My two cents is that Apple's policy of supporting the most recent three OSes is fine. BUT, we do not need new OSes every year. The only thing I needed Sonoma to do was to fix the instability that Ventura and Monterey introduced to make Big Sur (which, for what it was, was plenty stable) worse. I didn't need Sequoia. There's nothing it introduced that I needed. Yet, it's here and it's what Apple is providing the most security support for. When macOS 16 or 26 or whatever Apple is going to version it as comes out, I'm almost positive, it will introduce no feature that I will have been in any kind of need for. And yet, it will drop support from otherwise functional Intel Macs for no reason other than it being New-OS-o'clock.
People keep trying to make this thread about hardware repair and warranty support. That's not what it's about. It's about using perfectly functional Mac computers on the Internet for as long as possible.
And the only reason why any Mac (other than maybe butterfly-keyboard MacBook Pros and 2018 through 2020 Intel MacBook Airs) shouldn't be supported is that Apple decided to put out a drastically new OS that no one asked for that dropped support for it.
If Apple, instead, based hardware support for an operating system on a fixed schedule, that'd be one thing. And I'd respect it. But, for now, it's just a game of "which Macs meet the minimum requirements for this year's new OS". And while the new OSes have nothing to offer other than being what Apple is supporting, it really doesn't do much to combat notions of planned obsolescence.
Hardware does not become obsolete nor useless nor insecure for practical use because security updates are no longer available for versions of macOS. Web browser security is more worrisome. An uncle of mine uses a 2014 MacBook Air with Big Sur + Firefox (latest) + Apple Mail and has never once had malware or virus. And his knowledge of computers can fit in a thimble.
Ignoring Safari is helpful when you're dealing with an OS that old. But it's not going to completely save you from every security hole. I don't care how knowledgeable or unknowledgeable you are or aren't about computers, it's still not a good idea. Apple Mail can also be a security vector too.
I don't think most Mac users really think about software support the way that the PC and enterprise spaces generally do. Not getting security updates really is important. Sure, if you air-gap your computer, you can keep it running indefinitely. Load a 2019 16-inch MacBook Pro up with a ton of professional grade software (none of which requires the Internet) and it'll still be a viable tool for several years after Apple gives it its final security update. But go online with something like that and you'll always be putting yourself at risk.
Out of curiosity, why did you buy an Intel iMac two years after the introduction of Apple Silicon?
I can think of quite a few reasons to do this. Considering there is still no other hardware out there that can virtualize and natively boot x86 versions of Windows, Linux, and macOS other than an Intel Mac, that would seem to give it some utility. Now, given that it's 2025, and given that we're quite a ways past 9th and 10th Generation Intel, an Intel Mac is probably not the best way to enjoy x86-64 Windows. One is probably way better off on a PC from after the point where Apple stopped producing new Intel Macs.
Legacy compatibility with older macOS releases that never existed on Apple Silicon (even if only running on VMware Fusion) is another good reason. Niche as all hell, sure.
In what sense is it "ridiculous" then?
Every machine capable of running Windows 7 can run Windows 10 today.
"can run" and "should run" are different, especially when it comes to Windows 10. Manufacturers only really produced Windows 10 drivers from the Ivy Bridge (Mid 2012) era and onwards. You could technically install Windows 10 on Sandy Bridge and earlier machines. But you are chancing that your Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 drivers will remain perfectly compatible in Windows 10. For that reason, I don't even consider anything earlier than Ivy Bridge to be even Windows 10 viable. I just look for old Linux distros at that point or just chuck it into e-waste.
your 2011 acer is not officially supported by current windows 10
current windows 10 support goes back to Broadwell, which is 2015
windows 10 support ends in October
so 10 years support. not 25 years that's for sure
Ivy Bridge, if we're talking drivers. Haswell is perfectly supported too. I wouldn't go earlier than Ivy Bridge for any form of Windows 10, however.
That being said, an Ivy Bridge machine could've been purchased as early as 2012 and it will have gotten security updates until 2025. 13 years of support. The best Apple ever provided was support for its own Ivy Bridge and Haswell Macs at 9 years of security patches.
The problem is this:
You can
- have proper hardware level security from boot loader level malware
- or you can have easily usable third party boot loaders.
You can't have both.
Apple chose #1
Umm...Secure Boot would suggest otherwise. And while Apple's implementation of it on T2 Macs was way more stringent than (a) was necessary and (b) was done by any other UEFI-based PC in the industry, it still allowed for both to happen.
Apple might've wanted Apple Silicon to eschew UEFI in favor of iBoot. But that doesn't mean that (a) it had to and (b) it couldn't have implemented some kind of compatibility layer for UEFI in the way that UEFI did for legacy BIOS (thereby enabling Windows 7, Vista, and XP on 2006-2012 Intel Macs).
