates alongside the Air 3/Mini 5 which is also going to get iPadOS 26 and they came out with iOS 12 same as A12X iPads however for the budget iPad lineup it’s a different story. Ever since the 5th Gen iPad budget iPads get at least 5 major OS Updates alongside they’re release dates which will cut off the 7th Gen iPad this year since it was released in 2019 and the 8th Gen iPad from next year at the same time ( random but that iPad is the last iPad to get iPadOS 26 with 32GB of storage)
So yeah that’s the real reason A10X iPads didn’t get iPadOS 18. At the same time despite being revealed in 2018 a year after the second Gen iPad Pro the 2nd GOAT iPad Pro 3rd Gen came out with iOS 12 compared to iOS 10 for the second Gen iPad Pro
If anyone is getting rid of Macs that are no longer gonna be supported, I’m happy to recycle them for you
Except if it was that simple Apple wouldn't be dropping the 2017 iMac Pro, 2018 Mac Mini, 2019 iMac, and 2020 MacBook Air all in one release. OS support is more like 6 years +/- 2 years = 4-8 years, which is a pretty wide range.
Then while Apple releases the iPhone, etc updates as giant binaries for each device, they haven't historically done that for macOS (maybe they're doing that now for the latest but it seems unnecessary for just this reason). I can build a macOS USB installer that runs on any supported (at least Intel) Mac. Honestly, it would seem a poor excuse for Apple to say the benefit of them controlling the full stack of hardware and software is that they drop support for old hardware sooner because otherwise it would be too many permutations to deal with when Microsoft, etc can support far more permutations of hardware (that they didn't even design in the first place) for more years. And it's not like this is asking Apple to support new hardware -- this is software/drivers they already developed and have supported/tested for years previously.
Also, while hardware support is a bit more predictable, it isn't completely either. The Mac Pro (Late 2013) is still not Vintage while several models of MacBook Pro (2019) went Vintage months ago if not years. Though interestingly that Mac Pro was dropped from macOS Ventura while it appears that the MacBook Pro will still be supported. So it does not appear that Apple forces a link between hardware and software support.
Not that I am complaining about the extended hardware and/or software support for any machine. But rather highlighting it's something of a guessing game every year. Which is where I believe both Apple and end-users/buyers would benefit from more transparency in the expected lifespan of new machines and the inevitable decision to drop support as the previous poster suggested.
well there is always opencore legacy patcher. Got my mid 2012 macbook 15 pro running Mac OS Sonoma just fine. Everything works excepts iphone mirroring.
OpenCore Legacy Patcher won't help once Apple stops compiling macOS for Intel...
I agree it's a guessing game, but I think some of the factors can be discerned:
1) how long something was on the market... doesn't really matter. Decision is based more on when a model was launched rather than when it was discontinued.
2) higher-end machines tend to get a little bit more software support than Air/mini class machines
3) machines that, subjectively, you get the sense they like get more software support than machines they feel like they were forced to make. Hence one reason for the iMac Pro's long viability - you get the sense that true believers in the Jobs philosophy of built-in monitors just love that thing...
Agree though more disappointment than shock at this point...
And I don't just say this as someone who likes his 2020 Intel MacBook Air. I wasn't expecting indefinite support but I thought it would be supported at least as long as the iMac 2020 or even the Mac Pro 2019 (which I assume will be the last Intel Mac supported before all Intel support is removed).
Agree and one of the things holding me back from abandoning the Intel Macs at this point is the lack of an escape valve. It's pretty amazing what Asahi Linux has done but it's not quite there for a daily driver and of course there is the issue of commercial software support.
It looks like Emory Hospital is trying out an all-Mac ecosystem which blows my mind in many ways but such situations do remain the exception. The challenge I have with macOS from an enterprise perspective is the current annual upgrade treadmill. In theory each OS version is supported for 3 years but not really.
First, recent releases would be more accurately labeled 'alpha' from an enterprise perspective. Sure they work for some people but they are not feature complete and you never know when an incremental upgrade will just blow up the Java runtime environment or something like that. That used to be the definition of an alpha release. From an enterprise perspective, the first year of a macOS release is cannon-fodder
By the 2nd year things are looking stable but then don't expect bug fixes as Apple only likes to do those to the active release. Then while there are security updates, Apple implies (but is rarely explicit) that only the active release gets all security updates.
Then stepping back and looking at this from an ongoing process perspective, one can't stay on each OS for 3 years. If an enterprise starts out on an N-1 release for the reasons above, it can stay in on it for at most 2 years. But if it does that that means I can only stay on that next release for 1 year and so forth. So it basically forces enterprises onto a major OS update treadmill -- either an annual cycle with upgrades to the N-1 release every year or bi-annually by staying on a release for two years and then skipping alternating versions assuming new hardware purchases don't require the latest OS (or they don't mind running a mixed version environment).
Might that be: OpenCore Legacy Patcher won't help once Apple stops booting macOS for Intel without T2 security chip. I hope not.