When will Intel mac users be "forced" to upgrade to silicon Macs?

[msackey]

The title is poorly worded, but essentially I'm wondering how much longer until Intel Mac users will need to upgrade to silicon Macs. Of course there isn't a hard deadline because depending on one's circumstances, the time to migrate is a broad range. But any thoughts on this generally?

I currently run a 13" touchbar MacBook Pro (3.1 GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i5) at home. I know it won't be upgradable to macOS Sonoma . I primarily use it for office functions which I imagine won't be affected for a long time. I also use Obsidian, DEVONthink, Scrivener, all of which could be seen in the productivity/office realm, suppose

 

[Algus]

The Intel era Macs are beginning a slow roll into irrelevance. It will become more and more annoying to use them as fewer vendors support updates for them, bugs crop up in old software that never get fixed, and so on. I imagine most people will update over the next 4-5 years because they will be annoyed by the things they are missing out on.

That said, hardware has far outpaced software for most peoples computing needs. I still run a 2012 Mac mini and it 100% does all of the productivity work I need it to do still. To get even crazier, I can dig out my 2005 iBook G4 and outside of the internet (which it can run...albeit very slowly...) it does like 90% of what I need it to do.

There's really nothing wrong, at least from a security standpoint, of riding out your current machine until OS support ends. Apple supports every version of MacOS for three years so even if you can't get Sonoma, you'll get a couple years of Ventura support on top of that.

 

[Longplays]

Your 2017 MBP 13" Core i5 14nm will likely receive its last macOS Security Update by 2025. I'd encourage you to look into a 2025 MBA 13" M4 2nm (N2) by then.

These are some of the replacement cycles

- 3 years: 1990s standard
- 4 years: Apple
- 5-6 years: Intel
- 6-8 years: macOS Software Updates (features + security patches)
- 8-10th year: macOS Security Update (security patches only)
- 122 months: Windows End-Of-Life

Unofficially you can extend it via OCPL but they're limited to when Apple cease supporting macOS on Intel. This could occur as early as 2028.

Personally if money isn't a concern & if your app has a M1/M2/M3 version then I'd move.

Many point to these non-Intel Macs as being difficult to repair. Apple does not want their business.

Apple ending support for Intel Mac does not mean it will cease working but it does mean that it becomes dangerous to your data to be used on the public Internet.

 

[msackey]

@Algus and @Longplays , both responses are very helpful and gives me more to think about! Thanks!

Indeed, Intel Macs have started to roll slowly into irrelevance. Also true that the pace of hardware growth seems to have outpaced most everyday person's needs. I remember, for example, back in the days of PowerPCs, when every say 3 or 4 years I could really feel the Mac laptop not running smoothly any more either because the hardware was having a hard time with the latest operating system or some upgraded software that I used, though officially compatible, is nevertheless running slowly. My 2017 MBP does not feel that AT ALL and it's about 6 years old and still feels very fast to me.

A time frame of 4 to 5 years for possible replacement seems like a good start!

I don't currently need to upgrade, but at the same time I also feel even if I needed to upgrade it feels too early. I think I'd want a few more years of stability with silicon Macs and have those hardware/software iterations come to a point of even better integration before moving to silicon.....

 

[Longplays]

@Algus and @Longplays , both responses are very helpful and gives me more to think about! Thanks!

Indeed, Intel Macs have started to roll slowly into irrelevance. Also true that the pace of hardware growth seems to have outpaced most everyday person's needs. I remember, for example, back in the days of PowerPCs, when every say 3 or 4 years I could really feel the Mac laptop not running smoothly any more either because the hardware was having a hard time with the latest operating system or some upgraded software that I used, though officially compatible, is nevertheless running slowly. My 2017 MBP does not feel that AT ALL and it's about 6 years old and still feels very fast to me.

A time frame of 4 to 5 years for possible replacement seems like a good start!

I don't currently need to upgrade, but at the same time I also feel even if I needed to upgrade it feels too early. I think I'd want a few more years of stability with silicon Macs and have those hardware/software iterations come to a point of even better integration before moving to silicon.....

I'm on a 2012 iMac 27" 22nm myself. If by 2 months from now during the 25th year anniversary of the release of the iMac a 2023 replacement were to appear I'm buying that.

Even if it is the cheapest-end model as any M2 will outperform any non-2019 Mac Pro. I'd then keep it for another decade until the final Security Update appears.

If your use case hardly changes at all then why replace before a decade?

 

[bobcomer]

I wouldn't worry about it until the apps you use stop support for intel Macs and stop working. Your i5 will continue on quite well for a long time. Eventually it might not be safe for internet stuff, but not for a long time.

 

[msackey]

If your use case hardly changes at all then why replace before a decade?

That's a good point. If I were to upgrade for any other reason, it would be out of desire to use some of the newer features. But, I don't see that as greatly enticing.

 

[Longplays]

That's a good point. If I were to upgrade for any other reason, it would be out of desire to use some of the newer features. But, I don't see that as greatly enticing.

My use case has not changed since 2015. It was dumb of me to buy 14nm laptops in 2017, 2018 & 2019.

I should have kept the 2011 MBP 13" 32nm and then jump to a 2021 MBP 16" 5nm.

Then replace that with a 2031 MBP 0.7nm (A7) or Vision Pro. It would likely be more powerful than the top-end 2023 Mac Pro M2 Ultra.

 

[msackey]

My use case has not changed since 2015. It was dumb of me to buy 14nm laptops in 2017, 2018 & 2019.

I should have kept the 2011 MBP 13" 32nm and then jump to a 2021 MBP 16" 5nm.

I feel like the longer I can wait, the "bigger" the pay out.

I'm going through that with my iPhone right now. I like my 12 Pro but I would love a much better camera system. I keep eyeing the iPhone 15 Pro / ProMax line even though everything said about it is conjecture. But also thinking if I hold out for the 16 Pro/ProMax line, the "pay" out would be bigger

Yeah, no reason to upgrade my laptop for a very long time, especially if Apple provides the necessary security fixes which it typically does for a few years more.

 

[Longplays]

I feel like the longer I can wait, the "bigger" the pay out.

I'm going through that with my iPhone right now. I like my 12 Pro but I would love a much better camera system. I keep eyeing the iPhone 15 Pro / ProMax line even though everything said about it is conjecture. But also thinking if I hold out for the 16 Pro/ProMax line, the "pay" out would be bigger

Yeah, no reason to upgrade my laptop for a very long time, especially if Apple provides the necessary security fixes which it typically does for a few years more.

For the iPhone if I was paying for it I'd keep it until the battery's bad or something breaks.

"The best camera you can ever own is with you, always.". So I am inclined to upgrade for the camera & a fresh new battery.

I look forward to this iPhone because I'm moving from a 5nm chip to a 3nm chip. This typically has the benefit of longer battery life, faster phone and cooler to the touch.

Apple expects iPhone users to replace every 3 years. I'd replace the battery every 2-3 years. In practice others replace until Security Updates end 7+ years later.

 

[0339327]

I imagine that the 2025 MacOS will be the last to support Intel. While Apple just updated the MacPro, the rest of the lineup has been Apple Silicone for nearly two years.

 

[Fishrrman]

No one will be "forced" to upgrade.

I reckon there are still a few folks out there using Motorola-powered Macs and the Classic Mac OS.
Who "forced" them ???

 

[MallardDuck]

The title is poorly worded, but essentially I'm wondering how much longer until Intel Mac users will need to upgrade to silicon Macs. Of course there isn't a hard deadline because depending on one's circumstances, the time to migrate is a broad range. But any thoughts on this generally?

I currently run a 13" touchbar MacBook Pro (3.1 GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i5) at home. I know it won't be upgradable to macOS Sonoma . I primarily use it for office functions which I imagine won't be affected for a long time. I also use Obsidian, DEVONthink, Scrivener, all of which could be seen in the productivity/office realm, suppose

If you want to be guaranteed security patches, based on the current trajectory of discontinuing support, it’s 2025. If you want to roll the dice And only get most security patches, it’s a year or two later. Figure 2027 by the latest, if you want security fixes. Which, of course, in this day and age, it’s a good idea.

 

[MallardDuck]

No one will be "forced" to upgrade.

I reckon there are still a few folks out there using Motorola-powered Macs and the Classic Mac OS.
Who "forced" them ???

The hackers, and all the websites that now require SSL.

 

[MajorFubar]

Very true points made here about hardware. 20 years ago it was kind of unthinkable to be using a 10 year old computer. The pace of change over the 10 years to 2003 had been so great that a computer from 1993 was unusable unless you were content with running obsolete apps and having no presence on the modern internet.

Fast forward to 2023, and the biggest driver for updating is not hardware antiquity as such, but enforced obsolescence where new OS's deliberately are not rolled out to machines beyond a certain age, which starts a circa 48-month death-clock ticking for those machines, after which they will not receive security updates for their obsolete OS, and eventually, contemporary apps won't run on them.

Case in point, part of me conscientiously objected to having to update my trusty decked-out 2011 iMac last year. It was as fast as I ever needed, especially with an SSD inside replacing its 1TB HDD (an upgrade from 2017). But it was brickwalled to High Sierra, which became more and more of an issue, because certain apps I wanted to use (not least Photoshop) would not run on it. Also security updates for High Sierra ended in Autumn 2020 which meant I was technically running the machine at risk unless I disconnected it from the world.

 

[MallardDuck]

I'm on a 2012 iMac 27" 22nm myself. If by 2 months from now during the 25th year anniversary of the release of the iMac a 2023 replacement were to appear I'm buying that.

Even if it is the cheapest-end model as any M2 will outperform any non-2019 Mac Pro. I'd then keep it for another decade until the final Security Update appears.

If your use case hardly changes at all then why replace before a decade?

Two words: security fixes. Apple only guarantees them for the current operating system now. They make a best effort to back port to one or two of the previous versions. Running outdated software With known security vulnerabilities is asking for trouble.

 

[Longplays]

No one will be "forced" to upgrade.

I reckon there are still a few folks out there using Motorola-powered Macs and the Classic Mac OS.
Who "forced" them ???

Their circumstances.

If they use it offline then no problem but online they're asking for problems.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Their circumstances.

If they use it offline then no problem but online they're asking for problems.

Especially since a very large number of people have access to a second smaller device they can use for anything their now old computer can’t do. If that 32-bit app that’s no longer supported is the center of all their foreseeable use cases, no one’s “forcing” them to upgrade to anything

 

[Longplays]

Especially since a very large number of people have access to a second smaller device they can use for anything their now old computer can’t do. If that 32-bit app that’s no longer supported is the center of all their foreseeable use cases, no one’s “forcing” them to upgrade to anything

Yesterday I was told off not to provide information for an informed choice.

Like... eh? Not everyone's in the same situation as them.

Some are even looking for any excuse to replace on the slightest provocation.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

There is no "force." Consumers can choose to buy Silicon Macs or go Wintel or other options.

Obviously, now that Apple sells NO Intel Macs, macOS support for Intel and Rosetta 2 are both on a countdown clock. If we look back to the prior transition, appealing new macOS features will probably NOT be available for intel Macs too, stoking desire to "keep up" by purchasing new computers.

My guess is that macOS after Sonoma will still support Intel and then it will go Silicon only. Those with Intel Macs will simply need to stick with the final incarnation of macOS that supports Intel. I still have an old Mac running Snow Leopard, so I can "get back" to a few key Power PC apps that never "flipped the one switch in the compiler and re-compiled."

I further guess that security updates will go maybe 2 more generations of macOS after that and then everything Intel will be "vintaged."

I make both guesses based on the reality that there was a new Intel Mac for sale in the Apple store as recently as only a few days ago. If anything, that might buy a fifth year of direct support into the future as 3 + 2 or, more likely (IMO), 2 + 3 (2 years of macOS for intel + 3 of security updates).

OPTION B: a practical option for those who want to avoid the "force" is to re-embrace Windows and convert their Intel Mac into a full-time Windows computer. Pretty much any of them should be able to install at least Windows 10. And using it that way will probably buy enough time with an up-to-date computer to get it to a point where the hardware itself fails. Microsoft usually supports old hardware much longer than Apple.

 

[msackey]

No one will be "forced" to upgrade.

I reckon there are still a few folks out there using Motorola-powered Macs and the Classic Mac OS.
Who "forced" them ???

That's why the original post indicated it's a poorly worded title (I couldn't think of a better concise way to capture the thought), and that's why it's also in quotes. ;-)

 

[msackey]

Yeah, please don't get hung up on the use of the word "force", which in the title is already in quotes and also explained in the first post that it is poorly worded and then goes on to further explain what I'm trying to articulate. ;-)

 

[Falhófnir]

It wouldn't be surprising if Sonoma is the final macOS release that supports Intel, given the dwindling pool of Intel Macs now down to just 3 years. I'd hope if this is the case Sonoma would get an extended support cycle to hopefully keep those final early 2020 macs covered up to their usual 6th/ 7th year of service. For third party stuff, I wonder how close we are to Apple Silicon Macs becoming a majority of the installed base? Possibly a couple more years as people upgrade and older Intel Macs fall out of general use? The MacBook Air must account for a huge chunk of Mac Sales every year, and that's been Apple Silicon for the longest now (almost 3 years). 5 years is probably a good run for a main computer, so by late 2025 the long tail off of Intel support from apps and services is likely to begin. It will probably stretch out to the end of the decade.

 

[winxmac]

When will Intel mac users be "forced" to upgrade to silicon Macs?

I'm enjoying my pre-owned 15 inch MacBook Pro 2015 installing several macOS versions, Yosemite, El Capitan, Sierra, High Sierra, Mojave, Catalina, Big Sur, and Monterey... And discovering the differences with each release... I am late to owning a mac and late to having a first hand experience...

I don't think I will immediately switch to Apple Silicon since I just bought this one last April... Right now, Yosemite is the installed version... I have Windows 7 on my other computer... I'm not in a hurry and I'm still familiarizing myself with macOS being a long time Windows user...

The only time I would probably switch is once Monterey is no longer supported by third party apps like browsers and others which may be a few years in the future and 3 years and 2 generations of Apple Silicon for me is still early, meaning to me it feels like the early intel core i3/i5/i7 days and once the 6th/7th generation of Apple Silicon is released, that would be it for me...

 

[Longplays]

It wouldn't be surprising if Sonoma is the final macOS release that supports Intel, given the dwindling pool of Intel Macs now down to just 3 years. I'd hope if this is the case Sonoma would get an extended support cycle to hopefully keep those final early 2020 macs covered up to their usual 6th/ 7th year of service. For third party stuff, I wonder how close we are to Apple Silicon Macs becoming a majority of the installed base? Possibly a couple more years as people upgrade and older Intel Macs fall out of general use? The MacBook Air must account for a huge chunk of Mac Sales every year, and that's been Apple Silicon for the longest now (almost 3 years). 5 years is probably a good run for a main computer, so by late 2025 the long tail off of Intel support from apps and services is likely to begin. It will probably stretch out to the end of the decade.

Apple will likely proclaim the >50% point by the next WWDC. Apple expects people to replace every 4 years so 2024 would be nearing that milestone.

So long as you still receive Security Updates I see little reason to replace unless your use case necessitates it or the upgrade improves your circumstances.

Many would balk at that but in truth have their been any meaningfully jaw dropping features that you "must have" in the past dozen years? All of em are "nice to have".

The real concern are the Security Updates.