Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!
  • Did you order new AirTags? We've opened a dedicated AirTags forum.

fisherking

macrumors G3
Jul 16, 2010
8,036
2,699
ny somewhere
I have a 2012 MacBook Pro Retina and according to what I can find on the web, the early 2013 MacBook Pro Retinas have the roughly the same internals except for the cpu model number. Everything else is the same, so I'm not sure why Apple would cut off the 2012 MacBook Pro Retinas. Is there something I'm missing here?

https://everymac.com/systems/apple/...tina-display-15-inch-early-2013-mid-2012.html

different processors, etc. apple did not update the macbook pro in 2013 with simply 'new cpu numbers'...
 
Comment

estabya

macrumors 6502
Jun 28, 2014
477
452
The early 2013 models use the same generation of CPUs (3XXX, Ivy Bridge) as the 2012 and neither is supported in Big Sur.

The late 2013 models use 4XXX, Haswell chips and are supported in Big Sur. Strangely, the 2013 iMacs with the same Haswell generation of CPUs is not supported.
 
Comment

SegNerd

macrumors regular
Feb 28, 2020
154
170
“That’s it”? You make it sound like 8 years of updates isn’t very much.

You know some Android devices are obsolete out of the box, right?

It’s difficult or impossible to get an exact number for Windows since there are so many different computers... but 8 years is pretty good.
 
Comment

Woodcrest64

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Aug 14, 2006
1,206
382
“That’s it”? You make it sound like 8 years of updates isn’t very much.

You know some Android devices are obsolete out of the box, right?

It’s difficult or impossible to get an exact number for Windows since there are so many different computers... but 8 years is pretty good.

very true. I more curious as to the technical side as to why the 2012 Macs are Not supported. LIke what does the 2012 Macs lack that would make supporting it an issue?
 
Comment

Merode

macrumors 6502a
Nov 5, 2013
619
542
Warszawa, Poland
very true. I more curious as to the technical side as to why the 2012 Macs are Not supported. LIke what does the 2012 Macs lack that would make supporting it an issue?
I don't think there's technical side to it. It's just the matter cost, really. They keep supporting devices for X years and I guess each release has to be tested on all devices that it supports. Each year there's more supported devices because new ones get released and they have to cut some oldies off, finally.

PS. You'll still get 2 years of security support on Catalina. So Apple supported this device software-wise for 10 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Woodcrest64
Comment

dmccloud

macrumors 68000
Sep 7, 2009
1,817
669
Anchorage, AK
When Catalina was released, it was the 2011 models that weren't supported. So it makes sense that 2012 models would lose support for Big Sur. One thing to keep in mind is that the more hardware devices you have to support, you also have that many potential flaws that can be exploited by malicious actors. This is one of the reasons Windows has so many security issues - many of the zero day flaws are related to drivers and/or API hooks for devices rather than the actual OS parts themselves. The other advantage of limiting support is that you can build a leaner OS by dropping support for older hardware that is arguably well past its prime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Woodcrest64
Comment

Rastafabi

macrumors 6502
Mar 12, 2013
313
147
Europe
It's actually not apples fault, that pre 2013 machines are not supported. It's Intels. Intel does not provide further microcode CPU updates for Ivy bridges CPUs. As this results into having an unpatchable security risk apples does not further provide OS updates. The same thing happened to the MacPro5,1 last year. This as well as Intel not being able to meet production goals (the 2016 era MacBook Pros were designed with lower TDP 10nm Intel chips in mind which were originally announced to be available in 2015) contributed to apple switching to their own CPUs.
 
Comment

estabya

macrumors 6502
Jun 28, 2014
477
452
It's actually not apples fault, that pre 2013 machines are not supported. It's Intels. Intel does not provide further microcode CPU updates for Ivy bridges CPUs. As this results into having an unpatchable security risk apples does not further provide OS updates. The same thing happened to the MacPro5,1 last year. This as well as Intel not being able to meet production goals (the 2016 era MacBook Pros were designed with lower TDP 10nm Intel chips in mind which were originally announced to be available in 2015) contributed to apple switching to their own CPUs.

This rationale does not explain why some Haswell based machines are supported and some aren’t.
 
Comment

Stephen.R

macrumors 68040
Nov 2, 2018
3,555
3,892
Thailand
When Catalina was released, it was the 2011 models that weren't supported. So it makes sense that 2012 models would lose support for Big Sur. One thing to keep in mind is that the more hardware devices you have to support, you also have that many potential flaws that can be exploited by malicious actors. This is one of the reasons Windows has so many security issues - many of the zero day flaws are related to drivers and/or API hooks for devices rather than the actual OS parts themselves. The other advantage of limiting support is that you can build a leaner OS by dropping support for older hardware that is arguably well past its prime.
2011 MBPs don’t get Mojave either. But your point is essentially correct. They don’t provide hardware or software support forever.
 
Comment

Rastafabi

macrumors 6502
Mar 12, 2013
313
147
Europe
This rationale does not explain why some Haswell based machines are supported and some aren’t.
No it does not indeed. And while this may not be the only consideration it is a legit one for sure. For instance DP1 still contains graphics drivers for 2012 machines, suggestion that they were meant to be supported just like last year the Mac Pro got firmware updates regularly right until Catalina was announced (coincidently just after intel drop support for these macs Xeon CPUs) even though it previously had been neglected for years.

Regarding the few unsupported Haswell machines (iMac early 2013) I consider them to be collateral damage as those still feature the same generation WiFi cards the 2012 ones have. To me it appears like if it’s just not economically feasible for Apple to maintain a full dedicated WiFi stack within an os for only one system.
 
Comment

simonmet

Cancelled
Sep 9, 2012
2,666
3,656
Sydney
“That’s it”? You make it sound like 8 years of updates isn’t very much.

You know some Android devices are obsolete out of the box, right?

It’s difficult or impossible to get an exact number for Windows since there are so many different computers... but 8 years is pretty good.

I meant to add that 7-8 years is indeed quite good. But in this case the OP is wondering why the 2012 retina MacBook Pro isn’t supported when there doesn’t seem to be a technical reason that makes the hardware incompatible.
 
Last edited:
Comment

azentropy

macrumors 68030
Jul 19, 2002
2,683
2,019
Surprise
For a while now Mac OS upgrades have been free. Because of that there is less incentive to support older hardware. The more models you support, the more regression testing that needs to be done. As others have pointed out 7-8 years is pretty dang good.
 
Comment

simonmet

Cancelled
Sep 9, 2012
2,666
3,656
Sydney
Also, I doubt current Macs will receive 7 years of software updates, because I think Apple will leverage macOS to force users to buy an ARM Mac.
 
Comment

jameslmoser

macrumors 6502a
Sep 18, 2011
593
377
Las Vegas, NV
It's actually not apples fault, that pre 2013 machines are not supported. It's Intels. Intel does not provide further microcode CPU updates for Ivy bridges CPUs. As this results into having an unpatchable security risk apples does not further provide OS updates. The same thing happened to the MacPro5,1 last year. This as well as Intel not being able to meet production goals (the 2016 era MacBook Pros were designed with lower TDP 10nm Intel chips in mind which were originally announced to be available in 2015) contributed to apple switching to their own CPUs.

People used this argument when explaining why catalina was dropped from the mac pro 5,1. It doesn't make sense. Its not like because those CPU's aren't getting updates the owners of those machines are going to stop using them with the macos version that is supported. Sure they can, and I wouldn't blame them for "not supporting" that configuration but they go out of their way to prevent you from installing it. I can still install and run Windows/Linux on them just fine. It is Apple's effort to get you to buy a new Mac. I get that selling Mac's is what their business is, but more importantly they are focused on eco system, so I still don't see how making people with those older machines stay on older versions of their software helps them.
[automerge]1593879049[/automerge]
For a while now Mac OS upgrades have been free. Because of that there is less incentive to support older hardware. The more models you support, the more regression testing that needs to be done. As others have pointed out 7-8 years is pretty dang good.

Again, this argument doesn't make sense for today's Apple. They want you to buy into their services and subscriptions. If you don't have their newest software many of these services or features might not work, or work consistently across your devices.
[automerge]1593879109[/automerge]
I'm sure they have their reasons... but those don't make sense to me.
 
Comment

MikhailT

macrumors 601
Nov 12, 2007
4,518
1,185
There are no technical reasons as to why it was dropped. There are patches that allow Big Sur to run on these Macs.

The only reason is support; they've just obsoleted these `12 rMBP lineup: https://www.macrumors.com/2020/07/01/apple-obsoletes-first-macbook-pro-retina-display/

It truly sucks but that's pretty much the software support lifespan for Macs, 7 years at most. Which is decent but nothing compared to Windows and Linux.

What's even worse is the upcoming Apple Silicon Macs. Suppose after 7 years, macOS support is dropped for the very first ASM, what other option do you have, would it be able to run Windows or Linux if you choose to switch?
 
  • Like
Reactions: simonmet
Comment

Rastafabi

macrumors 6502
Mar 12, 2013
313
147
Europe
While I do not agree with apple dropping support for Macs with unsupported GPUs I do consider it a valid reason. As Intel made those Macs unsupported, I understand how Apple does not want their latest OS to run on machines wich are already considered obsolete and unsafe to use. While this does not necessarily mean that there is an immediate danger to the user it's still valid from a business standpoint.

Anyhow those machines did get nearly all of the latest features for 7 years if their hardware supports them (unlike for instance handoff and continuity) and will continue to receive security updates for another 3 years.

From my point of view offering 10 years of software support and usually around 8 years of hardware support (in terms of part availability) can be considered remarkable for a company that does earn it's money from selling hardware (and services).

I actually do not know anybody running this old non-apple costumer hardware, mostly because their devices died. (I use and 2009 linux-powered [driver wise Windows server 2011 was the last supported windows release] HP server for Time Machine and smb sharing.) At the same time I have several people in the family running 2009-2012 era Macs as their primary device, while still having older working Macs around which never received any repairs and only stopped being in use because they got to slow with newer applications and the web getting more demanding.

I'm not trying to defend apple here - I just argue, that to me it appears to be legit to drop some old machines from time to time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pldelisle
Comment

yangm

macrumors member
Apr 16, 2014
34
34
Unpopular opinion: I miss the time when OS X upgrades were paid, so apple had an incentive to support as many macs and polish the OS as much as possible.

We all know everything went downhill with rushed yearly updates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AAPLGeek
Comment

TylerL

macrumors regular
Jan 2, 2002
191
242
Unpopular opinion: I miss the time when OS X upgrades were paid, so apple had an incentive to support as many macs and polish the OS as much as possible.
We all know everything went downhill with rushed yearly updates.

On the contrary, since Apple updates went "free", they've supported a much larger and older fleet of Mac models.

2001's Mac OS X dropped support for pre-G3 Macs from 1997, so 4 years there
2003's Panther dropped support for platinum Macs from 1998, so 5 years there
2007's Leopard dropped support for all G3 Macs, including 4-year-old iBooks
2009's Snow Leopard dropped support for all PowerPC Macs, including PowerMac G5s from 2005 (sold through 2006), so 3-4 years there.
2012's Mountain Lion dropped support for all 32-bit EFI Macs, including some Macs from 2008, so 4 years there.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.