DiddyParty
Suspended
I regret getting rid of my M1 MBP at 5 years. It worked fine, the 8GB RAM started feeling slow after AI. M4 32/2TB is a nice machine but I could have expected ~7 from that.
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.
Think the m1 models will be supported for quite awhile yet.
- Thread starter Onlyuseapple
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
BigMcGuire
macrumors G4
I may be biased but I’m hoping my M1 Max with 64GB of ram will last longer than most… <cough>.
scrapesleon
macrumors 68000
Why do you have three similarly powerful and priced macbooks?
ThrawnTHX
macrumors member
Hmmm, the sluggishness of Tahoe on my M4 Max is pretty objective and measurable by the increased length of time to launch apps. If they don't trim the software fat soon, I'll be sticking exclusively to Linux.
headlessmike
macrumors 68000
Sounds like something is wrong with your machine or installation. I have two M1 Macs and they both handle Sequoia and Tahoe, let alone Sonoma, with ease, and I do push them quite hard by running molecular simulations and analyzing large datasets tens of GB in size. I remember Sequoia feeling faster than Sonoma, so perhaps it would be worthwhile for you to update? And in my experience and testing, Tahoe is no slower than Sequoia.
throAU
macrumors G4
Some time.
Put it this way, i can still download and run old versions of apps in some cases (and in some cases, current versions of apps) for my Trashcan despite it going end of support a couple of years ago.
There are some things that won’t run on it due to being Apple Silicon only, but if you’re talking about apps you already own, you’ve got several years yet.
Steve Adams
macrumors 68020
Ok, I had my 2007 macbook white and in 2013 I could not even use safari or Chrome on it. They would not update to the newest version. I had to go and side load chromium to make it work. This is why I ask. That's only 6 years and that system was no longer usable really. I just made sort of work.
So the time frames that these systems work has been pushed farther out by the sounds of it.
throAU
macrumors G4
I’ll go one better and say macOS 28, but who knows. The M1 Pro/Max series were about 1 year behind the M1 base (2021). and in general apple tend to give OS support for 7 years, so… there’s nothing inherent to the M1 Pro/Max that would make them capable of running an OS that the M1 base can not.
EugW
macrumors P6
Historically speaking, macOS 28 seems unlikely for the M1 non-Pro/Max/Ultra. However, if Apple decides to give its own Apple Silicon machines an advantage here then macOS 28 is possible. I don’t see why they would though because they’ve been selling Apple Silicon for eons already in the A-series chips.
throAU
macrumors G4
I think the one reason may be that the higher end M1 chips were delayed during the COVID era, and it will be much simpler to say “M1 supported/not supported” than “M1 is supported but only pro/max”; ultimately the chips in that family all have the same feature set.
EugW
macrumors P6
I don’t think that will matter at all. The Pro/Max/Ultra all came out much later, nearly a full year later for the Pro and Max, and almost 1.5 years later for the Ultra.
Shirasaki
macrumors P6
Maybe your workflow lines up better with apple silicon and macOS design than mine. Meanwhile I keep 10 finder windows open, with 15 safari tabs, 10 chrome tabs, one edge Facebook tab all open simultaneously. I also keep word and excel open to do the work, as well as opening photoshop from time to time. I don’t know how this workload is harder to run compared to your molecular simulations, and just navigating around can cause so much lag on my end.
tenthousandthings
Contributor
I don’t think the M1 Pro/Max and Ultra were delayed. That launch was on time — macOS Monterey was always designed/intended to be the initial OS for those products, and they launched alongside it. All the earlier M1 releases were on Big Sur. They will be the first to be left behind by macOS, but I think it’s possible Apple silicon will allow for an additional year or two of maintenance releases, instead of the current practice of two years (if I’m not mistaken).
In addition, I think you’re underestimating the heavy lift that was the development of the M1 Pro/Max/Ultra. The M1 is basically just an A14X — something Apple had been doing for a long time. There are two tiers of M-series silicon, and there always have been. It’s even more evident today, with Fusion Architecture setting M5 Pro/Max apart from the A18 Pro and M5.
Mac people switching to Linux are the exception, I doubt Apple is afaid of that. If buyers find an entry level Mac like the Neo no longer good enough, most will just buy a better one or even an air down the line. Win for Apple.
No, not "obsolete (completely unsupported) in about 7 years." We agree that support generally ends in 7 years, but software security updates usually (maybe always, IDK) extend for ~another couple of years. So a Mac can typically just run normally for ~8-10 years.
It is usually other things that realistically drive Macs to end-of-life. For me it has always been RAM that drove me to buying a new Mac laptop in 6-7 years, even though I always start with maximum available RAM on board. Other users may key to display improvements, better WiFi, improved i/o, whatever.
The OP mentioned 8 GB RAM on a MBN. IMO only users with very limited finances intending minimalist apps (e.g. Office, email, web) and negligible multitasking should even consider lame 8 GB RAM on a new Mac in 2026. Instead paying +$400 for an M4 or M5 MBA is a far better value.
Last edited:
It is not about the (creepy) ISPs, it is about the modems in public spaces. As they get upgraded over time, users with more modern laptop WiFi can achieve much better connectivity.
Interesting thought. Personally I think Apple will/must let 8 GB users simply lose smoothness and speed due to the lame 8 Gb they chose to purchase. The OS will always facilitate basic single-app work being done under 8 GB RAM for the next ~7+ years, but very quickly multi-tasking will no longer be smooth.
You need to qualify your commentary by how much RAM your iPads have on board. The operational question is totally different with Macs that can be configured with lots more RAM. MBNs with 8 GB are very RAM-lame in a laptop world of up to 128 GB RAM, minimum 16 GB for all but MBN.
EugW
macrumors P6
WiFi connectivity is about the last thing I care about, as long as it works. In fact, my entire house is still on WiFi 5, because it really doesn’t matter after a certain point. Security on the internet connection is fine because the actual router is up to date, but all the access points are 6th generation 802.11ac AirPort Extremes, which were released in 2013.
Furthermore, even with my old laptops, WiFi connectivity hasn’t been a practical real world issue in the past decade.
IMO, Apple's software update policy is very reasonable. They typically support a Mac with new macOS versions for 5-6 years after they stop selling it, and provide security updates for another 1-2 years after that.
The couple of times I've kept a Mac as my primary machine beyond that, I was eventually forced to upgrade by some third party software package that needed the newer macOS. And, in each instance, once I upgraded, I thought, "I waited too long."
Time marches on. Technology improves.
The couple of times I've kept a Mac as my primary machine beyond that, I was eventually forced to upgrade by some third party software package that needed the newer macOS. And, in each instance, once I upgraded, I thought, "I waited too long."
Time marches on. Technology improves.
I've designed electronic products for 40 years. Software support for legacy products is expensive! As more new products are added, the compatibility testing effort grows geometrically. It's not just a matter of starting up successfully and calling it a day, there are detailed test procedures for every feature that have to be executed.
IMO, Apple's software support policy is a reasonable compromise that allows the vast majority of users to get a good life out of their products, without committing Apple to an expensive support burden.
And it's not just Apple. As long as Apple supports an older product, third party software vendors also have to support it, with a similar financial burden. That may not be a huge deal for a big company like Adobe or Microsoft, but it could be prohibitive for a small software shop.
For those who say "Apple is just trying to force us to buy new Macs", I'll retort that it's YOU who are trying to force APPLE, and their third-party developers, to expend resources to support old hardware without a valid business justification.
IMO, Apple's software support policy is a reasonable compromise that allows the vast majority of users to get a good life out of their products, without committing Apple to an expensive support burden.
And it's not just Apple. As long as Apple supports an older product, third party software vendors also have to support it, with a similar financial burden. That may not be a huge deal for a big company like Adobe or Microsoft, but it could be prohibitive for a small software shop.
For those who say "Apple is just trying to force us to buy new Macs", I'll retort that it's YOU who are trying to force APPLE, and their third-party developers, to expend resources to support old hardware without a valid business justification.
Happy_John
macrumors 68020
I very much agree - it’s third party app developers dropping support for older models / older OSes in new er versions of their apps that “forces” upgrades, not the version of MacOs / iOS / iPadOS itself.
People are far more likely to upgrade their device if Spotify or YouTube drops app support than they are bothered by the fact that their phone / iPad can’t get the latest OS version.
As too your second point, yes, I agree that overspending time and resources on providing legacy support to older hardware is not a sensible decision.for Apple, or any company in control of both hardware and software ( synology is another example).
The big question about the M1 based Macs is if dropping support will be necessary for Apple to do anytime soon. Obviously dropping intel support isa no-brained - offering lecący support for intel-dazed machines is extra work. But are the later versions of M chips so significantly different from the M1 chip that supporting them needs any extra legacy development? Providing legacy support for older Bluetooth or wi-fi chips isn’t enough work to justify dropping support in my opinion, and neither is the extra graphics features (ray-tracing) and ML support baked into later M chips isn’t enough- as these are not essential to the running of the OS itself.
Last edited:
EugW
macrumors P6
Well, for one thing the M1 MacBook Air is a completely different form factor, with different features. Same goes for the M1 MacBook Pro. Touch Bar anyone?