BornAgainMac
macrumors 604
Yeah, the M5 is just like M1 with lipstick and faster.
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 27 Will Mark the End of an Era
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Currently - maybe not, but other vendors are getting criticised. There has been a great wailing and gnashing of teeth because Microsoft dropped some relatively recent machines from Win11. Google have responded to criticism by promising 7 years of updates on new Pixel devices (you'd have to c.f. that with Apple's track record on iPhone which isn't under fire here).
Certainly, in the past, more than 5 years of compatible, critical updates has been common.
I was recently playing with a 2010 Sony Vaio laptop which had been happily running Windows 10 and getting security updates until got repeatedly broken by MS forced updates in late 2024 (which could probably have been fixed by a clean re-install). Yes, it was a bit of a joke for the last few years, but it got a good 10 years useful life with security updates, and the hardware was outdated long before the last compatible operating system got EOLd. I'm sure the same will apply to a lot of 10-year-old PC hardware up till the end of Windows 10.
(I actually stuck a repurposed SSD in it and installed Linux & it is still perfectly good for browsing, emal, WP etc. and would be fine for light photo work if using GIMP wasn't like kicking a dead whale along a beach).
...and while it's not quite the same thing, Ubuntu LTS releases get 5 years of free security updates (c.f. ~3 for MacOS) and another 5-10 years of paid extended support (with free concessions for non-commercial use).
Even by Apple standards:
The 2017 iMac - discontinued early 2019 - got it's last compatible update (Ventura 13.7.8) in August 2025. That's over 6 years.
My old 2011 MBP, discontinued late 2011, got its last update (High Sierra 10.13.6) in late 2020 - 9 years of support.
So, 5 years from the discontinuation of the Intel Mac Pro and iMac -> no critical updates may not be the end of the world, but it's nothing to celebrate.
PowerPC effectively dropped Apple by dead-ending MacBook Pros at G4.
Maybe they shouldn't have dropped 68k...
Heck, 6502 ruled!
They actually contemplated moving to ARM back in the late 1980s ("project Mobius" - sorry, can't find a good link) which would have saved a lot of time (although they'd still have had to deal with the evolution from 24 -> 32 -> 64 bit).
We’d still be waiting for a new laptop!!
It would seem that Intel Macs also use temperal dithering, as well as amd and nvidia
Last edited:
That is very much a Linux thing, which encourages its use within industry, since bleeding edge is mainly for the geeks and tinkerers. The problem with that for Apple is that it encourages users to defer upgrading the hardware, which is Apple's bread and butter. It does not sell the OS any more and just about all of its software offerings are just to keep its customers within the Apple ecosystem and to want to upgrade fairly swiftly to the latest and greatest shiny new thing.
macfacts
macrumors 603
because there's a lot of optimizations and driver support needed for Intel CPUs? and apple silicon keeps it simple?
I like this idea -- Intel and otherwise. These yearly releases are like alpha versions until x.4 and then barely qualify as beta by the time the next annual update comes out. Mojave should have been an LTS. Sequoia (or I would have preferred Monterey...) should have been an LTS. Let me get my work done for 3-4 years without hassle and then I'll invest in a fully baked OS that I can sit on for another 3-4 years.
I assume you are being sarcastic but either way for others following: the M5 is quite a bit more advanced than the M1 including Memory Integrity Enforcement that I'm guessing Apple would like to make a baseline of all their supported CPU sooner rather than later. Apple Silicon also gained the ARMv9.2-A instruction set starting with the M4.
Not that the M1 is a bad processor. I have one right next to me and it's more than fast enough for productivity work.
However, I will be surprised if Apple retains support for the MacBook Air M1 and similar in macOS 28. Apple has a de facto policy of dropping support for hardware based on release age and model tier (e.g. non-Pro versus Pro) rather than hardware specs/capability. For years they've been dropping support for Intel-based hardware well before the hardware couldn't keep up. Less anyone thinks things will be different with Apple Silicon, Apple has applied similar policies to OS support for old iPhones and iPads for years as well.
P.S.Newer systems have also had numerous other architectual improvements (or at least changes) along the way -- many of which are hidden from us but more visible to those following Asahi Linux's reverse engineering of Apple Silicon. As such, I could see Apple wanting to drop support for some old design decisions sooner or later. Again not that I am support of that happening sooner but rather will not be surprised if it does.
Last edited:
Well, it was also a Windows thing until Windows 11.
Except... it would not stop Apple releasing annual "bleeding edge" versions that needed - or took advantage of - new hardware. Several of the last MacOS releases have included Apple Silicon-only features.
Forcing major updates doesn't necessarily make customers happy & incites them to try other platforms. (I think Apple missed a trick by not having the Neo ready for Windows 10 EOL date last October).
It would be a bit of a sad comment on Apple's new hardware if they could only sell it by obsoleting old models (and I don't think that's the case - I don't think Liquid Glass is what caused the Neo to sell out!)
We're only talking about maybe 5 years of updates rather than the current 3. Even committing to the 3 years (or formally including critical updates in the vintage/obsolete system) would be a start.
raythompsontn
macrumors 65816
I did not see it the first time I used TurboTax. I don't see it every day. I have seen the message twice since updating to MacOS 26.4 and beyond. I had already filed my taxes and just needed to check the figure on one form.
I have been using TT since the days of DOS on a PC, probably 35+ years. I acquired a MAC a couple of years ago but still have my Windows machine on which I use TT. I decided to install TT on the MAC to see what it is like. I personally like the Windows version of TT more than the Mac version. That may just be "muscle memory" and stuck in the way that I am used to using a software package.
I would think that Intuit would have a native "M" version for the MAC by tax time next. That is a large audience to lose.
What's the conspiracy theory? Apple dropping support for M1 computers after macOS 27 seems like reasonable prediction based on de facto policy as inferred from past behavior.
Then given current iPhone-like (e.g. IPSW) distribution mechanism, I certainly would not count on anyone finding a way to hack support for old Apple Silicon hardware into releases that drop support for it.
That’s already the plan.
iOS 27 Will Reportedly Be Like Mac OS X Snow Leopard
In his Power On newsletter today, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman reiterated that iOS 27 will be similar to 2009's Mac OS X Snow Leopard, in the sense that one of Apple's biggest priorities is bug fixes for improved performance and stability. During WWDC 2008's State of the Union, Apple showed a slide...
www.macrumors.com
Past behaviour? Generally speaking MacOS provides 7 years support from a processor first launch. So macOS 28 ( which is released in 27 ) continues to support M1 seems like reasonable.
In my experience, they don’t stop supporting processors, they stop supporting computers. And it’s not based on when they start selling a model, it’s when it’s replaced. And, the rule seems to be, the last macOS is the version that’s released five years after they stop selling the computer.
So, for example, the original M1 MBP was replaced in 2022, so it’s reasonable to expect that macOS 27 will be the last one to support that hardware. Other M1 based models stayed in production for longer, so they will be supported longer.
this is key
It was often missing cpu instructions sets that largely determined which Intel Macs lost support any given year
(Despite the impression one might get from these forums that it the decisions were always malicious and/or random)
This actually makes m4 a really good buy as it will likely be a cutoff at some point in the future
boppin
Suspended
Honestly, I couldn't use an Intel Mac productively here anymore, for example for printing. Since we got fiber optic internet and a mesh network, the old devices just can't handle it. The old printer thinks it sees three networks with the same SSID, and so does the old MacBook Pro.
I don't think that's far off - but I doubt you're going to find a reliable rule. E.g. the 2019 Mac Pro was replaced in mid-2023 and is being dropped in MacOS 27 (i.e. 2026). That's more like 3 years. The i5/i7 "pro" Minis were only discontinued in 2023 and dropped from Tahoe in 2025. Obviously dropping Intel was always going to be a hard line... (Methinks the Intel Mac Pro and i5/i7 Minis may have hung around longer than intended...)
I think you got it right first time - models are discontinued because they have an inconvenient feature Possibly, with Apple Silicon, it will be a bit more consistent as there are less CPU/GPU variants (in the Intel days, almost every Mac model used a different Intel CPU model) and more of the functionality is now built into the SoC. (Someone speculated that the TouchBar MBPs might be next on the hit-list - not sure that there are many other 'unique' features like that),
Cell would have worked, Pa Semi CPUs would have worked, some Motorola chips. Though PowerBook G5 Quad was indeed unlikely LOL
Macaholic868
Contributor
Those of us who liked the ability to dual boot do. I still have my 5K 2017 27” iMac with a decent (for its time) AMD Radeon Pro graphics card that I used to dual boot into Windows to use certain Windows only apps I needed to use for work and to play Counter-Strike and a few other games.
I’ve since moved it downstairs as a family / guest computer that anybody can hop on to use if they need to. It’s using OLCP to run Sequoia and it runs at fairly good speeds plus you can still boot it into Windows if you need to or if you prefer Windows 11. It’s runs Windows 11 25H2 just fine.
When Apple killed the 27” line and moved to Apple Silicon I waited for a few years and got a nice M3 MacBook Pro, which I like, but I finally bit the bullet a year ago on a Windows based gaming rig so I could play the latest titles including Counter-Strike 2, and other titles no Mac port exists for that don’t run well on Crossover.
I do like my M3 MacBook Pro better for day to day computing tasks, and yes I use parallels to run a Windows 11 VM using the ARM version of the OS to use the Windows based apps I need to use for work, but it seems dumb for me to move from my desk where the gaming rig is now to the other desk where my MacBook Pro is just to browse the web, listen to my own music library or stream via Apple Music, use Office apps, etc.
So I very much miss Intel for the ability to dual boot alone but I understand exactly why Apple did what it did and if I were in their position I’d have done it too. Not only was Intel holding them back from a performance perspective, but from an engineering and power efficiency perspective, moving to an Apple designed ARM based processors for the Mac when all of their iPhones / iPads / Apple Watches / Apple TV’s, etc. already use Apple designed ARM processors was a no brainer.
Why have different engineering groups in-house supporting different processor architectures? It made little sense to continue to appease the tiny dual boot / Hackintosh crowd, the later of which they preferred had never existed in the first place.
Plus in their minds the have plenty of games you can play on Macs and on their other devices. Just not the vast majority of the best AAA titles, and they obviously have never really cared about that crowd.
If they did, with their money, they’d be paying developers to get them to port the very best AAA titles to the Mac if that was what was required to grow a healthy Mac AAA gamer base. It’s a chicken or the egg thing. Developers won’t port their best AAA titles to the Mac because they don’t think it’s worth the money for the sales they would do, but no serious AAA gamers will run MacOS alone because the best AAA titles aren’t available on the platform.
The only way to change that dynamic would be to pay them to and then try to actively attract enough serious gamers to the Mac so eventually enough run the platform that does makes financial sense for developers to keep porting their titles once Apple stops subsidizing them.
podycust
macrumors 6502a
Actually the term Universal Binaries was used for the PPC to Intel transition back in 2005 its not new for Intel to Apple silicon transition