I would argue that Apple is a bit on the frugal side here (same as for RAM), since even entry-level PC laptops now regularly ship with 512GB NVMe SSDs, but even considering that, the trend you identified probably still holds true in general.
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.
Will Apple Silicon Macs become slower with software updates like iOS devices? (Slower over time & lack of upgradability = more e-waste)
- Thread starter MisterAndrew
- Start date
-
- Tags
- e-waste upgradeable
- Sort by reaction score
That is certainly true, but I feel every operating system has its ways to ensure a certain amount of gnashed teeth
Apple themselves confirmed they do slow down iPhones to help preserve battery. It’s not made up. It’s just widely misunderstood.
I legitimately cannot comprehend a world where someone believes this? Every Intel Mac ever made, and quite frankly every computer ever made, has gotten slower with each major update that follows.
In situations of batteries passing a certain battery health threshold peak performance may be cut and is as far as I understand it easily solved by getting a fresh battery.
That of course has absolutely zero to do with the nonsense from post 16 in which context my reply is written.
There's different ways to slice that claim, though, which could explain why different people believe different things:
1. After purchasing a Mac, the hardware itself becomes slower with each subsequent update to macOS released, regardless of if those newer versions are installed on that Mac or not
2. After purchasing a Mac, the macOS version it came with becomes slower on that Mac with each subsequent update to macOS released, even when those newer versions are not installed on said Mac
3. After purchasing a Mac, it runs each subsequent update to macOS more slowly than the one it came with
4. After purchasing a Mac, your perception of its performance changes for the worse over time, regardless of if newer versions of macOS are installed on that Mac or not
...
Option 1 is untrue, but it's also a bit of a cheeky way to interpret the claim. The components of the Mac can of course wear down over time and thus perform worse than they did when brand new, but if your HDD starts filling up with bad sectors, for example, you usually say the harddrive is failing rather than the Mac is becoming slower.
Option 2, taken at face value, is untrue. If all you do every single day is boot the Mac up, run a "real workload speed test" and then shut it down, it's not going to become slower over time. It can become slower due to externalities such as filling the harddrive completely and thus hindering the normal operation of macOS, but that's user error rather than hardware error.
Option 3 can be true, but it being true has nothing to do with the original hardware becoming slower, and everything to do with the intent and requirements of newer software becoming more demanding as newer hardware becomes more capable. This option, I'm guessing, is the most common way to interpret the claim by people who don't see or understand the distinction.
Option 4 can be true, simply because people have varied experiences. It's also highly personal, and not really something that can serve as a universal truth. One person might perceive their Mac performing worse because they're enamored with a newer Mac and really, really want to justify that purchase to themselves (or their partner, as is the case sometimes). Another person might have graduated from browsing the web to editing daily 4K videos of their offspring, and the Mac that used to do just fine now suddenly feels slow.
Did I miss an option?
Last edited:
But with Intel MAC, you are not stuck with Mac OS. You can always run Windows or Linux on it if Mac OS becomes too slow.
Or instead of completely changing your OS, just roll back to the Mac OS version which you think ran quickly enough on your Mac.
The first public alpha of Asahi Linux for Mac is just about to be released, with a good chunk of the core drivers already written (CPU, power management, NVMe, keyboard/mouse, USB, Wi-Fi) and accepted upstream in the Linux kernel:
Work on a fully functional display driver, GPU acceleration, and audio is also well underway.
Regardless, I’ve personally never found macOS to get “too slow” on older hardware, just too out-of-date for software at some point after Apple drops support for that Mac’s latest possible version. That’s the only time I’d bother installing Linux.
For those that do not want to read the full post, let me answer the question here: no, your M1 Mac (even the 8GB RAM version) will be just as fast in the future (till its last OS upgrade) as now, and might even become faster. But there are things to consider nonetheless. Details to follow:
As many have said, hardware does not slow down by itself, software can slow it down. And, as mentioned, the main culprit is generally RAM. But there are differences between IOS and MacOS:
1. IOS uses RAM compression and ejection, while MacOS uses RAM compression and swapping the the SSD (= using the SSD as RAM)
2. IOS system updates generally cannot be rolled back, while MacOS can.
It should be pointed out that not every OS update will require more resources, some actually require less, but the long term trend is that they require more. Also some updates can make better use of newer hardware but not of older one.
The original question was if MacOS would slow down M1 as IOS slowed down devices, but that assumes that all IOS devices would slow down with time (or at least to an extent that become perceptible by the user), which is probably not the case.
In the past, Apple was very stingy with RAM on IOS devices (and still is to some extent with non pro models), which coupled with a long series of OS updates, caused devices to first starting ejecting apps from RAM more frequently and then slowing down due to constant memory compression (just like constant swapping to disk may slow down things considerably) and ultimately crash more and more (see iPad 2 on IOS 9).
But how can we tell that RAM is more of a culprit than CPU/GPU?
We need 2 devices with the same SOC but different RAM quantities. 2015 12.9 iPad pro (4GB RAM) and 2016 9.7 pro (2GB RAM) fit this.
Until IOS 12 or even iPadOS 13 they felt roughly the same (with a slight advantage to the 12.9) except that the 9.7 reloaded apps and tabs much more frequently. But with 14 and 15, the 9.7 pro got progressively slower while the 12.9 dual core A9X seems to keep up well (also because RAM compression was not impacting its CPU so much). Even if it gets more updates, it's safe to assume that the 2015 iPad pro will keep its speed thanks to its RAM.
The same thing can be said about the iPad 6 (A10 2GB RAM) and iPad 7 (A10 3GB RAM) for now.
However reloads have increased to some extent in all devices, which shows that iPadOS is progressively requiring more RAM to operate. This trend will probably continue to some extent that we cannot exactly predict, but it's safe to assume that while 3GB devices are probably next in line for slowdowns over time, 4GB devices will probably not slow down over the next 5 years, let alone 6 or 8 GB RAM devices, which will probably end their update cycle just as fast as now, but with more reloads.
M1 Macs start at 8GB, but the "slow down" scenario is very different, not only because of SSD swap, but because it's possible to multitask much more on MacOS and it's possible to have much more apps running at start-up and/or in the background (whether the user realizes this or not it's a different issue....).
It's safe to assume that, a M1 Mac that is freshly installed with MacOS 20 (assuming it will get it) will feel just as fast as now if not faster with something like a couple of simple apps running (including the browser with 1-2 tabs), but could become slower more quickly as apps start to accumulate in the background (including browser tabs) if the OS itself take a larger part of that RAM (but it's very unlikely that even in 8 years MacOS will become so bloated that with 8GB RAM it starts to slow down as soon as you open something, 8GB is plenty for the OS alone and will still be in this decade). 16GB will give much more room of course.
But again the question is not so much will the system slow down with 8 or 16GB, as the answer is clearly no, but is it possible that, in addition to the system using a bit more of that RAM, my personal use of the system increase so that 8 or 16GB or even the 8 cores are no longer able to keep up?
As a rule of thumb, if my normal use is 6-7GB of RAM I take 16GB, but since now my normal use is more 10-12GB RAM, my next Mac will have 32GB RAM to leave me some room to grow.
As many have said, hardware does not slow down by itself, software can slow it down. And, as mentioned, the main culprit is generally RAM. But there are differences between IOS and MacOS:
1. IOS uses RAM compression and ejection, while MacOS uses RAM compression and swapping the the SSD (= using the SSD as RAM)
2. IOS system updates generally cannot be rolled back, while MacOS can.
It should be pointed out that not every OS update will require more resources, some actually require less, but the long term trend is that they require more. Also some updates can make better use of newer hardware but not of older one.
The original question was if MacOS would slow down M1 as IOS slowed down devices, but that assumes that all IOS devices would slow down with time (or at least to an extent that become perceptible by the user), which is probably not the case.
In the past, Apple was very stingy with RAM on IOS devices (and still is to some extent with non pro models), which coupled with a long series of OS updates, caused devices to first starting ejecting apps from RAM more frequently and then slowing down due to constant memory compression (just like constant swapping to disk may slow down things considerably) and ultimately crash more and more (see iPad 2 on IOS 9).
But how can we tell that RAM is more of a culprit than CPU/GPU?
We need 2 devices with the same SOC but different RAM quantities. 2015 12.9 iPad pro (4GB RAM) and 2016 9.7 pro (2GB RAM) fit this.
Until IOS 12 or even iPadOS 13 they felt roughly the same (with a slight advantage to the 12.9) except that the 9.7 reloaded apps and tabs much more frequently. But with 14 and 15, the 9.7 pro got progressively slower while the 12.9 dual core A9X seems to keep up well (also because RAM compression was not impacting its CPU so much). Even if it gets more updates, it's safe to assume that the 2015 iPad pro will keep its speed thanks to its RAM.
The same thing can be said about the iPad 6 (A10 2GB RAM) and iPad 7 (A10 3GB RAM) for now.
However reloads have increased to some extent in all devices, which shows that iPadOS is progressively requiring more RAM to operate. This trend will probably continue to some extent that we cannot exactly predict, but it's safe to assume that while 3GB devices are probably next in line for slowdowns over time, 4GB devices will probably not slow down over the next 5 years, let alone 6 or 8 GB RAM devices, which will probably end their update cycle just as fast as now, but with more reloads.
M1 Macs start at 8GB, but the "slow down" scenario is very different, not only because of SSD swap, but because it's possible to multitask much more on MacOS and it's possible to have much more apps running at start-up and/or in the background (whether the user realizes this or not it's a different issue....).
It's safe to assume that, a M1 Mac that is freshly installed with MacOS 20 (assuming it will get it) will feel just as fast as now if not faster with something like a couple of simple apps running (including the browser with 1-2 tabs), but could become slower more quickly as apps start to accumulate in the background (including browser tabs) if the OS itself take a larger part of that RAM (but it's very unlikely that even in 8 years MacOS will become so bloated that with 8GB RAM it starts to slow down as soon as you open something, 8GB is plenty for the OS alone and will still be in this decade). 16GB will give much more room of course.
But again the question is not so much will the system slow down with 8 or 16GB, as the answer is clearly no, but is it possible that, in addition to the system using a bit more of that RAM, my personal use of the system increase so that 8 or 16GB or even the 8 cores are no longer able to keep up?
As a rule of thumb, if my normal use is 6-7GB of RAM I take 16GB, but since now my normal use is more 10-12GB RAM, my next Mac will have 32GB RAM to leave me some room to grow.
I've been loosely following the Asahi Linux project and it's really interesting!
My previous 2011 mbp was still fine because I got the higher end one and maxed out the RAM. My new mbp has a M1 max and 64gig of RAM so I expect it to last another decade.
My issue is that Apple locked my old system out of OS upgrades which forced me to buy a new machine even though the machine was still perfectly fine for the tasks that I needed it to do. This issue is due to Software developers requiring libraries that depend on low level hardware functions that are introduced over time. They could write code to support the legacy hardware (albeit probably slower) but there is no reason to do that unless the government legislates them to do so.
A lot of people get angry at companies for something that is the government's fault. A company exists to make money. They have an obligation to their shareholders to do. They can't decide to be nice and give good deals or protect the environment unless they are obliged to do so by the laws regulating their markets. Therefore if you want the companies to pay employees more or reduce e-waste then you need to convince the government to pass laws that obligate the companies to do so. Then doing so is a cost and requirement of business and therefore the companies will comply (and probably also lobby against it). But a proper system requires the government to represent the interests of its people (and not corporations). You can obviously see the problem if the government represents corporate interests and then is lobbied by lobbyists with corporate interests - there is no balance.
My issue is that Apple locked my old system out of OS upgrades which forced me to buy a new machine even though the machine was still perfectly fine for the tasks that I needed it to do. This issue is due to Software developers requiring libraries that depend on low level hardware functions that are introduced over time. They could write code to support the legacy hardware (albeit probably slower) but there is no reason to do that unless the government legislates them to do so.
A lot of people get angry at companies for something that is the government's fault. A company exists to make money. They have an obligation to their shareholders to do. They can't decide to be nice and give good deals or protect the environment unless they are obliged to do so by the laws regulating their markets. Therefore if you want the companies to pay employees more or reduce e-waste then you need to convince the government to pass laws that obligate the companies to do so. Then doing so is a cost and requirement of business and therefore the companies will comply (and probably also lobby against it). But a proper system requires the government to represent the interests of its people (and not corporations). You can obviously see the problem if the government represents corporate interests and then is lobbied by lobbyists with corporate interests - there is no balance.
Last edited:
That happens sometimes but is not consistent, nor universal. Machines are sometimes faster after a new OS version.
@mr_roboto already provided an excellent account on this. I would like to add that this is a standard industry feature, everyone limits the hardware max power usage if the battery cannot supply the needed voltage (laptops in particular have been doing it since forever). Apple’s “mistake” was ”admitting” that they do it, which got massively blown out of proportion. It was a PR/communication problem, not a technical one.
If you are satisfied with the performance of the 2011 machine, a MacBook Air with 16 GB would already be an overkill for you.
You are massively trivializing the issue. Writing code is not easy. Supporting legacy stuff will most often come at the expense of performance, stability and cost.
What a bleak capitalist outlook. Regulations are not there to force everyone to do “the minimum”, they are there to limit bad players. Plenty of companies want to do things the right way, but existence of bad players limit their ability to compete. That’s why regulations are important. But this “everyone is a bad player” sentiment is needlessly harsh. And mandating legacy hardware support on the government level would be devastating for hardware and software innovation.
I don't about the rest of you I only upgrade to ONE new version of Mac OS during my lifetime of this Mac. This plus deleting caches once about every two-three months keeps my Macs in the b west shape at their age!
Here’s some plots I made in a different thread comparing iOS and Mac performance over time using Geekbench 4 scores (which supports A5 devices up to the latest iOS chips):
Please note that the Y-axis is log-scaled so it’s easier to view long-term trends. As you can see, the Apple CPU growth rate has been much steeper than Intel chips in the same time frame (though has slowed a bit recently) with Intel Macs only managing to keep pace in the last ~5 years by throwing more cores in their chips while their single-core gains plateaued.
Will be interesting to see how well Apple can keep it’s current pace of single-core gains!
I only recently retired my 2014 MBP. It went through a series of annual OS updates and to the end was just a fast as it ever was. the whole story that OS updates always slow down a computer is just a story and while there may be cases here and there, it is not a universal principle and not something to expect.
Easily swappable components only really seems to matter when you didn't order properly for your needs initially, like not ordering enough ram or storage space. Otherwise, as you say, they don't really extend the usable life of a machine that much.
The only real way I have found to extend the usable life of a PC is to install Ubuntu on it when Windows is no longer usable. That'll extend it pretty much indefinitely, if in a limited fashion.
My 2017 iPad Pro feels slower than it did to me, and I've only filled half the disk. Every iOS device I've ever owned has slowed down after about 3 years, usually appallingly. I see why the OP is asking the question. Hopefully the processors have now got to the point where they're well ahead of the software...
My current devices are only 2 years old, and aren't slowing down at all yet. I think we've got past the days of rapid slowdowns.
Last edited:
I'll work on the assumption you aren't trolling.... I can only assume you're not as good as others at gauging the speed of devices. I've owned iOS devices since the first iPod touch, and EVERY iPhone/iPod/iPad didn't just slow, it damn near ground to a halt by its final software update. I'm not just talking for demanding apps- the absolute basics like web browsing go from being super slick to deathly slow- even the camera usually slows right down!
Maybe I'm unlucky or maybe I'm doing something wrong
?I've had much more luck with my various Intel Macs and Intel PC's over the years. I still have one PC with a Xeon chip running that is at least 13 years old, and in terms of basic stuff it doesn't miss a beat. It has a modern SSD and I use it for playing old games. With a newish graphics card it can still play newish games, believe it or not.
Last edited:
Regardless of your situation with those iOS devices, if you are asking about a Mac that is a Mac OS issue and there have been no problems with Mac OS slowing down computers. The chip being Intel or Apple has nothing to do with it. If you get the lowest amount of RAM and lowest about of storage, you might run int performance issues a little sooner than if you had a little more work room.I'll work on the assumption you aren't trolling.... I can only assume you're not as good as others at gauging the speed of devices. I've owned iOS devices since the first iPod touch, and EVERY iPhone/iPod/iPad didn't just slow, it damn near ground to a halt by its final software update. I'm not just talking for demanding apps- the absolute basics like web browsing go from being super slick to deathly slow- even the camera usually slows right down!
Maybe I'm unlucky or maybe I'm doing something wrong
I've had much more luck with my various Intel Macs and Intel PC's over the years. I still have one PC with a Xeon chip running that is at least 13 years old, and in terms of basic stuff it doesn't miss a beat. It has a modern SSD and I use it for playing old games. With a newish graphics card it can still play newish games, believe it or not.
I wasn't asking about the processor. OP was. I speculated that old iOS processors were slow, and got caught out by laptop level apps. If I'm right, the premature slowing of devices should be a thing of the past. Of course, Apple's stingy allocation of RAM in iOS devices also hamstrung them.