You do not need a TPM 2.0 for Windows 11. Officially, yes, but officially you also need a CPU that's much newer than 2010 and UEFI/Secure Boot (even if your 2010 machine has UEFI, which is... unlikely but possible..., it probably wouldn't have secure boot which launched with Windows 8). Turning off the check for those requirements... basically also implies... turning off the check for the TPM 1.2/2.0 requirements (there's a separate check for each TPM version, IIRC, because they originally wanted to require 1.2 and recommend 2.0, then changed their mind), so you are good to go.
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.
How long before Mac OS is Apple Silicon only?
- Thread starter andeify
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The official Windows 11 installer, without any modification made by the user, checks for two things of note
A TPM module, it accepts 1.2
UEFI Secureboot compatibility (and IIRC that it demands CSM is off)
It does not check CPU-model. It checks for compatibility with a group of instruction sets that many old CPUs outside the official list happen to have as well.
I know HP Elitebooks were, on the PC-side, industry leading with implementing UEFI boot way ahead of others. Not sure about Secureboot but it doesn't sound impossible.
Though the latter likely gives a clue about the former. Apple dropped Rosetta 1 the next OS X release after they stopped supporting PowerPC Macs. Since it's an annual update now, I'm guessing that once macOS goes Apple Silicon-only, Rosetta 2 support is gone within 2 updates.
I've been around long enough to remember the compatibility layers set up to run Classic Mac OS programs in Mac OS X, and then Rosetta I for running PPC on x86-64. I think both of them lasted a couple years each, and eventually Apple just squeezed everyone out of the old environments. For better or worse, this is entirely Apple's sandbox to play around in, and so long as we choose to play, they make the rules and they tell us what and how and where and when.
Now, that all said... This is not the same thing as Microsoft forcing users to do upgrades and live with processes which introduced user-reporting telemetry and other restrictve control measures. I mean, my daily driver environment, broadly defined as Linux, eventually kills off hardware support, though that's for significantly different reasons. For example, Debian (Debian!!!) killed PPC 32bit support a few years back. And when Debian tells you your hardware is too old, well then I guess it's time to go out and buy something that's current-century.
Now, that all said... This is not the same thing as Microsoft forcing users to do upgrades and live with processes which introduced user-reporting telemetry and other restrictve control measures. I mean, my daily driver environment, broadly defined as Linux, eventually kills off hardware support, though that's for significantly different reasons. For example, Debian (Debian!!!) killed PPC 32bit support a few years back. And when Debian tells you your hardware is too old, well then I guess it's time to go out and buy something that's current-century.
That may be right - I think there are differences between what "PC Health Check" checks for, what the Windows 11 Upgrade Assistant checks for, what the Windows Update "settings" section checks for, what the installer running in an existing copy of Windows checks for, and what the installer when booting from a flash drive or DVD checks for.
It's interesting - in my case, I have exactly one machine that hits all the boxes except CPU model, but it's also my most important Windows machine (though I use it less now that I have two lovely Macs), so I have never tried installing 11 (largely because I am scared that Microsoft could brick it at any time without notice). Still bitter about that machine, too - high-end desktop I built in January 2017 expecting that I would get ten years out of it with a few little upgrades here and there, and the CPU age requirement in 11 makes it e-waste after 8. (And you wonder why I now have two Macs? After abandoning Macs in the mid-90s, Windows 8 is the reason I got a first Mac, and Windows 11 is the reason I got a second... well, technically second and third, but I traded in the first for a net of two)
Then I have a bunch of other Windows machines that I've installed 11 just fine on (both upgrade installs from Windows and clean installs off bootable media), but they have other issues as well as the CPU requirement - TPM 1.2s instead of 2.0s, BIOS instead of UEFI, no TPMs, etc, so to be honest, whether CPU age was one of the things needing to be bypassed, I am not sure anymore.
Good. I'm sure there are a few decent programs left that still haven't been updated for Apple Silicon, but with things like Citrix Workspace now almost having Apple Silicon versions, most of the ones left on my Mac are stupid Electron junk that aren't Apple Silicon-native because people who think Electron is a good idea don't see a problem with their garbage running in emulation. I suspect it will take the death of Rosetta 2 to make those people add AS support.
As they've released Sonoma support info., now is a good time to revisit this question. From MR:
I'm guessing Sonoma (MacOS 14) will be the last OS for my 2019 iMac, which means support would end Oct 2026. That's 7 years of support (and 5 years on a current OS), so not too bad. I'm also guessing that MacOS 15 would be the last one for the 2020 iMacs, in which case those would also get 7 years. For the Intel Mac Pro, since it wasn't discontinued until today, I'd guess maybe MacOS 16, which would be 2028.
I think there's a good chance that your 2019 iMac will get macOS 15. And I think the Intel Mac Pro... same thing.
Here is how I see it: if one looks at the list you pasted, with the exception of the T2-equipped iMac Pro, they're all 2018 models. There's no 2018 iMac, so on the iMac, it's 2019. But the others are all 2018.
And when you look at what they've done in the recent past, e.g. with the trash can Mac Pro, the 2014 Mac mini, and now the 2017 12-inch MacBook, it's clear that it's the year that something was introduced, not the year something is discontinued, that they are looking at.
So, my theory is that macOS 15 will drop the 2018 models, macOS 16 will drop the 2019 models (including, sadly, the 2019 Intel Mac Pro), and macOS 17 will drop the 2020 Intel models, phasing out what is left of Intel support.
That being said... I wonder how big the installed base of 2020 Intels is. It might be hard to resist the temptation to just cut the 2020s along with the 2019s and be done with Intel a year earlier. Especially since there's only a 27" iMac, a MacBook Air, and a 13" MacBook Pro in 2020 - no Mac Pro, no Mac Mini, no 15-16" MacBook Pro, etc.
I wouldn't expect that because, if they do, then the only Intel model supported by MacOS 17 will be the 2020 iMac. And, in the recent past, Mac has supported their pro devices (by which I mean their true pro devices, namely the iMac Pro and the Mac Pro--not the MacBook Pro) for significantly longer than their other models.
You can see that from the Sonoma support list--support for the 2017 MacBook Pro and iMac are both gone, yet that for the 2017 iMac Pro remains.
Likewise, look at the compatablity list for Monterey: The sole survivor among 2013 models was the Mac Pro:
Hence I would be *very* surprised if Apple introduces an OS that supports the 2020 iMac, but drops the 2019 Mac Pro. They might be dropped in the same year, but I actually think the the Mac Pro will be the "last man standing" when it comes to MacOS support of Intel devices.
In any case, I am pleased to see I'll at least be able to upgrade my iMac (if I've not yet replaced it) to Sonoma, since it's rumored to be a stability release, and those (like Snow Leopard and High Sierra) have always been my favorites.
There are a number of 2020 Intel machines - not just the 27" 2020 iMac, but also a 13" MacBook Pro and a MacBook Air.
Re the 2017 iMac Pro being on the Sonoma list, it's worth noting that i) the iMac Pro launched in December, 2017, and ii) it has a T2. But the 2018 15" MacBook Pro has a T2... and is not on the Sonoma list. Then again, the iMac Pro was also discontinued two years later and... aren't they still selling iMac Pros on the refurb store? Or were, as of 6 months ago? So there are certainly additional factors at play here.
That being said, the more you've made me think about it, the more I do agree that dropping the 2019s and keeping the 2020s feels a bit weird. So... maybe they just throw the 2020s overboard a year 'early', i.e. in macOS 16. Or at least some 2019s (e.g. the last Intel 16" MBP, the Mac Pro, etc, all of which were on sale until late 2021 or later) get an extra year, but somehow I am doubting that.
It's hard to tell - they certainly seem to be methodical about killing Intel machines year by year, but at the same time, I'm not really getting the impression they have the same urgency Steve Jobs had in 2009 when he killed Snow Leopard for PPC. But in 2009, Steve Jobs also had one advantage that made things much clearer - all of the PPC machines were discontinued within a roughly 6 month period, whereas here, we have Intel Mac Pros having lived 2.5 years longer than, say, Intel MacBook Airs. And it seems somewhat silly maintaining the Intel code base for an extra year or two just for the benefit of the Mac Pro and a few other systems discontinued later in the transition.
Hmm... yes it is. I must have been thinking 2019 because of the iMac and gotten mixed up...
One interesting point is that every Intel Mac that survived the cut for Sonoma has a T2 chip....except for the 2019 iMacs...because we're special
.One thing that will be interesting next year is that you have 8xxx Coffee Lake Intel CPUs in 2020 models... and in 2018 models. Are they really going to drop the 2018 models but keep the 2-Thunderbolt 2020 MacBook Pro? And dropping the 2-Thunderbolt 2020 while keeping the 4-Thunderbolt 2020 would be... confusing.One interesting point is that everything on the Sonoma list has a T2 chip....except for the 2019 iMacs...because we're special
I doubt they're going to maintain Intel-support for "just" the 2019-2020 mac models at any point. It must be kind of messy to maintain Intel-support as it is and the fewer who benefit from it the less incentive it is to keep it up.
Sticking with my somewhat pessimistic take that Sonoma just might be the last release for any Intel Mac.
Sticking with my somewhat pessimistic take that Sonoma just might be the last release for any Intel Mac.
It's probably not as bad as it sounds. The OS has gone from PowerPC to 32-bit Intel to 64-bit Intel and now to Arm. There must be very little architecture-specific code inside the OS, and the bulk of the "Intel support package" would be interfacing with the actual hardware. Since no new Intel hardware's coming out, that code's already written.
I think the T2 might have some additional abstraction, making all the Intel machines (except for the 2019 iMac) "look" almost the same from a development standpoint.
Future cutoffs will almost certainly be done for political reasons, not technological ones.
You may be right generally, but note that each new OS contains new firmware, which would require different code for Intel and AS chips. [So unless I'm misunderstanding you, I don't see how code designed to interface with Intel hardware—which I take to include firmware—would have "already been written."] I don't know how burdensome writing separate firmware for Intel Macs would be.
And it's not just about the initial release. Some of Apple's security patches against new exploits are firmware updates, which would need to be made for both Intel and AS Macs while Apple supports both. Once Apple drops Intel support, it will be able to focus on AS security patches only.
It would be interesting to hear from an Apple engineer just how much extra work is involved in maintaining support for Intel Macs during the AS era (not that they would discuss it).
Last edited:
Has anyone attempted to see if there are any similarities between the T2 and TPM on the Intel/AMD side? I know that the T2 functionality was integrated into Apple Silicon, but I can't help but wonder if they're similar on some level.
Last Intel Mac macOS Updates for 2020 Intel Macs.
- Security Updates will end 2030.
- Software Updates will end 2028.
If you are wondering when to replace... I'd suggest doing so after the final Security Update to a Mac that was released soon after.
So if you have a 2012 iMac then replace it with a mid 2022 Mac mini M2 + Studio Display 27" or late 2023 iMac 24" 4.5K M2.
I am hoping for a iMac 27" replacement with a M2 or M2 Pro chip before this year's iPhone.
- Security Updates will end 2030.
- Software Updates will end 2028.
If you are wondering when to replace... I'd suggest doing so after the final Security Update to a Mac that was released soon after.
So if you have a 2012 iMac then replace it with a mid 2022 Mac mini M2 + Studio Display 27" or late 2023 iMac 24" 4.5K M2.
I am hoping for a iMac 27" replacement with a M2 or M2 Pro chip before this year's iPhone.
But you're not writing new firmware - you're maintaining existing firmware that was written years ago.
Honestly, look at the number of BIOS branches that a Dell or Lenovo maintains - probably in the low hundreds at a given point in time. (They maintain BIOSes for business machines for at least... 5... years, probably closer to 6-7, and they probably launch... I dunno, 20-30 different models with different motherboards each year when you count desktop/laptop/workstation? Plus the consumer machines...) Apple... has a few firmware branches for Intel, then at most a few firmware branches for Apple Silicon (I wonder how different, say, an M2 iPad Pro's firmware is from an M2 Ultra Mac Studio's. Probably... not very, and probably more similar than two same-year Intel machines). This should be easily manageable.
If they do that, then arguably, 2019 Mac Pro owners will have gotten even more screwed than people who bought the last Power Mac G5s. The Power Mac G5 people got three years between the discontinuation of their machine and the Snow Leopard release - if Sonoma is the last release for Intel Macs, 2019 Mac Pro owners would get... 15 months?!
Also, today, Apple's refurb store still has 2019 Mac Pros, 2020 iMacs, 2019 16" MacBook Pros and 2018 Mac Minis. Mostly stupid/weird configurations - e.g. who wants an i9 16" MacBook Pro with 16GB of RAM and a 2TB SSD for $2739CAD? Out of those, the 2018 Mac mini is the most endangered for a post-Sonoma world. But would they really drop machines that they were selling <18 months before? (I guess they did it to the iPod touch 7th-gen, didn't they?)
Interesting question - what was the last-selling non-Sonoma-friendly machine? The 2017 12" MacBook (discontinued July 2019)? The 2017 iMac (discontinued March 2019)? So... assuming it's the 12" MacBook, it would have gone ~50 months between discontinuation and the first macOS release that drops it.
I'd guess 2-3 years at least but I could see them dropping models without the T2 in a year or two.
I just googled that and found the AnandTech review...
Battery life: 107 minutes with the computer idle and display at 1/3 brightness... down to just 73 minutes if watching a video. "the EliteBook 8740w doesn't come off too badly. You could definitely use this notebook off the mains in a pinch."
Those were different times back then. 🤣🤣🤣