what's going to happen to Intel macs after the transition period?

[repairedCheese]

Well, with PPC Macs, you could either keep running the same old version of Mac OS, or you could switch to Linux. Ubuntu 16.04 still supports a whole host of old PPC macs, but that ends next year. And it's not like the support is good, either.

On the other hand, as far as I know, there's no Intel Mac that you can't get Windows 10 working on. And, if you bought one in the last 10 years, basically all the drivers should still work. Of course. Linux support is going to be a lot better, too. So, it's not like old Intel Macs don't have a future, it's just that they don't have a future as Macs unless you're prepared to stick to an old version of Mac OS.

For me, that version would have to be Mojave, I'm quite attached to old software. But, I'm a weirdo with a small PPC Mac collection.

 

[Phil A.]

Well, with PPC Macs, you could either keep running the same old version of Mac OS, or you could switch to Linux. Ubuntu 16.04 still supports a whole host of old PPC macs, but that ends next year. And it's not like the support is good, either.

On the other hand, as far as I know, there's no Intel Mac that you can't get Windows 10 working on. And, if you bought one in the last 10 years, basically all the drivers should still work. Of course. Linux support is going to be a lot better, too. So, it's not like old Intel Macs don't have a future, it's just that they don't have a future as Macs unless you're prepared to stick to an old version of Mac OS.

For me, that version would have to be Mojave, I'm quite attached to old software. But, I'm a weirdo with a small PPC Mac collection.

That's probably what I'll look to do with my Mac Pro - I'd rather run a supported OS (whether Windows or Linux) on it than an unsupported / unpatched version of MacOS when the time eventually comes.

My original plan with my Mac Pro was to keep it 3-5 years and then sell it on (it'll probably pay for itself within 2), but if resale prices are in the toilet I'll just keep hold of it and repurpose it

 

[steve1960]

Who really cares? I think back to 2012 when I made the transition from Microsoft / Android to Apple. I didn't do it for a faster computer, didn't do it to play games better. I did it because I bought into the ecosystem. Today we have 13 Apple devices I think and not a single PC or Android device. Even better after all these years 10 of the 13 devices will still be supported in Big Sur and iOS 14.

 

[TallGuyGT]

I'm curious, I just bought a new $6,000 Macbook Pro 16" before the announcement. My "theory" was that it would still maintain great resell, for the fact that it's the last that'll support boot camp.

But do you think I should do everything possible to get it returned?! My goal is obviously to sell in ~3 years, as is routine with my laptops. I would be devastated if it had no usability.

My thought is also that the Mac Pro buyers that spent $10-50,000 will shortly have a lifespan indefinitely. Or at least same as the 2013 Mac Pro which is still going strong. I don't know that ARM will replace "real" Professional machines.

I have a base 16" MBP and was thinking of selling it to get a maxed out version. My thinking is that I'll have MacOS support for at least 5 years (which would get me thru any growing pains with the ARM transition) as well as giving me a dual-boot Windows 10 laptop I can use indefinitely.

 

[playtech1]

I think that suggested timeline is much too aggressive. Bear in mind that if it takes until 2022 to fully transition to ARM that implies there will still be Intel Macs for sale in 2022, for which support might be dropped three years later? That seems like a hard sell - particularly if the last Intel Macs on sale are the super-expensive ARM Mac Pros.

 

[NewUsername]

The PowerPC to Intel transition was announced in summer 2005.
All Macs had switched to Intel versions by late 2006.
The last PowerPC OSX version was 10.5 Leopard, released in October 2007.
The first OSX version for Intel only was 10.6 Snow Leopard, released in August 2009.

Thus, in the last transition, PowerPC users could use the "latest" OSX version until August 2009 = four years after the announcement of the switch.

Given that today's install-base of Intel Macs is much larger than the PowerPC install base back in 2005, I'm guessing Intel Mac users can expect new versions of MacOS to run on Intel machines for at least the same length of time (i.e. around 4-5 years, possibly 6.)

So, I would predict the following:
Announcement of ARM switch = Summer 2020.
All Macs switched to ARM = Summer 2022.
Last Intel version of MacOS = 2024.
First ARM-only MacOS = 2025.

Meaning, Intel Mac users should be able to remain "current" until 2025 and their machines would still be perfectly usable beyond then until at least 2026/27. By which time many would be looking to buy a new machine anyway, even if the switch weren't happening.

That's a good prediction, but honestly I think Intel Macs will be supported even longer. At the time of the switch of PPC to Intel, computers didn't last as long as they do now. For example, the base model of the first Mac mini had 256MB RAM. That was in 2005. In 2007, Leopard already required 512MB RAM, so you would have to upgrade your RAM just to run the newest OS. And of course, support was dropped altogether in 2009. All of that is just unthinkable now in 2020, even Big Sur will support every single Mac starting from 2013/2014, no matter which configuration.

You don't have to worry about the Intel Macs you own right now. If you need a computer now, I also wouldn't hesitate to buy a new one. But if you're not in a hurry, it might be better to wait. I myself was having some vague plans to get a new iMac and perhaps a new MacBook, but my current machines are still getting the job done and I prefer to wait for the switch to ARM. (If you rely on Boot Camp, that's a different question of course.)

Looking forward to the new computers.

 

[ryanprho]

I made the choice to return my MacBook Pro 2020 and move to a Razer laptop. I develop software for a living. I’m not sure how many people who have responded above actually were active Mac users during the last transition. It was a disaster. 3rd party apps dried up within 14-18 months in terms of updates, fixes, and performance enhancements. Oh yeah, for the person who wrote no more beach ball, etc. when moving to ARM you for sure were not around as an active Power PC user. That happened a lot in the PowerPC world and then Intel. One last comment. ARM is based on RISC architecture. So was the Power PC chip. Let’s face it. I’ve seen Back to the Future. I’m not doing it again. As a former Chip Engineer for 18 years. This makes logical sense to a degree from Apple. That was clear when they purchased PA semiconductor who was my customer. I just think all the fan boys out there should realize this won’t go as smooth as you think it will. It will be more like 3-4 years before a majority of the bugs and performance gaps are worked out. Apple will flaunt compatibility vs speed in the future. That’s the entire point people. The eco system for Mac moving to ARM just exploded and it became a whole lot more lucrative to be a developer on their ecosystem. If you have an Intel based Mac. Dump it as fast as you can or the only thing you will be running is Linux or a knock off of Chrome OS.

 

[Fishrrman]

I don't care how long Intel-based Macs will be supported... or not.
I intend to keep using my 2018 Mac Mini (running Mojave) as long as it boots and runs.
I'll find a way (and I DON'T CARE about it being "supported" by Apple any longer)...

 

[Matrix1776]

I made the choice to return my MacBook Pro 2020 and move to a Razer laptop. I develop software for a living. I’m not sure how many people who have responded above actually were active Mac users during the last transition. It was a disaster. 3rd party apps dried up within 14-18 months in terms of updates, fixes, and performance enhancements. Oh yeah, for the person who wrote no more beach ball, etc. when moving to ARM you for sure were not around as an active Power PC user. That happened a lot in the PowerPC world and then Intel. One last comment. ARM is based on RISC architecture. So was the Power PC chip. Let’s face it. I’ve seen Back to the Future. I’m not doing it again. As a former Chip Engineer for 18 years. This makes logical sense to a degree from Apple. That was clear when they purchased PA semiconductor who was my customer. I just think all the fan boys out there should realize this won’t go as smooth as you think it will. It will be more like 3-4 years before a majority of the bugs and performance gaps are worked out. Apple will flaunt compatibility vs speed in the future. That’s the entire point people. The eco system for Mac moving to ARM just exploded and it became a whole lot more lucrative to be a developer on their ecosystem. If you have an Intel based Mac. Dump it as fast as you can or the only thing you will be running is Linux or a knock off of Chrome OS.

This interests me as I literally (minutes ago) just returned my fully loaded 16" Macbook Pro. I wasn't going to be out $6,000 when they announced the ARM transition. I knew it was in the pipeline, but I'm just too hesitant on a laptop that may have no resell ability. Maybe some loyalists will buy it for boot camp, but it's not like now where I'm guaranteed low deprecation and an immediate sale.

How does the Razer compare, especially in terms of track-pad, speakers, battery, and overall performance? It's a shame Windows 10 is so ugly, especially compared to the Big Sur previews. Many reviews are stating the new Dell XPS 15 or 17" as they've been designed with minimal bezels.

 

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

You're talking about Intel Macs, but what about Intel, period. I know it's not being talked about because it is MACrumors and not INTELrumors, afterall. I'm curious how this could affect the processor industry. For example, could Apple sell ARM processors to other manufacturers to produce ARM based Windows machines. I know there is an ARM based Surface, but that's all I know about it, that it exists.

Coming from the other side, is AMD, which is spoken very highly about these days.

Ultimately, back to Macs, I don't know what percentage of Intel's business belongs to Apple, but I'm wondering if there will be tertiary effects from Apple making this move.

 

[hans1972]

One last comment. ARM is based on RISC architecture. So was the Power PC chip. Let’s face it. I’ve seen Back to the Future. I’m not doing it again. As a former Chip Engineer for 18 years. This makes logical sense to a degree from Apple. That was clear when they purchased PA semiconductor who was my customer. I just think all the fan boys out there should realize this won’t go as smooth as you think it will.

If you were a chip engineer for 18 years, you would know that Intel and AMD CPUs are basically RISC at their core with a CISC shell around them.

 

[leman]

I’m not sure how many people who have responded above actually were active Mac users during the last transition. It was a disaster. 3rd party apps dried up within 14-18 months in terms of updates, fixes, and performance enhancements.

I am quite optimistic that it won’t be as bad this time around. The technical challenge of running x86-64 code on ARM64 is much simpler then going PowerPC->x86 route, the software tooling is much more robust, there were considerable advances in compiler theory and of course, Apple builds their own hardware, so they can add special functionality to ease the transition. For the developer, supporting both ARM and Intel is going to be very simple in most cases, and popular apps would work for years.

And yeah, RISC and CISC don’t mean much nowadays.

 

[dburkhanaev]

Well done excellent summary. Anyone worried about the ARM transition read THIS

The only thing to keep in mind is that developers might not stick with universal binary or x86 for 4+ years. They certainly didn’t with PPC. There was a lot of Intel only software realeased on Leopard when universal binary was still a thing.
[automerge]1594263203[/automerge]

I am quite optimistic that it won’t be as bad this time around. The technical challenge of running x86-64 code on ARM64 is much simpler then going PowerPC->x86 route, the software tooling is much more robust, there were considerable advances in compiler theory and of course, Apple builds their own hardware, so they can add special functionality to ease the transition. For the developer, supporting both ARM and Intel is going to be very simple in most cases, and popular apps would work for years.

And yeah, RISC and CISC don’t mean much nowadays.

‘You’re right about the technical side of things. I sure hope you’re right about developer support. I don’t know how many people have come back to my comments online to criticize my concerns based on my experience with PPC to Intel transition. It doesn’t mean that I’m going to be right. But it’s sad to be dismissed out of hand when you’ve lived it before. I hope you’re correct and your optimism is refreshing.

 

[Erehy Dobon]

From my vantage point, the PPC-to-Intel transition was different. PPC was a dead end and not the dominant desktop PC architecture. Apple went from obscure to mainstream in this transition. There was also the big-endian, small-endian stumbling block.

The Intel-to-Apple Silicon transition is pretty different. Apple is going from the dominant desktop PC architecture -- one that they don't control -- to a proprietary solution that with a CPU running ARM64 instructions but a heck of a lot of very capable auxiliary functions in proprietary silicon.

Moreover, there are hundreds of millions of Apple devices running Apple proprietary silicon. Apple is not taking a blind leap of faith.

My guess is that Apple has had Arm-based devices running macOS shortly after they taped out their own proprietary SoC, the Apple A4 which powered the first iPad. This was 2010, the same year that Snow Leopard came out. That was described by Apple as a complete under-the-hood rewrite of OS X.

It is very possible that Apple had a prototype 64-bit Arm SoC running in a Cupertino lab in 2010. That would also help justify the complete "rewrite" of Snow Leopard which from a feature standpoint had little to offer over Leopard. Apple shocked the semiconductor world when they shipped the iPhone 5S with the first mainstream 64-bit Arm SoC in 2013. It wasn't a half-assed effort. It was a polished debut.

There are persistent rumors that Mac OS X was delayed because Apple management (read "Steve Jobs") insisted that it ran both on PPC and Intel hardware, years before Apple announced the Intel transition.

Apple isn't going from Intel to Arm, they are going from Intel to Apple Silicon. This includes GPU, security features, and a bunch of other features that would have been controlled by a third-party chipset (memory management, signal processing, etc.).

Also, Apple has the advantage of having a bunch of Arm development experience under their belt largely courtesy of the iPhone but originally from the Newton days.

 

[alesales]

The PowerPC to Intel transition was announced in summer 2005.
All Macs had switched to Intel versions by late 2006.
The last PowerPC OSX version was 10.5 Leopard, released in October 2007.
The first OSX version for Intel only was 10.6 Snow Leopard, released in August 2009.

Thus, in the last transition, PowerPC users could use the "latest" OSX version until August 2009 = four years after the announcement of the switch.

Given that today's install-base of Intel Macs is much larger than the PowerPC install base back in 2005, I'm guessing Intel Mac users can expect new versions of MacOS to run on Intel machines for at least the same length of time (i.e. around 4-5 years, possibly 6.)

So, I would predict the following:
Announcement of ARM switch = Summer 2020.
All Macs switched to ARM = Summer 2022.
Last Intel version of MacOS = 2024.
First ARM-only MacOS = 2025.

Meaning, Intel Mac users should be able to remain "current" until 2025 and their machines would still be perfectly usable beyond then until at least 2026/27. By which time many would be looking to buy a new machine anyway, even if the switch weren't happening.

I completely agree with you. That's more or less what happened when Apple moved from PowerPC to Intel.
Last PPC Macs were released in 2006 and MacOS 10.5 Leopard, latest OS supporting PPC Macs went out of support in June 20211, 6 years later.

 

[James_C]

I can understand people's concern, but I would not worry. Apple are likely to support Intel Macs for at least 4-5 years from now, with new OS updates, and security only updates for a while beyond that. This is not very different form how long Apple supports old systems anyway with OS updates. Even after your Mac can't get the latest update, it will still run the software you are using. Only yesterday I was using a 2003 PPC G4 iMac, still going after 17 years!

 

[hallux]

Apple are likely to support Intel Macs for at least 4-5 years from now, with new OS updates, and security only updates for a while beyond that.

And this is what I'm anticipating as I have a 16" MBP refurb open in a tab on my browser, a step away from purchasing. I got 8 years out of my 2012, it's still running fine but with it now being obsolete and not getting Big Sur I think I'm ready to move on. I'm not keen on running it for 2 more years as I am not keen to jump feet-first into a first generation ARM-based Mac so in order to also keep BootCamp as an option and replace my machine in the near future, this is what I have to do.

 

[dburkhanaev]

I can understand people's concern, but I would not worry. Apple are likely to support Intel Macs for at least 4-5 years from now, with new OS updates, and security only updates for a while beyond that. This is not very different form how long Apple supports old systems anyway with OS updates.

They have supported past machines for more than 4-5 years. I just recently sold a 2013 MBPr with Catalina installed. That’s six years of new OS support and I think they could get more. I’m hoping this isn’t like the PPC to Intel transition where the announcement came in 2005, the last PPC operating system released in 2007 and the version after that, Snow Leopard in 2009 being Intel only. One OS and the transition was over in 2006. Many developers left the party long before official support reached its end.

 

[Jyby]

Science Rules!

 

[TiggrToo]

Whilst no-one here has the requisite crystal ball to peer into the future, looking at the previous transition isn't going to help.

That was a different time and a different set of circumstances. You can no more use that to predict the future than you can tea leaves.

 

[steve1960]

This was inevitable, Apple taking more control of their ecosystem. Makes perfect business sense. How long before they decided to develop their own RAM chips? Yep, much more a commodity item than a CPU or GPU but definitely subject to market forces and supply and demand issues. Maybe just a partnership with a well known player in that field just like ARM.

Bespoke CPU, GPU, RAM, SSD's. There isn't really much left inside a laptop to own. It's all just transistors, capacitors and diodes once you own everything outside the motherboard.
[automerge]1594389056[/automerge]
What happens after Intel? Mac's go on serving a very useful life for many years as does my 2009 MacBook White.