Some Macs are getting fewer updates than they used to. Here’s why it’s a problem | Hacker News Reader

Some Macs are getting fewer updates than they used to. Here’s why it’s a problem

arstechnica.com

25 pointsDCKing9 comments

The most environmentally friendly computer is the one you already own, it’s sad that Apple forcefully obsolesces still working computers by dropping support for them from new releases of MacOS. Unfortunately the whole ecosystem is geared towards users being on the latest OS version, so third party software also becomes quickly unsupported.

Realistically most computers made in the last 5-7 years have enough processing power to last until broken for the most typical office / web browsing / editing vacation pictures tasks, so as much as everybody likes new shiny things, it would be great if it was possible for the more environmentally conscious consumers to be able to keep using their computers without being exposed to security issues.

I’d rather pay Apple $200/year for new versions of MacOS than be in the current “your hardware is a time limited dongle for MacOS” situation.

Google "opencore". I haven't used it myself yet, mostly happy with my 9yr old Mac and in no hurry to upgrade - but apparently, even though officially Catalina is the latest, it can install Big Sur and even Monterey on my 9yr old hardware.

Further, once Apple support runs out, you can install Linux.

Maybe sort of. Some of the Intel models particularly the T2 laptops have a lot of trouble running Linux even with new kernels. I just gave up and got rid of my 2018 MBP. Easily the worst supported hardware I've used with Linux.

Right now there's a lot of focus on getting Linux running well on M series ARM Macs but who knows if that will be the case in 5 or 10 years.

This is likely at least partially driven by a desire to stop maintaining Intel versions of macOS.

Apple tends to keep the list of supported hardware short anyway, but there’s added incentive with the architecture change — Intel macs are missing several things that are present in M-series macs, which means that they can’t write updates assuming those features are present, which naturally complicates things. There was a bit of this with the PowerPC → Intel transition too, though I’d argue that change wasn’t nearly as dramatic, with the main difference being increased clock speeds and core counts. M-series is more significantly different from Intel (and x86 as a whole) overall than Intel/x86 was from PPC.

I suspect that the first release of macOS where Intel support is out of the picture entirely (or restricted only to 2019 Mac Pro towers with an M-series accelerator card installed) will also bring the most radical set of changes shipped in a macOS update in a long, long time since they’ll be able to make those aforementioned assumptions.

Does this justify cut back support timelines? Probably not, but it tracks with Apple’s typical mode of operation.

> will also bring the most radical set of changes shipped in a macOS update in a long, long time

More radical than Big Sur, which iOSified the entire Mac UI?

Catalina split the disk into a read-write data volume and a read-only system volume (which became cryptographically signed on Big Sur).

My prediction is that the changes to come will make both of those look almost surface-level in comparison. We’ll see though.

Well, UI changes are surface-level. ;-)

But Apple isn't leaving much more room to make macOS like iOS. Except for App Store lockdown...

Does Windows or Linux install on these devices?

Probably not Windows 11, which is a whole other "throw out your working computer" discussion we should be having. That decision by Microsoft is probably more impactful than Apple's decision.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com