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

[Nekomichi]

Depends on your use case. I know several people still using PowerPC Macs.

 

[Siliconguy]

It's kinda crazy thinking back how I've transitioned from 680x0 processors to the PowerPC, then to Intel, and eventually to Apple Silicon. I think the first Mac I used was on System 6.0.3.

Me too. Mac SE/30. It was quite the upgrade from the //e which I had flogged to death with a Transwarp, SCSI card, and a RamFactor.

 

[MallardDuck]

macOS Sierra is 6yo

macOS High Sierra is 5yo

And neither have gotten security patches in years.

 

[Longplays]

And neither have gotten security patches in years.

Indeed hence the confusion.

Newer 2019 macOS Catalina received its final Security Update over 10 months ago.

So when I talk about OS support I point to the year model of the Mac as an easier determinant.

So when I was able to ID @msackey MBP as a 2017 model I knew it would have up to a possible 8 years.

Historically Intel Macs have nearly 10 years of support. After Apple Silicon chips were announced 3 years ago was when Apple shortened it to 8 years.

So when referring to the macOS it is pointed to the name or version number not how many years ago it was 1st introduced.

 

[msackey]

It's a sad realization, but I won't be buying any more Macs.

All my personal machines, and most of my work machines, are Macs but my next workstation will likely be from Lenovo.

The state of the Mac Pro, the transition to Apple silicon, and the current quality of Apple's software make it so.

that's too bad. What makes the Mac Pro and transition to silicon not tenable for you?

 

[MallardDuck]

Indeed hence the confusion.

Newer macOS Catalina received its final Security Update over 10 months ago.

And only Ventura is guaranteed to get them (Sonoma by the end of the year).

Apple's clearly pushing people to upgrade far sooner than the straight hardware would require for some use cases. I do expect the ARM machines to have a longer lifespan than intel ones.

 

[JMStearnsX2]

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.

They've done it before. I had bought a dual G5 PowerMac a couple months before the new Intel Mac Pro announcement.
I got 1 (one) OS upgrade after that....

 

[JMStearnsX2]

The 2019 Mac Pro is still less than 4 years old, and at the price of that machine, I cannot imagine Apple dropping support for these Macs anytime soon. But I think other Intel machines will rapidly be unsupported. I also think Apple will provide security updates for a few extra years for Intel machines despite not running the latest software.

And Apple is not forcing anything, a Mac will perform very well for a few more years with legacy software.

It's happened before...

 

[Longplays]

And only Ventura is guaranteed to get them (Sonoma by the end of the year).

Apple's clearly pushing people to upgrade far sooner than the straight hardware would require for some use cases. I do expect the ARM machines to have a longer lifespan than intel ones.

Assuming 2022 macOS Ventura has 2 more years of Security Updates then it will fit the 8 year support time of the 2017 MBP 13" of @msackey

Looking back to the PowerPC, I do not know if it is about the userbase size but last top-end 2005 Power Mac G5 was only supported until 2009.

To me that's a raw deal.

 

[JMStearnsX2]

Assuming 2022 macOS Ventura has 2 more years of Security Updates then it will fit the 8 year support time of the 2017 MBP 13" of @msackey

Looking back to the PowerPC, I do not know if it is about the userbase size but last top-end 2005 Power Mac G5 was only supported until 2009.

To me that's a raw deal.

That was me.

 

[msackey]

Apple's clearly pushing people to upgrade far sooner than the straight hardware would require for some use cases. I do expect the ARM machines to have a longer lifespan than intel ones.

It does look like Apple is pushing people to upgrade sooner, or another way to put it is that Apple is quickly dropping support for Intel. I can see that and I also understand. They've decided no longer to support the Intel platform and are moving to a different set of chip architecture. If they didn't, my Mac would possibly be still supported on macOS Sonoma, but that timeline is compressed now due to the move to a new architecture. It seems reasonable...in a way...

 

[Longplays]

That was me.

Yikes.

The PPC to Intel transition embolden me to buy a 2019 MBP 16" as I thought it would be at most a 20% raw performance increase.

Never realized it would be from a 14nm non-SoC to a 5nm SoC. To think I was aware of the performance per watt difference as early as 2017.

I should have never bought those 14nm laptops in 2017, 2018 & 2019 and kept using the 2011 32nm then replace with a 2021 5nm. Dave2D is a really good salesman.

I look forward to jump from a 2012 iMac 27" 2.5K 22nm to a 2023 iMac 27" 5K 5nm when it hopefully comes out in 2-4 months from now.

 

[ignatius345]

I look forward to jump from a 2012 iMac 27" 2.5K 22nm to a 2023 iMac 27" 5K 5nm when it hopefully comes out in 2-4 months from now.

I hope that comes to pass as well, but it's been quite a while now and it's starting to seem as if Apple considers the 27" Apple Studio Display (+ whatever Mac you choose to connect it to) to be the replacement for the 5K iMac.

They did also say in the keynote that with the release of the M2 Mac Pro that the transition of Macs to Apple Silicon was now "complete."

 

[Longplays]

I hope that comes to pass as well, but it's been quite a while now and it's starting to seem as if Apple considers the 27" Apple Studio Display (+ whatever Mac you choose to connect it to) to be the replacement for the 5K iMac.

They did also say in the keynote that with the release of the M2 Mac Pro that the transition of Macs to Apple Silicon was now "complete."

If none shows up within this year I'll get myself a Dell U2723QE to connect with my 2019 MBP 16" 14nm and call it a day.

I'll worry what to upgrade to by 2027. Maybe by then they'll bring back a larger iMac. 🤣

 

[Tdude96]

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?

Generally? Probably about 10 years from purchase if you want active security updates and it's holding up to your usage needs.

The 2017 iMac shipped with Sierra, got upgrades to High Sierra, Mojave, Catalina, Big Sur, Monterey, and Ventura (roughly 7 years of active support via new OS versions). Big Sur got a security update in May, while Catalina last got one in July 2022. So I'm counting Big Sur as still being in active support and Catalina as no longer supported. Project that forward and assume Ventura also gets 3 years of security updates, that's roughly 10 years of active security updates from the computer's launch date.

Of course this is subject to Apple's whims on what they're going to support, as far as I know they don't commit to a specific timeline on these things. But 7-10 years seems like a good run for a computer to me.

 

[Yebubbleman]

"have to" upgrade is relative. You could air-gap it and run it into the ground. But as far as security update support and interoperability with current versions of apps goes, you're generally fine so long as the version of macOS you are on is not more than two versions older than the current version. Apple will only support/patch two versions older than the current. The third party Mac software ecosystem generally aligns with this. Though, there are generally exceptions depending on the software (Chrome and Firefox have introduced versions for older systems that only get security fixes and otherwise do not increment versions for OSes older than what Apple will support). Apps that were never updated past the version you are on should theoretically work indefinitely.

All that to say that unless you are intending to air gap your Mac, then you probably want to replace no later than the point at which the final major macOS release that it can run receives its last OS update. If that's Ventura, then you have until Fall 2025. If that's Monterey, you have until Fall 2024. Either way, you have some time and shouldn't feel like you NEED to buy something NOW unless you have other needs/desires prompting you to do so now.

 

[WilliApple]

It’s when the apps no longer support Intel Macs anymore. This will likely be 4-6 years after the last Intel macOS. My plans are to keep supporting Intel Macs until 2 years after.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

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. ;-)

You HAD to know that “forced” was the right word to use to get a lot of responses, though. I mean “When do you think Intel Mac users will feel compelled to purchase Apple Silicon systems” wouldn’t have gotten half as much attention!

 

[Longplays]

You HAD to know that “forced” was the right word to use to get a lot of responses, though. I mean “When do you think Intel Mac users will feel compelled to purchase Apple Silicon systems” wouldn’t have gotten half as much attention!

Better question... what about PowerPC users?

Even though there are about 2,000 worldwide online they chime in and say they cant be "forced".

 

[Shirasaki]

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

The web browser loaded to those classic macs can’t even load Google nowadays, much less anything slightly more complex. Do you really think those people collecting those classic Mac running Mac OS 9 uses it as daily driving machine, assuming those can connect to Internet easily?

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.

Two words: performance. Newer software tailored to newer hardware taxes old hardware more, one reason I stick to 2020 version of Photoshop instead of using the latest version despite also paying for subscription. Yes, I lose security updates, but if every step of my work takes 5 more seconds to complete, that’s not the tradeoff I want to take.

 

[briloronmacrumo]

The title is poorly worded, but essentially I'm wondering how much longer until Intel Mac users will need to upgrade to silicon Macs.

Intel Macs will lose macOS support at some point. Only Apple knows when that will happen exactly. Developers will follow Apple's lead and make Universal apps ( that run natively on Intel and Apple Silicon ) until Apple pulls the plug. Apple's decision to drop Intel in a macOS release will be influenced by their own plans and also whether building a new macOS presents additional work. At a minimum, they have to dedicate testing resources to make sure a new OS runs on Intel machine.

Unlike Apple's last transition from PowerPC to Intel, they wrote the Rosetta 2 emulator, so there won't be any pressure in that regard like there was with the first Rosetta ( which wasn't written by Apple ). Even when Apple removes Intel support from its OS, options are available ( like keeping the current OS and not upgrading, running an older OS in a VM etc. ). Based on Apple's last transition, my best guess is macOS will support Intel macs for the next 2 to 4 years.

Of course, the unrelenting annual macOS updates tend to gradually slow down older macs as they insist on new features ( not to mention the required emojis ), so many users might want to stop updating the OS sooner or ( as Apple hopes ) update to Apple Silicon.

 

[msackey]

You HAD to know that “forced” was the right word to use to get a lot of responses, though. I mean “When do you think Intel Mac users will feel compelled to purchase Apple Silicon systems” wouldn’t have gotten half as much attention!

Well I couldn’t think of the word at that time. Lol

 

[dawnrazor]

I think you’re asking the wrong question… Intel macs have not suddenly become unusable or are not going to become unusable anytime soon, their life span is the same… The more problematic issue is what Apple Silicon has done to the secondhand Intel Apple market. Traditionally Apple products have held their value very well and a well spec’d machine will have a respectable secondhand value several years later. AS has not only flooded the secondhand market with relatively new Intel macs but also the customers aren’t buying them and why would they when they can get on the AS platform…

Example: I‘m upgrading from a 2020 27” iMac - (i9, 5700XT 128GB ram 4TB SSD) basically a maxed out beast of its day… It’s just over 2 years old. It cost me $9000NZD (imac and ram) —- I’ve just bought a Mac Studio Ultra M2. I’m looking to sell the iMac - I realistically want to get $4000… If it wasn’t for AS I’d be looking at $6000 and the reality is if I’m offered $3000 I’ll take it…

That’s what AS has done to Intel macs… destroyed their secondhand values…

 

[msackey]

I think you’re asking the wrong question… Intel macs have not suddenly become unusable or are not going to become unusable anytime soon, their life span is the same… The more problematic issue is what Apple Silicon has done to the secondhand Intel Apple market. Traditionally Apple products have held their value very well and a well spec’d machine will have a respectable secondhand value several years later. AS has not only flooded the secondhand market with relatively new Intel macs but also the customers aren’t buying them and why would they when they can get on the AS platform…

Interesting take on the question.

The issue you pointed out happened twice in the past for Macs: the transition from 680x0 to PowerPC, then the transition to Intel.

 

[foxtictac]

You know what pains me most? I, too, work on a 2017 Retina iMac 27" and I just love the screen. It's perfect for my eyes and on par (if not better, according to some reviewers) with the current Studio Display. When I will eventually (have to) upgrade, it will just be a shame that I have to give up on this beautiful screen.
There's not a direct replacement for it yet, and when something does come along, the screen will have to be significantly better to be appealing. What I'm trying to say is that the internals will probably go obsolete before the screen itself feels the same way, and that's a bit of a bummer.
Yes, I know about Luna but I believe it's currently limited to 45Hz at 5K.