macOS 27 will end support for Intel-based Macs

“Tahoe is the last release for Intel-based Mac computers.

The last Intel Macs

The remaining Intel Macs still supported by macOS Tahoe include the 16-inch MacBook Pro from 2019, the 13-inch MacBook Pro from 2020 with four Thunderbolt 3 ports, the 27-inch iMac from 2020, and the 2019 Mac Pro. Those...”

Source: VideoCardz.com
https://videocardz.com/newz/apple-t...-with-macos-27-tahoe-26-becomes-final-release

Tahoe is supported until mid-late 2028.

Not a bad run for the Intel based Macs.

There is a time when you just got to tear off the bandaid and move on.

I was watching a video where a guy was saying that these intel based mac's are great, will run linux, but the biggest problem is many of the devices they get, were never properly offboarded from Apple or what ever management tool, so the devices are bricks as they can not even be reformated to have another OS put on them because they are tied to an appleID..

What a waste...

If you bought a Mac expecting something that wasn't going in the trash after ~5 years, that's on you.

GotNoRice said:

If you bought a Mac expecting something that wasn't going in the trash after ~5 years, that's on you.

Click to expand...

Yes but, Intel Macs can run Linux, so you do have your options. Something I'm not sure future ARM based Macs will ever enjoy.

DukenukemX said:

Yes but, Intel Macs can run Linux, so you do have your options. Something I'm not sure future ARM based Macs will ever enjoy.

Click to expand...

Yeah ... as I've said elsewhere ... all of my old devices ... including Macs ... are running various flavors of Linux (mostly Mint). They work great. I tried OpenCore but it slowed them down to a crawl.

As for ARM Macs, this is the only Linux distro that currently works on them: https://asahilinux.org/

I've tried it before and I'm not sure how I like it. It's been a while, so maybe it's improved. The UI was just ... weird.

GotNoRice said:

If you bought a Mac expecting something that wasn't going in the trash after ~5 years, that's on you.

Click to expand...

Apple generally supports computers for 6-7 years with major updates... and in case you hadn't noticed, no one said you had to throw out your computer the moment you stop getting major versions. You'll still get important security fixes.

Besides, Apple Silicon was a major overhaul that dramatically improved performance. The folks who care about getting the latest big OS releases will be ready to upgrade, if they haven't done it already.

Aurelius said:

Apple generally supports computers for 6-7 years with major updates... and in case you hadn't noticed, no one said you had to throw out your computer the moment you stop getting major versions. You'll still get important security fixes.

Besides, Apple Silicon was a major overhaul that dramatically improved performance. The folks who care about getting the latest big OS releases will be ready to upgrade, if they haven't done it already.

Click to expand...

Microsoft cut of like 70% of the planet with Windows 11 ... and that's a much bigger issue.

Shoganai said:

As for ARM Macs, this is the only Linux distro that currently works on them: https://asahilinux.org/

Click to expand...

Asahi Linux is the only Linux that's running on ARM Mac. Even still, I'm not even sure if they have it running on M3, let alone M4 and M5? Even when it does, it's very broken. Without a company backing up the development of the hardware drivers, then nothing will ever 100% work under Linux.

It'll be PowerPC all over again. I have a couple of G4 Macbooks that I haven't turned on in years because of this. I even have a couple of Power Mac G5 Tower's that I want to convert to a PC because the G5 chips are useless. I do have Ubuntu installed on the G4 Macbooks, but it's not really usable.

Besides, Apple Silicon was a major overhaul that dramatically improved performance. The folks who care about getting the latest big OS releases will be ready to upgrade, if they haven't done it already.

Click to expand...

People tend to hold onto computers for a very long time, including Intel Macs. It's not like Louis Rossmann was fixing relatively new Macs. People want those things working no matter what.

DukenukemX said:

Asahi Linux is the only Linux that's running on ARM Mac. Even still, I'm not even sure if they have it running on M3, let alone M4 and M5? Even when it does, it's very broken. Without a company backing up the development of the hardware drivers, then nothing will ever 100% work under Linux.

It'll be PowerPC all over again. I have a couple of G4 Macbooks that I haven't turned on in years because of this. I even have a couple of Power Mac G5 Tower's that I want to convert to a PC because the G5 chips are useless. I do have Ubuntu installed on the G4 Macbooks, but it's not really usable.

Click to expand...

It's pretty crap. I didn't like it, lol.

Aurelius said:

Apple generally supports computers for 6-7 years with major updates... and in case you hadn't noticed, no one said you had to throw out your computer the moment you stop getting major versions. You'll still get important security fixes.

Besides, Apple Silicon was a major overhaul that dramatically improved performance. The folks who care about getting the latest big OS releases will be ready to upgrade, if they haven't done it already.

Click to expand...

The last Intel based Mac was released in 2020.

8 years of software support isn’t the worst, that’s longer than the parts are likely to last for most.

GotNoRice said:

If you bought a Mac expecting something that wasn't going in the trash after ~5 years, that's on you.

Click to expand...

You see to have your basic arithmetic skills offline. The 16" MBP is a 2019 release, it is 2026 already and 2 years to go with security fixes,

I spent a lot of money on one of those suckers and I am satisfied with the duration of OS patches.

Not to much with the noisy fan and the throttling

Shoganai said:

Yeah ... as I've said elsewhere ... all of my old devices ... including Macs ... are running various flavors of Linux (mostly Mint). They work great. I tried OpenCore but it slowed them down to a crawl.

As for ARM Macs, this is the only Linux distro that currently works on them: https://asahilinux.org/

I've tried it before and I'm not sure how I like it. It's been a while, so maybe it's improved. The UI was just ... weird.

Click to expand...

I came across this status report a few hours ago elsewhere. They're making progress on feature completeness for m1/2 hardware and have upstreamed enough stuff that the size of their patch set is actually down a decent amount despite ongoing work. They've also recently gotten m3 support to janky proof of concept/development target level; but are along way from it being user ready. The lack of any mention of M4/5 doesn't give me any confidence that they'll catch up anytime soon. (Although to be fair, the iterative nature of apple's hardware does mean that until they have m3 support solid it doesn't make much sense to put anything into starting on m4/5.)

https://asahilinux.org/2026/02/progress-report-6-19/

uOpt said:

You see to have your basic arithmetic skills offline. The 16" MBP is a 2019 release, it is 2026 already and 2 years to go with security fixes

Click to expand...

The abandonment of Intel-based Macs isn't something that just started though, in fact, it's well underway at this point. That means it's not just a matter of security fixes, but more a question of how long do you want to keep using a platform with no future where an increasingly large number of programs might not, and probably won't, work correctly.

My main laptop is also from 2019. A Dell Lattitude 7740 with a RTX 5000. I can pretty much guarantee that 5+ years from now I'll still be able to put the latest version of Windows on there, and it will still be able to play games if I need it to. That may even be true 10 years from now. That's because it isn't a Mac.

GotNoRice said:

The abandonment of Intel-based Macs isn't something that just started though, in fact, it's well underway at this point. That means it's not just a matter of security fixes, but more a question of how long do you want to keep using a platform with no future where an increasingly large number of programs might not, and probably won't, work correctly.

My main laptop is also from 2019. A Dell Lattitude 7740 with a RTX 5000. I can pretty much guarantee that 5+ years from now I'll still be able to put the latest version of Windows on there, and it will still be able to play games if I need it to. That may even be true 10 years from now. That's because it isn't a Mac.

Click to expand...

So far I am not aware of Mac software that dropped support for Intel, except for some Apple-made stuff such as Logic Pro and some of their AI stuff.

The 2019 Mac is indeed still one of the most flexible platforms ever made, if you count Wine and Parallels in. It runs an incredible range of software.

GotNoRice said:

The abandonment of Intel-based Macs isn't something that just started though, in fact, it's well underway at this point. That means it's not just a matter of security fixes, but more a question of how long do you want to keep using a platform with no future where an increasingly large number of programs might not, and probably won't, work correctly.

My main laptop is also from 2019. A Dell Lattitude 7740 with a RTX 5000. I can pretty much guarantee that 5+ years from now I'll still be able to put the latest version of Windows on there, and it will still be able to play games if I need it to. That may even be true 10 years from now. That's because it isn't a Mac.

Click to expand...

That's true, but then Windows also isn't undergoing a fundamental hardware architecture shift.

Windows' legacy support is both an upside and a downside. It's great that you can keep a PC for 10 years knowing your apps will run. But it also means Windows is effectively chained to x86, and we're seeing the consequences of that. Apple has some key advantages, and Windows PCs themselves suffer (poor sleep management, Windows on ARM's lack of polish, that sort of thing).

It's really a case of tradeoffs. You have no choice in hardware vendors with Apple and may have to upgrade sooner than you'd like, but in the Apple Silicon era it's also moving faster than Microsoft and with better optimization. I'll be somewhat surprised if Snapdragon PCs take off, as Windows' inherent inertia is effectively holding them back.

10 years of usage for Apple products is pretty common. I don’t know where you are getting this idea that people throw them away after 5 years because they are falling apart.

Aurelius said:

That's true, but then Windows also isn't undergoing a fundamental hardware architecture shift.

Click to expand...

Which is a decision Apple made. Dropping support for Intel machines is no different than Microsoft dropping support for older CPU's for Windows 11. You're still screwing people and forcing them to upgrade when they felt like they didn't need to.

Windows' legacy support is both an upside and a downside. It's great that you can keep a PC for 10 years knowing your apps will run. But it also means Windows is effectively chained to x86, and we're seeing the consequences of that.

Click to expand...

There's no consequence to sticking with x86. Microsoft wants to go ARM to lock users into their ecosystem.

Apple has some key advantages, and Windows PCs themselves suffer (poor sleep management, Windows on ARM's lack of polish, that sort of thing).

Click to expand...

Poor sleep management is still a Microsoft issue since they want to micro-wake your PC to check for Email and updates. Apple also suffers from this as well, but for some reason people think Apple is immune? It's pretty extensive if you Google it. I like how the solution looks like something I would have to do in Linux.

View: https://youtu.be/Map9ZooRkQM?si=ettwjigksG8l27FB

It's really a case of tradeoffs. You have no choice in hardware vendors with Apple and may have to upgrade sooner than you'd like, but in the Apple Silicon era it's also moving faster than Microsoft and with better optimization.

Click to expand...

The problem for Microsoft is that nobody has made a CPU that's 100% competitive against Apple yet, and this does include Qualcomm's Snapdragon X chips. But I see this as more of a difference of AMD and Intel putting their effort into SIMD instruction sets instead of just making their CPU's powerful in general. Which the true problem for legacy x86 is software developers unwilling to update their applications to take advantage of something like AVX-512, which has shown to do dramatic things when applied properly.

At some point AVX-512 will become a big deal for applications and Intel maybe pushing this with their BOT tool (binary optimization tool). Not that I think Intel's BOT is the future, but more of a threat from Intel. They want developers to push for SIMD and VECTOR instructions or they'll do it for you. ARM does have SVE2 but Apple still hasn't implemented this yet. Qualcomm might have with X2 chips, but I haven't heard much about their new X2 chips as reviews I trust are slowly coming. Qualcomm might have only implemented certain parts of SVE2, but I don't know?

View: https://youtu.be/jF3BAPIAXW0?si=Etrq-OnJV9_I2Szj

I'll be somewhat surprised if Snapdragon PCs take off, as Windows' inherent inertia is effectively holding them back.

Click to expand...

They won't be as there's no advantage over AMD and Intel machines. We've yet to see AMD's Zen6 and Zen7 chips, as it sounds like AMD is going to release both not too far apart from each other, which is weird. We'll see if AMD has another Zen3 moment.

DukenukemX said:

Which is a decision Apple made. Dropping support for Intel machines is no different than Microsoft dropping support for older CPU's for Windows 11. You're still screwing people and forcing them to upgrade when they felt like they didn't need to.

Click to expand...

These are very different decisions, and you know it.

Apple made a wholesale architecture change. Dropping Intel support isn't just about raising expectations for security (like Windows 11's TPM requirement) and compatibility; it's about a complete shift in capabilities and performance. There are certain features that just can't work on Intel Macs, and the early M1 models were so much faster than Intel machines that even 2019 Mac Pro and MacBook Pro buyers wished they'd waited.

There's also the question of efficiency. Having to include everything to support an old platform drains resources for staff and developers. Going ARM-only both lets Apple concentrate on its current tech and simplifies things for app creators. Microsoft's Windows 11 cutoff might be arbitrary, but it's actually a bit refreshing given the company's notorious "legacy support at all costs" approach that limits features in the name of supporting stubborn corporate clients.

DukenukemX said:

Poor sleep management is still a Microsoft issue since they want to micro-wake your PC to check for Email and updates. Apple also suffers from this as well, but for some reason people think Apple is immune? It's pretty extensive if you Google it. I like how the solution looks like something I would have to do in Linux.

Click to expand...

It's not nearly as much of an issue on the Mac side, though it can happen. I can put my MacBook Pro to sleep in my bag and wake up having nearly the same charge.

DukenukemX said:

The problem for Microsoft is that nobody has made a CPU that's 100% competitive against Apple yet, and this does include Qualcomm's Snapdragon X chips. But I see this as more of a difference of AMD and Intel putting their effort into SIMD instruction sets instead of just making their CPU's powerful in general. Which the true problem for legacy x86 is software developers unwilling to update their applications to take advantage of something like AVX-512, which has shown to do dramatic things when applied properly.

At some point AVX-512 will become a big deal for applications and Intel maybe pushing this with their BOT tool (binary optimization tool). Not that I think Intel's BOT is the future, but more of a threat from Intel. They want developers to push for SIMD and VECTOR instructions or they'll do it for you. ARM does have SVE2 but Apple still hasn't implemented this yet. Qualcomm might have with X2 chips, but I haven't heard much about their new X2 chips as reviews I trust are slowly coming. Qualcomm might have only implemented certain parts of SVE2, but I don't know?

Click to expand...

This underscores my point: sticking to x86 means you're unlikely to get that "100% competitive" chip as there isn't much incentive to change priorities. AMD and Intel can keep on their roadmaps as Microsoft can't really push back... what's it going to do, kick them out? Apple's control of both the OS and hardware has its limitations, but it also means the company can chart its own course and isn't waiting for anyone else's help.

There are some early Snapdragon X2 reviews, such as for ASUS' Zenbook A16 and A14. The summary: they're much better than earlier X chips in some respects, but graphics performance is still a weak point and you'll still find areas where Apple does better. I wouldn't mind a Zenbook given my use cases (I know all the apps I need are ARM-native), but I'm not in a rush to replace my MacBook Pro.

Aurelius said:

I can put my MacBook Pro to sleep in my bag and wake up having nearly the same charge.

Click to expand...

When I had one, that would work, as long as I was careful to close all my applications first. If the wrong application (mostly Outlook) did the wrong thing, chances were my laptop would be at 5% battery when I pulled it out the next day.

toast0 said:

When I had one, that would work, as long as I was careful to close all my applications first. If the wrong application (mostly Outlook) did the wrong thing, chances were my laptop would be at 5% battery when I pulled it out the next day.

Click to expand...

I don't usually run Outlook and close it when I do, so that helps. But I have closed my laptop with all my production tools open (most often Photoshop, Slack, Chrome) — you have to when you're in a hurry to leave a venue or board a flight!

Aurelius said:

These are very different decisions, and you know it.

Click to expand...

You're right. Apple is ending feature updates, but security updates will go on for another 2-3 years.

There are certain features that just can't work on Intel Macs, and the early M1 models were so much faster than Intel machines that even 2019 Mac Pro and MacBook Pro buyers wished they'd waited.

Click to expand...

Like what? Also, M1's weren't always faster than Intel. Certainly has overall better performance, but there are moments when Intel was faster.

There's also the question of efficiency. Having to include everything to support an old platform drains resources for staff and developers. Going ARM-only both lets Apple concentrate on its current tech and simplifies things for app creators.

Click to expand...

Yea but this does call into question if buying Apple is future proof? Apple could go RISC-V or some architecture they made and dump ARM next year. This is obviously a hypothetical situation that won't happen anytime soon, but if you're a die hard Apple user then I can't envy the ups and downs of how many times Apple has left a CPU architecture for the next best thing.

Microsoft's Windows 11 cutoff might be arbitrary, but it's actually a bit refreshing given the company's notorious "legacy support at all costs" approach that limits features in the name of supporting stubborn corporate clients.

Click to expand...

Except that it doesn't limit features and things like TPM2.0 and Secure Boot are obviously not needed. I know because I've installed Windows 11 on a number of machines without these features enabled. It's just Microsoft pushing for new security standards for reasons that I'm sure aren't to users benefits.

This underscores my point: sticking to x86 means you're unlikely to get that "100% competitive" chip as there isn't much incentive to change priorities. AMD and Intel can keep on their roadmaps as Microsoft can't really push back... what's it going to do, kick them out? Apple's control of both the OS and hardware has its limitations, but it also means the company can chart its own course and isn't waiting for anyone else's help.

Click to expand...

x86 is in a unique situation since AMD and Intel have to fight each other for market share due to a weird licensing that occurred near 40 years ago. Historically, CPU architectures always stagnate because at some point an architecture always becomes dominate. We've seen this with MIPS and PowerPC. MIPS lost to ARM because ARM had the better chips and MIPS didn't want to invest. PowerPC failed because x86 had the better chips. IBM did not want to invest into PowerPC as much as Intel was investing in x86.

ARM is also in a situation where they dominate the market, with the exception of desktop PC's and servers. ARM maybe making their own chips which is kinda a problem for other ARM chip manufacturers. Apple's situation is different because their M-series chips have not taken away market share from Windows. Apple was already sitting on the success of the M1 chips, as we've seen them get lazy with M2's and M3's. Remember the M2's based storage had half SSD speeds while M3's has lower performance cores and bandwidth compared to M2's. Not to forget the M3 Pro had even lower GPU core count over the M2 Pro.

I think Apple wasn't expecting AMD and Intel along with Windows to hold onto as much market share as they had, since it looked like the M1 chips were a clear winner. In fact, Apple lost market share during the M2's and M3's because ya know, customers do pay attention to specs. The M4's and M5's are much better chips as Apple stopped taking one step forward and three steps back. It did help that Apple stopped making 8GB of ram the default... until the Neo. The M5 especially had a much needed GPU performance increase because AMD and Intel started to put more effort on iGPU performance with their chips. Even still, near the end of 2025 we saw Apple sales stagnate while other PC manufacturers surged.

The point I'm making is that Apple wants to be in the position that MIPS, PowerPC, and even Intel during the 2010's in being able to sit back and spend very little on R&D. Right now, Apple is spending more on R&D than Intel and AMD combined. How much of that R&D is going towards their ARM chips? I don't know but it's gotta be significant. There's a reason why the Mac Mini and Neo are $600, because Apple is desperate for market share. You don't spend that much on R&D and still maintain the same market share as Apple had when they were using Intel chips and consider that a win.

There are some early Snapdragon X2 reviews, such as for ASUS' Zenbook A16 and A14. The summary: they're much better than earlier X chips in some respects, but graphics performance is still a weak point and you'll still find areas where Apple does better. I wouldn't mind a Zenbook given my use cases (I know all the apps I need are ARM-native), but I'm not in a rush to replace my MacBook Pro.

Click to expand...

Benchmark results are easy to find, but I wanna see the people who actually use them. I remember with the X1's that I said they were trash because people had issues with stability and were only fast in synthetic bencmarks. Turns out, I wasn't the only one as the return rates were super high. X1 based laptops were not cheap either, at least not initially. Despite being ARM based, it's no where near as good as Apple's ARM chips, and was even beaten by AMD and Intel x86 chips in performance and efficiency. I expect the X2's to be better, but by how much and how stable?

GotNoRice said:

My main laptop is also from 2019. A Dell Lattitude 7740 with a RTX 5000. I can pretty much guarantee that 5+ years from now I'll still be able to put the latest version of Windows on there, and it will still be able to play games if I need it to. That may even be true 10 years from now. That's because it isn't a Mac.

Click to expand...

What about Intel 7th gen (Kaby Lake) from 2017 and earlier platforms that all went EOL with Windows 10 since Microsoft didn't officially allow them to run Windows 11?
I don't think anyone can guarantee anything in regards to Windows compatibility 5+ years from now, and certainly not 10 years from now.

Yes, I know how to install Windows 11 via Rufus without the official requirements on older platforms, but security is all but broken on them and I would never consider utilizing them as a daily driver with such jank security.

Red Falcon said:

What about Intel 7th gen (Kaby Lake) from 2017 and earlier platforms that all went EOL with Windows 10 since Microsoft didn't officially allow them to run Windows 11?

Click to expand...

Red Falcon said:

Yes, I know how to install Windows 11 via Rufus without the official requirements on older platforms, but security is all but broken on them and I would never consider utilizing them as a daily driver with such jank security.

Click to expand...

Your post is a bit all over the map. The security vulnerabilities in those older CPUs were the main reason why they were not officially supported by Windows 11. So if you would never use those CPUs due to the vulnerabilities, then why complain that Windows 11 doesn't officially support them?

Also, your statement that those platforms went "EOL" with Windows 10 was a bit odd. If nothing else, Windows 10 still has potential ESR support for 2.5 more years, with there being legit ways to get at least some of that for free. But more to the point, those older CPUs still have the exact same hardware vulnerabilities whether they are running Windows 10 or Windows 11. It sounds like you were just fine with the hardware vulnerabilities in those older CPUs while "officially supported" using Windows 10, but somehow those exact same vulnerabilities are a big deal now if using Windows 11 with a Bypass? I also think that you are grossly overstating the security risks. Even on older CPUs, malware/virus infection still almost always requires at least some level of negligent user action in order to occur.

GotNoRice said:

Your post is a bit all over the map. The security vulnerabilities in those older CPUs were the main reason why they were not officially supported by Windows 11.

Click to expand...

Not quite, they weren't supported due to the lack of TPM 2.0, and a select few of those CPUs are actually were supported, so your statement is not entirely true.

GotNoRice said:

So if you would never use those CPUs due to the vulnerabilities, then why complain that Windows 11 doesn't officially support them?

Click to expand...

Platform firmware is patched and the OS patches are in place, but I'm not talking about CPU vulnerabilities.
I'm not complaining, just pointing out your hypocritical statement about Apple ending hardware support while claiming Microsoft would not do so after 5-10 years of a hardware platform when they literally just did this with Windows 11 with CPU platforms that had been in use for less than 5 years.

Microsoft is no better than Apple in this regard, that was my point.

GotNoRice said:

Also, your statement that those platforms went "EOL" with Windows 10 was a bit odd. If nothing else, Windows 10 still has potential ESR support for 2.5 more years, with there being legit ways to get at least some of that for free.

Click to expand...

This is correct, though anyone outside of corporate or enterprise would most likely not pay further for support unless there were a financial reason to do so.
The average person would most likely not even be aware of this, or if so, would laugh at the thought of paying for further support and would either just continue to use Windows 10 on a now-vulnerable computer or move to a newer one with Windows 11.

Again, this is no different than what Apple does with their hardware platforms and users.
Microsoft literally does the same thing.

GotNoRice said:

But more to the point, those older CPUs still have the exact same hardware vulnerabilities whether they are running Windows 10 or Windows 11.

Click to expand...

The main security issue is the lack of TPM 2.0, do you not understand this?
You are confusing CPU vulnerabilities with platform vulnerabilities and encryption standards.

GotNoRice said:

It sounds like you were just fine with the hardware vulnerabilities in those older CPUs while "officially supported" using Windows 10, but somehow those exact same vulnerabilities are a big deal now if using Windows 11 with a Bypass?

Click to expand...

When did I ever say that I was fine with hardware vulnerabilities in those older CPUs?
You have been on this forum since 2001, so I am sure you can perform some simple research into learning about what the requirements of Windows 11 are, and it isn't just the CPUs.

GotNoRice said:

I also think that you are grossly overstating the security risks. Even on older CPUs, malware/virus infection still almost always requires at least some level of negligent user action in order to occur.

Click to expand...

Hilarious.

Red Falcon said:

I'm not complaining, just pointing out your hypocritical statement about Apple ending hardware support while claiming Microsoft would not do so after 5-10 years of a hardware platform when they literally just did this with Windows 11 with CPU platforms that had been in use for less than 5 years.

Microsoft is no better than Apple in this regard, that was my point.

Click to expand...

In my earlier post, I speculated about what I would most likely be able to do with my laptop in the future. I never once mentioned anything about "support".

My 2019 laptop actually does meet the Windows 11 requirements (all of them), but even if it wasn't "supported", would it even matter? Maybe to some, but not to me and many others. I'm not sure why you would act like the easily bypassable Windows 11 requirements are a massive obstacle and somehow comparable to an entire Apple platform switch from X86 to ARM.

A 2019 MacBook literally just got the last version of MacOS it will ever see. A 2019 Windows Laptop still has many years of new updates ahead of it. That was my point.

Red Falcon said:

The main security issue is the lack of TPM 2.0, do you not understand this?

Click to expand...

Red Falcon said:

I am sure you can perform some simple research into learning about what the requirements of Windows 11 are, and it isn't just the CPUs.

Click to expand...

I understand that the list of officially supported CPUs, and the TPM requirements, are totally separate. I have systems that have TPM 2.0, but don't have an officially supported CPU. If the point you were trying to make was really about TPM, then I'm not sure why you lead with this:

Red Falcon said:

What about Intel 7th gen (Kaby Lake) from 2017

Click to expand...

A generation that DID see widespread TPM 2.0 adoption, but mostly did not make it onto the Windows 11 CPU compatibility list. Soo... sounds like you really just shifted the goalpost.

Red Falcon said:

Hilarious.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

GotNoRice said:

The abandonment of Intel-based Macs isn't something that just started though, in fact, it's well underway at this point. That means it's not just a matter of security fixes, but more a question of how long do you want to keep using a platform with no future where an increasingly large number of programs might not, and probably won't, work correctly.

My main laptop is also from 2019. A Dell Lattitude 7740 with a RTX 5000. I can pretty much guarantee that 5+ years from now I'll still be able to put the latest version of Windows on there, and it will still be able to play games if I need it to. That may even be true 10 years from now. That's because it isn't a Mac.

Click to expand...

Yea I doubt man my PC laptops will last 10 years hardware wise. In the 10 years at my job I am on my 3nd company Dell Laptop. This one will last 2 years tops since it wasn't even a new laptop.

vegeta535 said:

Yea I doubt man my PC laptops will last 10 years hardware wise. In the 10 years at my job I am on my 3nd company Dell Laptop. This one will last 2 years tops since it wasn't even a new laptop.

Click to expand...

Yeah in my case I always use my desktop when I have a choice. My main laptop doesn't see a ton of wear and tear as a result, but I'm still very glad to have it when I need it.

My backup laptop is a Dell M6800, from ~2013. That one actually saw more use than my current laptop but is still an absolute tank. Also able to run the latest version of Windows 11 just fine.

DukenukemX said:

Like what? Also, M1's weren't always faster than Intel. Certainly has overall better performance, but there are moments when Intel was faster.

Click to expand...

It's fairly easy to look up Apple Silicon-specific features, but I'll help:

• Full Apple Intelligence capabilities
• Running iPhone and iPad apps
• Faster on-device AI features (Siri, image processing, dictation)
• Hardware video encoding for formats like HEVC and ProRes
• Secure Enclave, plus full Touch ID on external keyboards
• Webcam features (portrait mode, studio lighting, better overall processing)
• Certain 3D features in Maps
  

That's not including capabilities enabled through sheer performance jumps or unified memory (Apple's creative apps can juggle many more simultaneous clips, for example). There were times when the last-gen Intel Macs would be faster, but the point is that the leap to Apple Silicon was so huge that it unlocked options that simply weren't there before.

DukenukemX said:

Yea but this does call into question if buying Apple is future proof? Apple could go RISC-V or some architecture they made and dump ARM next year. This is obviously a hypothetical situation that won't happen anytime soon, but if you're a die hard Apple user then I can't envy the ups and downs of how many times Apple has left a CPU architecture for the next best thing.

Click to expand...

The difference here is that Apple is now in control of design. It decides what features it needs, when they're coming, and in what chips they'll be available. It left PowerPC for x86 because IBM and Motorola were either uninterested in or incapable of making the consumer-ready chips Apple needed. Apple ditched x86 for its own silicon both because Intel was stuck in a rut (it no doubt made the decision in the 14nm+++ era) and because it very likely realized that switching to AMD still left it at risk. Just ask all the vendors who bet heavily on AMD and are now selling extremely mild Ryzen AI 400 upgrades.

And like we've been discussing, I'm sure many people who bought 7th-gen Intel Core chips thought they had future-proof PCs until they were locked out five years later. Microsoft has been a strong supporter of legacy PCs, but we shouldn't act as if this is permanently baked into either the code or company culture.

DukenukemX said:

I think Apple wasn't expecting AMD and Intel along with Windows to hold onto as much market share as they had, since it looked like the M1 chips were a clear winner. In fact, Apple lost market share during the M2's and M3's because ya know, customers do pay attention to specs. The M4's and M5's are much better chips as Apple stopped taking one step forward and three steps back. It did help that Apple stopped making 8GB of ram the default... until the Neo. The M5 especially had a much needed GPU performance increase because AMD and Intel started to put more effort on iGPU performance with their chips. Even still, near the end of 2025 we saw Apple sales stagnate while other PC manufacturers surged.

The point I'm making is that Apple wants to be in the position that MIPS, PowerPC, and even Intel during the 2010's in being able to sit back and spend very little on R&D. Right now, Apple is spending more on R&D than Intel and AMD combined. How much of that R&D is going towards their ARM chips? I don't know but it's gotta be significant. There's a reason why the Mac Mini and Neo are $600, because Apple is desperate for market share. You don't spend that much on R&D and still maintain the same market share as Apple had when they were using Intel chips and consider that a win.

Click to expand...

The lackluster sales in the M2 and M3 generations came from people paying close attention to specs (the analysts didn't claim that in the report you linked). Rather, it's a few factors. The M1 generation represented the biggest stride forward and snapped up the most upgrades; if you got an M1 MacBook Air, you had little incentive to buy an M2 or M3, even though they had major design improvements. And remember, the M1 debuted at the hight of the pandemic in late 2020, when we were all working from home. M2 and M3 came out during the pandemic recovery, so you either already had a good-enough remote work computer or were back to using your office machine.

You also might not want to point to Q4 2025 as a benchmark for Apple's strategy. The only real Mac to get an update in that window was the base 14-inch MacBook Pro, which is important but not enough to usher in a sales spike. Apple saw the biggest gains among the top vendors in Q1 2026. Early Neo sales and the wider M5 rollout played a role, but this also came despite other vendors ramping up shipments to get ahead of expected price hikes.

Apple isn't desperate for market share. If it was, it would have leaned harder on the Mac mini and built a low-cost laptop years ago. It's interested in maintaining and growing share, but its profit margins give it a cushion that most competitors don't have. Remember, it's the Windows vendors that sell PCs with razor-thin profit margins in hopes of clawing out tiny market share gains; that's why you see loads of cheaply-made laptops loaded with software bundles you don't want.

The Neo exists largely because all the ingredients are in place for Apple to make a low-cost laptop that it likes. The chips are inexpensive enough that Apple doesn't have to make major compromises in build quality or margins; its engineering has improved enough that even reverting to a mechanical trackpad doesn't feel like a step back; and its shift toward services also means that a $599 laptop can still mean a windfall in subscription revenues.

Good riddance. The Apple Silicon machines are vastly superior.

Aurelius said:

It's fairly easy to look up Apple Silicon-specific features, but I'll help:

• Full Apple Intelligence capabilities
• Running iPhone and iPad apps
• Faster on-device AI features (Siri, image processing, dictation)
• Hardware video encoding for formats like HEVC and ProRes
• Secure Enclave, plus full Touch ID on external keyboards
• Webcam features (portrait mode, studio lighting, better overall processing)
• Certain 3D features in Maps
  

That's not including capabilities enabled through sheer performance jumps or unified memory (Apple's creative apps can juggle many more simultaneous clips, for example). There were times when the last-gen Intel Macs would be faster, but the point is that the leap to Apple Silicon was so huge that it unlocked options that simply weren't there before.

Click to expand...

That list is pretty stupid. Even the codecs HEVC and ProRes work on Intel machines. The HEVC codec is really just H.265, which has been supported since Sky Lake for encoding and decoding. Maybe the iPhone and iPad apps because they're ARM and that would take work to get them running on x86?

And like we've been discussing, I'm sure many people who bought 7th-gen Intel Core chips thought they had future-proof PCs until they were locked out five years later. Microsoft has been a strong supporter of legacy PCs, but we shouldn't act as if this is permanently baked into either the code or company culture.

Click to expand...

Nobody liked Microsoft for that. Also locked out is a strong word. More like inconvenienced out, if you know how to use Rufus.

Apple isn't desperate for market share. If it was, it would have leaned harder on the Mac mini and built a low-cost laptop years ago. It's interested in maintaining and growing share, but its profit margins give it a cushion that most competitors don't have. Remember, it's the Windows vendors that sell PCs with razor-thin profit margins in hopes of clawing out tiny market share gains; that's why you see loads of cheaply-made laptops loaded with software bundles you don't want.

The Neo exists largely because all the ingredients are in place for Apple to make a low-cost laptop that it likes. The chips are inexpensive enough that Apple doesn't have to make major compromises in build quality or margins; its engineering has improved enough that even reverting to a mechanical trackpad doesn't feel like a step back; and its shift toward services also means that a $599 laptop can still mean a windfall in subscription revenues.

Click to expand...

I'm just saying that Apple can't be happy with their current market share with the amount of R&D spending. I'm going by statcounter but pre-M1 they had roughly 15% desktop OS market share. They peaked around 2023 where they had 20% global market share. Now they have 14.76%. Then we see Apple with things like $600 Mac Mini and Macbook Neo. I see this as Apple being desperate to get people into their ecosystem.

Apple dumping Intel Macs is the same tactic as Microsoft dumping older PC's, as it's a push to get more people to upgrade. You'd be surprised how many people are still using Core2Duo machines, including Macs. Microsoft didn't dump older machines because they had good reasons, but because they want people to go out and buy a new PC, and it worked. Now Apple is dumping Intel machines and you'll likely see a jump in new Mac sales. Keep in mind Apple was still selling Intel machines years later, after the M1's were released. The Mac Pro with an Intel chip was last sold in 2023. It's just like with Windows machines where there were PC's with unsupported chips, being sold. The people who bought Intel Macs around three years ago are now screwed out of updates.