Re both discontinuation of Windows 10 and Mac OS for Intel Macs: it is criminal that the two biggest corporations in the world cannot maintain softwares for millions of hardware units and force their untimely retirement.
While Microsoft is ending support for Windows 10 completely, Apple is just stopping feature upgrades. Apple usually supports old OS versions for years to come, especially when it's the only supported version for a lot of devices. So no, Intel Macs don't need to be retired.
The most painful parts are (1) it's a bit hot and loud under load; (2) you need to patch modern software like git, likely with little hope to upstream; (3) waiting hours for those "simple" things to compile - which, in the end, tells us something important about what we'd consider "simple" nowadays.
For both retro and previous-generation hardware, security is the most important concern. Patches for PowerPC kept coming until 2011 or so (that's almost 10 years after that particular machine was released). I'd expect the Intel Macs to keep getting official patches until 2030, and in the meantime I wouldn't be surprised to find community efforts to extend that. "Sorbet Leopard" was a thing for PPC Macs, the Hackintosh community is much stronger than back then.
> the Hackintosh community is much stronger than back then
Yeah but they'll be stuck on macOS 26. That's effectively the planned end of that community, they're not interested in running old versions of macOS on PCs.
People are patching newer macOS's to run on older HW (like OpenCore), running older OS's on PCs as they see fit, all Macs allow downgrading (and 10.15 runs on the final 2019 models). I speculate that the community will settle around some version that strikes a decent balance between stability, features, and ease of patching.
Sure, but that community is interested in running the latest version of macOS on a PC. When Apple releases macOS 27 next year, they will have to think long and hard about their next move. Do I buy a Mac to keep my ability to run the latest version of macOS? Or do I tolerate that I'm running an old version of macOS, the first one with the new design that wasn't really finished in that version to boot?
I give it ten years until the websites of that community straight up disappear.
Those are all hobby projects for 20-30yro machines, few of which are left around. There are millions of Intel Macs in excellent shape. Someone will carry the mantle.
We're not talking about Intel Macs. Those are here forever as collectables. I'm talking about the continuing relevance of hackintoshes. Those will soon join the Intel Macs in the annals of history, and disappear as a relevant community.
Only for security vulnerabilities that "Apple is aware may have been actively exploited". And almost never for any bug fixes (and sadly, Apple now tends to push off bug fixes to the next major release/"n+1" rather than fix bugs in the major version in which they were introduced).
I don't understand why I'm downvoted. I don't think it's acceptable to keep a machine with known vulnerabilities "not yet actively exploited" for "most common uses". The defense of Apple here goes too far.
1. No more security updates means using it is deeply risky
2. A closed ecosystem and App store bitrot combine to make installing anything new on it next to impossible. So, while it may be still useful as a pdf reader, it’s no longer useful as a general purpose computing device - but it COULD be if it was supported.
Make no mistake - most of these devices won’t be used as pdf readers - they will end up in the landfill. This is part of the business model, and we + the environment pay for it.
Fair point. I was talking about iOS devices which are much more locked down than macs. As i see it there are two issues with no-longer supported macs:
1. The security issue i mentioned earlier applies to macs. It’s a bit easier to mitigate because an older mac can run a newer non-system-linked browser. But e.g. firefox is dropping support for 10.14 (released in 2018) this year (https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-users-macos-101...)
2. If you keep your os up to date as long as possible, new features will drag performance down to the point of being nearly unusable. So you’re forced to tradeoff between security+features and performance.
Of course, with a old mac you can always install linux to extend its lifespan… but that’s not thanks to apple
Web browser engine, and OpenSSL (or equivalent) patches alone are the main concern in userspace. Those codebases are a constantly moving target. Look at the stream of CVEs and security patches that Apple publishes. Almost every bug affects every product because of how much code is shared up and down the stack.
Apple is definitely not the worst in this regard, but the most recent version of iOS to support the iPad 3rd generation (the device we are discussing which is being used as a PDF reader) is iOS 9.3.5 (a security/bugfix release on August 25, 2016 which supports the WiFi-only version of the iPad 3rd generation) or iOS 9.3.6 (also a bugfix release on July 22, 2019 which supports the WiFi+cellular version of the same device - specifically, this was a fix to keep GPS working).
The iPad 3rd generation was released in 2012, so the 2016 9.3.5 iOS release gave 4 years of security/bugfix support for the WiFi-only version of that device.
Apple patches anything with a proven exploit as long as it’s in a supported version of the OS. E.g. They will not patch versions beyond macos 10.14 i believe, not sure what the cutoff for iOS is but it’s usually about 6 years of security updates. Which means that iOS 9.3.5 is well outside of that and so a bug that impacts that os will not be patched. Which means using an old device like that on the open internet is deeply foolish
My whole point is that what you believe isn't correct. Apple continues to release security updates for "unsupported" versions (let's be careful about terminology, that term is specific and we're both using it), generally for two more years after a version becomes unsupported.
This is in a lot of the reporting about the topic and linked repeatedly in these comments. Please don't repeat false information.
Now you're right that this particular really old version also doesn't get security updates - but boy do I not have that expectation, and I would be surprised if anyone acting in good faith did.
Apple forbids everyone to put a newer SSL library on it, so it can't be used on networks. I think this is outrageous, to have a great piece of hardware, and not being able to use it.
When I still had my iPad 2 a few year back, I could not find any app that still run on it except for a few games for my cat. After that it became his iPad.
iPad 2 was released in 2011, "a few years back" is an entire decade. It received its last OS update in 2019, eight years later, which is not bad at all. Picture trying to use a PC from 1994 in the year 2008.
What are "most other devices"? I can't think of any electronics I own that are still usable after 10-15 years besides Apple hardware.
Your average PC build will be completely outdated after ~5 years, suffer some type of hardware failure, or have nearly all of it's software (BIOS, OS, drivers) dead and unsupported by then. It is then only usable by enthusiasts / developers, and ends up in a landfill otherwise.
> Your average PC build will be completely outdated after ~5 years, suffer some type of hardware failure, or have nearly all of it's software (BIOS, OS, drivers) dead and unsupported by then. It is then only usable by enthusiasts / developers, and ends up in a landfill otherwise.
This might have been true 20 years ago, it really no longer is. My main personal computer has a CPU that was released in 2014. I got it for free from a company that was getting rid of it, I guess they could justify getting better machines. I replaced the HDD with an SSD, but that's it. I don't know when the computer itself booted the first time since I'm not the first owner, but chances are that it's about 10 years old at this point.
I mostly use Debian, but Windows supports this computer just fine as well.
The main reason electronics become unusable these days is software bloat (e.g. going from Windows 10 to Windows 11), not the hardware, and a Windows PC still feels like it can last way longer than an iPad can.
Not that I disagree about hardware lifetime (also have an old machine running strong on Debian) but just FYI Windows 10 ends this year and Windows 11 doesn't support CPUs older than 2017.
What you're describing is a choice by the developer of the application. There are several applications I use where users are directed to download a new app instead of forcing a breaking update.
A couple Android phones, cameras, audio interfaces, controllers, chromecast, NAS, multiple arduino-style developer boards. All devices I’ve owned where either the hardware died or software became unsupported during the past decade. The only survivors are a PS4 and the Apple ones.
An ipad 2 is not a PC. 2011 PCs were fine eight years later, in 2019, and they are still fine in 2025. Maybe they are too weak for the some of the latest eyecandy games (not really tho), but there is no planned obsolescence, an Apple that actively makes their past products unusable.
It's not that bad. My ex-partner has my old 2017 iMac and it is still supported with patches on Ventura. She's bought an M3 MBA that she hasn't set up yet because she can't be bothered.
As for Microsoft, much like the last few versions of windows, people will just continue to use it anyway. I am!
My wife has a 2015 MacBook that she uses for occasional email and web surfing. It's somewhat slow to startup, but once it's going, it's fine for most ordinary tasks.
Like billions of other people, her phone is her computer. But she occasionally runs into a web site for work, or from a government agency, that requires a real computer.
At what point do you think this becomes ridiculous? Like are we angry they're not still supporting PowerPC? Would three more years have made a difference to you? 5 more? 10 more? What's the magical number would have made you happy here?
Maybe a given number of years isn't what the yardstick should be, but rather whether the hardware can still be reasonably used.
For example, I have a 3rd gen Intel Xeon that runs circles around regular newish processors in brute processing force (think compiling and such). Yet, MS doesn't officially support it anymore with win11. I know you can circumvent the TPM requirement, which I do, so I'm still using it, but this just shows how arbitrary this limit is.
In Apple's case, at least they can say it's a different architecture and whatnot.
Intel macs can run Windows on them (not that it would help) or Linux; a distro like Mint should have good support for most of the hardware, it actually runs better on older models. There is nothing Apple needs to do.
The moment they stop support they should release all documentation for the hardware and let enthusiasts reuse it. Planned obsolescence and electronic waste could be avoided.
That’s not how it works. The cost to maintaining support for old hardware isn’t merely money for more engineers. It’s the opportunity cost of slowing down forward progress for new things.
Intel laptops are sooooo slow. So extremely painfully slow. They’re quite bad. I’m largely a windows users, but my god old Intel laptops are bloody awful. Leaving behind old and bad things isn’t bad.
Besides, an older Intel MacBook will continue to work in its current form. It doesn’t need another 10 years of updates.
They really aren't slow, but the performance and battery life is greatly eclipsed by Apple ARM. I could live pretty comfortably on a Lenovo P51 (something like a 2017 MBP) if I had to under Linux and FreeBSD. Also a not negligible amount of performance was lost by the security gaffes and microcode and OS mitigations for them.
If that's the case, Apple could easily offer a fantastic trade-in deal on existing Intel machines (say, bought in the last 5 years), to get people moved to Apple Silicon. Do you think they can't afford it? I feel bad for the person buying an Intel Mac Mini in 2022.
Apple could afford to randomly select ten thousand people via lottery and give them a million dollars. Most American HN commenters could afford to donate 80% of their salary and still live a comfortable life. And a lot I bet could donate 90%.
A person or company being able to afford something is not a compelling argument.
I know, but Apple offers trade-in credit anyway when you "sell" your old laptop back to them. Offering an additional credit as good will to recent Intel owners would do nothing but help their reputation and get old systems off the street. It doesn't effect me... I migrated to Apple Silicon years ago.
It’s just a simple value prop. Is the cost of increasing the payout worth the brand reputation?
Well we can say with confidence what Apple determined the answer to be. Only a few dorks on HN will care that a 5 year old laptop won’t get the new macOS update.
5 years is admittedly a bit short. But the M1 was a quite frankly revolutionary upgrade. So it’s a one off.
The last of these devices were sold in 2020. Eight years of full support is quite good (longest in the industry?), and usually you can keep using them for a good 2-3 years more, if you don't need the latest apps.
I have Debian Trixie on my Mid 2012, and it's much more responsive, lightweight, and easy on battery than OSX 10.14 (which i had been using until last year.)
As long as we can install linux on it, they can drop support. I don't care a single bit
- Not being able to install debian on M3/M4 has been the only thing that keeps me from retiring that machine, I'd rather keep changing broken components and batteries, because even though moving away from x86 is the right thing to do from an efficiency point of view, we don't have an open standard between manufacturers so their ARM chip, and every other ARM chip, are effectively a proprietary architecture in which the customer ultimately lose because he has no control on its own hardware
Yeah, that's post the controversy. Initially the vendors were expected to provide the updates... who obviously couldn't be arsed, so they set it to something around 1-3 yrs, which frequently went to 0 because the devices weren't sold quickly enough. That's from back when ChromeOS was initially put on the market, something around 2012-2015
Google thankfully relented and took up the maintenance burden, which ended with this policy
The funny thing is that Microsoft has versions of 10 and 11 (with the same hardware requirements as windows 10, no tpm and so on) officially supported till 2032.
There always were ways to "upgrade" your Windows edition (Home -> Pro, etc) through less official channels. I can imagine these "corporate" patches will also make their way somehow.
I'd also like EU to step in and mandate a continued patching period proportional to the number of deployed devices. After all, it's in their own interest: many devices used in day-to-day administration/operations likely do not need an upgrade; landfill is costly; etc.
From Microsoft's perspective, once your OS skew is out of support you got what you paid for in complete.
I don't see much morality in MS's practices, but at least it's straightforward. Like buying a phone with a 2 year warranty, if you actually wish for 10 years instead you'll be paying for the 8 extra years separately.
How else could they make their shareholders happy in the usual MBA style exponential growth that is expected from public companies at the stock exchange?
I agree. 10 years for windows 10 and 6 years for the 2019 Macbooks are not very close, and you have to draw the line somewhere, but I’ll catch in on the outrage
They haven't released a new Intel-based product / product-line since August 2020, and haven't shipped any new units of the same criteria since June 2023.
While new versions of macOS will not be available to them, macOS Tahoe will almost certainly EOL in Fall 2028. That means their Intel-based devices will have a lifetime anywhere from 5 to 8 years at worst, depending on your time of purchase.
Maybe I'm just used to this at this point, but I think this is pretty reasonable.
10 years of update for an OS is not even that bad, the problem is that there is perfectly working hardware out there that will not work with windows 11. (Unless TPU2.0 is circumvented)
I don't have any Intel MacBook to test it out on, but is Intel PTT permanently disabled on them? Almost all Intel CPUs from somewhere in 2014 and later has TPM 2.0 support as far as I'm aware.
I recently sold my old computer with a i7-5820K. It's from 2014, but with 6 cores, 12 threads and 4 Ghz it is still fast enough for video and photo editing, and playing CPU intensive games like GTA or Red Dead Redemption 2. But can't run windows 11 because of TPM.
