ℹ️ Discussion: the Early Intel Macs versus Late Intel Macs conversation lives anew and lives here

[B S Magnet]

Anyway...
With 2 forums (early/late) I'd consider the minimum MacOS as a consideration, rather than get too strict on features. Anything that natively supports 10.7.5 or lower is Early; anything 10.8 or above is Late. That gives us a split around 2012, and essentially splits Intel around the final Steve Jobs / Bertrand Serlet OS, as well as being the effective transition from iOS-ified hardware supporting modern features.

After beginning to flesh this out last day, I considered both a) physical network capabilities, out-of-box (i.e., not needing dongles) and realized this is an imperfect metric, since that remains fairly consistent (on the Ethernet side) whilst the standards for the wifi/BT side have nothing to do with Apple (and can be fudged, at least for certain models, by swapping in a module from a later Mac); and b) OSes (which, aside from the self-contained restore partition scheme premiering with Lion, was also kind of a non-starter, in that OCLP and prior patchers have bridged a lot of those waters with Apple-unsupported models; dosdude1 is such a lovely, amazing disruptor, isn’t he?).

[Also, Serlet left after Snow Leopard and some time before Lion was finalized, leaving it to Craig Federighi, who still runs that hidden-restore partition/yearly major version release/free-with-telemetry show that is the modern macOS.]

So I returned to, specifically, what Apple included, of their own volition, in their own hardware, with the only consideration to operating systems given to the fuding of being able to get Snow Leopard running on Ivy Bridge architecture (and, probably, Sandy Bridge-E, if there was a way to flash the MP5,1 firmware to accept post-Westmere Xeons).

To simplify even further, so that absolutely no-one would be confused, it should just be by year: 2006-2012, and 2013+. They're called "Classic" Mac Pro for a reason!

They’re called “classic” because they use the same case, as borrowed from the G5. Internally, the trash can wasn’t at all a transplanting of the core MP5,1 components, but rather, a clean-sheet re-think (which was, well, a mixed bag) even if they shoved it all into the same “cheese-grater” case we all know and love.

 

[eyoungren]

Just a thought... why have a distinction in the 1st place?

PowerPC Macs lasted from 1994-2005 and yet is their a division?

By 2028 the last Intel Mac will cease receiving its final Security Update.

I would suspect that if you were here on the MR forum in say 2001-2004, you would have found PowerPC Macs divided up into the Desktop Macs, Laptop Macs and iMac forums as the Intel Macs are now. But by 2011, when I joined, that was not the case and as you note there is no division now. That's because those forum types are occupied by the later model releases of the Intel Mac.

But, that's why I said what I said earlier, that probably by 2028 given what I've seen of the admin around here, we are going to find the EIM forum merged into one giant all inclusive Intel Mac forum just like the PowerPC Mac forum is now.

But, the discussion concerns the way it is now - with Intel Macs still split off into those individual type forums.

 

[Longplays]

I would suspect that if you were here on the MR forum in say 2001-2004, you would have found PowerPC Macs divided up into the Desktop Macs, Laptop Macs and iMac forums as the Intel Macs are now. But by 2011, when I joined, that was not the case and as you note there is no division now. That's because those forum types are occupied by the later model releases of the Intel Mac.

But, that's why I said what I said earlier, that probably by 2028 given what I've seen of the admin around here, we are going to find the EIM forum merged into one giant all inclusive Intel Mac forum just like the PowerPC Mac forum is now.

But, the discussion concerns the way it is now - with Intel Macs still split off into those individual type forums.

No argument that right now Intel Macs should be segmented per form factor of iMac, Mac mini, etc.

While PowerPC should all be one section all to its own.

But what is being spoken of here is to divide Intel Macs into "early" and "late".

Why go through this very subjective exercise in the first place?

My proposal were to be pushed for "early" and "late" would be to split Intel Macs between unsupported/vintage & supported.

I agree that by 2028 all the Intel Mac sections be consolidated into 1 as by that time there would be as many Intel Mac users as there are PowerPC users were in the 2010s.

 

[eyoungren]

Why go through this very subjective exercise in the first place?

Because right now there is an actual division. I assume the intent is to drive more early Intel Macs into this forum while being able to suggest another forum for more indepth help.

At least that's what I'm inferring from this thread. Quite frankly, a lot of the technical aspects are beyond me. I'm still at a point that is much less nuanced (2012 or earlier). I wouldn't know the differences if someone posted a problem.

 

[GMShadow]

No argument that right now Intel Macs should be segmented per form factor of iMac, Mac mini, etc.

While PowerPC should all be one section all to its own.

But what is being spoken of here is to divide Intel Macs into "early" and "late".

Why go through this very subjective exercise in the first place?

My proposal were to be pushed for "early" and "late" would be to split Intel Macs between unsupported/vintage & supported.

I agree that by 2028 all the Intel Mac sections be consolidated into 1 as by that time there would be as many Intel Mac users as there are PowerPC users were in the 2010s.

While the early and later PPC Macs had some solid differences, the Intel grouping, lasting as long as it did, is even more varied. You're ranging from Core Solo Mac minis to Macs with full on Apple control chips that run their own OS driving Touch Bars, drive encryption, etc. Socketed RAM and standard SATA drives to full soldered RAM and disks, eliminating most ports, non-mechanical touchpads...

Granted, I suspect eventually the herd will thin to the point where there won't be too much 'noise' from tons of people trying to get them fixed, but the range is very spread out, and it might be quite hectic when the combination first happens.

 

[Populus]

As a former owner of a 2010 intel Core2Duo MacBook Pro, and member of this forum for more than 10 years, I wanted to share my opinion on how the Intel machines should be split.

I would make two categories: early Intel machines and late Intel machines.

The criteria to split the machines into one category or the other? It could be the change from Core2Duo to i5-i7 machines, but with this type of division, machines like mine -2010 MacBook Pro- could fall in either category, because as many of you know, this model was equipped with a Core2Duo in the 13” size and with a Core i5 in the 15” size. So I don’t think that would be an ideal separation.

What I’m proposing however, is a much more intuitive division: the 2016 models (including the 2015 12” MacBook), those with butterfly keyboard and USB-C, would be the late Intel machines. I know, the MacBook Air received USB-C much later, but I still think this two key elements are more distinguishable than the CPU.

For good or bad reasons, many of us see the 2016 MacBooks as the beginning of a new era, and the 2015 12” MacBook was the pioneer of this new era.

So that’s my two cents: Early Intel macs, those with USB-A connectors and MagSafe. Late Intel Macs, those with USB-C and no MagSafe.

 

[redheeler]

As a former owner of a 2010 intel Core2Duo MacBook Pro, and member of this forum for more than 10 years, I wanted to share my opinion on how the Intel machines should be split.

I would make two categories: early Intel machines and late Intel machines.

The criteria to split the machines into one category or the other? It could be the change from Core2Duo to i5-i7 machines, but with this type of division, machines like mine -2010 MacBook Pro- could fall in either category, because as many of you know, this model was equipped with a Core2Duo in the 13” size and with a Core i5 in the 15” size. So I don’t think that would be an ideal separation.

What I’m proposing however, is a much more intuitive division: the 2016 models (including the 2015 12” MacBook), those with butterfly keyboard and USB-C, would be the late Intel machines. I know, the MacBook Air received USB-C much later, but I still think this two key elements are more distinguishable than the CPU.

For good or bad reasons, many of us see the 2016 MacBooks as the beginning of a new era, and the 2015 12” MacBook was the pioneer of this new era.

So that’s my two cents: Early Intel macs, those with USB-A connectors and MagSafe. Late Intel Macs, those with USB-C and no MagSafe.

I would call most 2012-2015 models neither early nor late, it's a middle period from my perspective. CPU performance stagnated a bit but we did get those sweet crisp Retina displays starting with the 2012 15" rMBP to kick things off.

 

[iModFrenzy]

Admin hates creating new subforums and any chance they get to replace multiple subforums with one subforum they will act upon it.

Is it difficult to create subforums or they’re trying to cut down on clutter?

I remember when we were kicking and screaming for an Early Intel subforum years ago in the PPC subforum, funny to finally see it. Kinda concerned for when they turn this into an Intel only forum, i feel like the PPC/EI forums have a different dynamic. For example, we’ll be scraping every bit of life out of an outdated machine while the “main” forums would just tell you to upgrade.

 

[eyoungren]

Is it difficult to create subforums or they’re trying to cut down on clutter?

I remember when we were kicking and screaming for an Early Intel subforum years ago in the PPC subforum, funny to finally see it. Kinda concerned for when they turn this into an Intel only forum, i feel like the PPC/EI forums have a different dynamic. For example, we’ll be scraping every bit of life out of an outdated machine while the “main” forums would just tell you to upgrade.

I am speculating, but I believe clutter is one aspect. Probably confusion on where to post by the users is another. Having run my own forum, creating a subforum should be easy. It's the deciding to or not that is the catch.

One of the things Arn asked me when I messaged him about creating this subforum was if there would be enough interest. I believed there was and I believe we have since proven that - but a forum that shows no interest (and thus no activity) can't look good on a website that receives a lot of traffic.

As to the mentality you mention, I guess I just naturally assumed that those users would move to the 'M' series forums. That'd leave the entirety of the now 'old' Intel Mac users in one forum (this one).

Again, all just speculation. I don't know the future, but if the past repeats itself…

 

[PolaroidSwinger]

My cutoff for early/later Intel Macs is SSE4.

 

[B S Magnet]

My cutoff for early/later Intel Macs is SSE4.

So early basically covers the 2006 and most of the 2007 Macs only… 🤔

This leaves the mid-2007 iMac (with Penryn chip dropped in) and early 2008 MacBook Pro, all the way to the 2020 Intel Macs, as the latter.

A bit lopsided of a metric, really.