Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

macOS 27 won’t be supporting Intel anymore

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–108 of 108 posts

Re: macOS 27 won’t be supporting Intel anymore

#101

Post by tym0 »

compounding_it wrote: post #30
rootsudo wrote: post #23

Wow and darn I guess last support update to fully depreciate intel MacBooks. Used prices already are cratered. They are great heavily supported Linux machines though. They work out of the box gorgeously with numerous distros and being usbc is nice. For $100-200 for a mint condition model, it isn’t so bad.

>They are great heavily supported Linux machines though. Since the release of Touch Bar based Macs (which contain apple silicon) this has not been the case. The Macs that are well supported by linux and work very well were abandoned long time ago.

Not sure why this is so down voted. I have a touch bar era Intel Mac, I regularly check the state of Linux on it and they are still somewhat poorly supported. Some drivers are out of tree, audio and sleep doesn't necessarily work, etc...

Re: macOS 27 won’t be supporting Intel anymore

#102

Post by ryukoposting »

malshe wrote: post #84
ryukoposting wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eerily similar story here. My wife was using her 2017 MBP (the one they got sued over) and she adored it until Tahoe suddenly caused Chrome to run like hot garbage. I bought her an open-box M3 Air. She likes the color. It doesn't provide any more value to her life than her 2017 MBP did, and yet we're out $1000 because Apple said so.

So on the one hand you are so much aware of the obsolescence issue and on the other hand you just decided that upgrading a 2017 MBP to Tahoe is a good idea? I am on a M4 Pro Mac mini and it is still running Sequoia. Btw she can downgrade to Sequoia from Tahoe.

Shame on my wife for doing what she has always been told to do, and updating the software on her laptop.

And why the hell would I know that? I was 8 years old the last time I used a Mac. This is shit I shouldn't have to know.

Re: macOS 27 won’t be supporting Intel anymore

#103

Post by ryukoposting »

throwaway27448 wrote: post #67
ryukoposting wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wait, so.. how are we supposed to test Intel builds of our macOS apps from now on? You don't. You could stay on an old MacOS. Apple would prefer that you tell your customers to stop being poor and buy a new computer. They will make your situation increasingly unbearable until you do. The overwhelming majority of people haven't needed a new computer since 2016. The current economic situation makes a new computer a w…

> Apple would prefer that you tell your customers to stop being poor and buy a new computer. This is certainly an interesting way to characterize dropping support for old hardware. What is a reasonable way to go about hardware deprecation in your view?

When a company obsoletes a hardware platform, as Apple will do with this update, it is their moral duty to open the platform. Release the necessary source code, blobs, and docs to allow independent actors maintain their equipment, or maintain that equipment on behalf of its owner.

Apple won't. We all know that. The Broadcom wi-fi chips and the subtle differences in their embedded architecture vs. conventional PCs means x86 Macs will never be adequately supported without Apple's stewardship.

Re: macOS 27 won’t be supporting Intel anymore

#104

Post by GeekyBear »

FireBeyond wrote: post #94
GeekyBear wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wait, so.. how are we supposed to test Intel builds of our macOS apps from now on? In a older version of the OS running in a virtual machine?

That's not going to solve the issue. You are trying to emulate x86 to test those builds. Rosetta doesn't emulate x86 hardware, but translates x86 instructions into ARM. The only thing your solution would get you is verification that the Intel build can work on Apple Silicon with Rosetta.

If testing on an Intel Mac is unacceptable, and testing on an ARM Mac using Rosetta is also unacceptable, then there was no reason to complain about Rosetta being deprecated in the first place.

Re: macOS 27 won’t be supporting Intel anymore

#105

Post by spectre3d »

opan wrote: post #78
compounding_it wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They are great heavily supported Linux machines though. Since the release of Touch Bar based Macs (which contain apple silicon) this has not been the case. The Macs that are well supported by linux and work very well were abandoned long time ago.

Touch Bar predates Apple Silicon and most AS models do not have a Touch Bar.

The T2 chip is Apple silicon, and marked the beginning of really locking down the OS running on a Mac (as opposed to iOS, which was always locked down that way, and Intel Macs which of course could run anything).

It was the first mass market SoC hardware test of their new Mac chip design and it seems it was also to prep macOS for the M line. The level of control Apple gave it makes repair and refurbishing very difficult without Apple’s authorization.

T2 Overview PDF https://www.apple.com/jp/mac/docs/Apple_T2_Security_Chip_Ove...

Re: macOS 27 won’t be supporting Intel anymore

#106

Post by opan »

spectre3d wrote: post #105
opan wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Touch Bar predates Apple Silicon and most AS models do not have a Touch Bar.

The T2 chip is Apple silicon, and marked the beginning of really locking down the OS running on a Mac (as opposed to iOS, which was always locked down that way, and Intel Macs which of course could run anything). It was the first mass market SoC hardware test of their new Mac chip design and it seems it was also to prep macOS for the M line. The level of control Apple gave it makes repair and refurbishing very diffic…

That is an interesting point. I did mean the M series, M1 and later, when I said Apple Silicon, and that's usually how I interpret the phrase. The Wikipedia article by the same name seems to interpret it much more broadly, also including mobile stuff like the A series.

Re: macOS 27 won’t be supporting Intel anymore

#107

Post by _ph_ »

microtonal wrote: post #66
icedchai wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it costs them money to maintain it, and they'll make more money when people upgrade to M series? In all seriousness, it's a little lame. Consider that the Intel Mac Pro (2019 model) was still selling in 2023! That's not that long ago, and those were their highest end machines in terms of memory capacity. The "new" Mac Pro has since been discontinued...

Though buying a Mac Pro in 2023 would be a bit weird. The writing was on the wall. By that point the M1 was almost out for three years and even the Mac Studio with M1 Ultra had been out for a year. (IMO it stopped making sense buying an Intel Mac after the M1 Air or if your want to be generous the M1 Pro/Max-based MacBook Pros.)

A bit, but then, it was sold by Apple and some people saw a need for it. Like having tons of memory and of course, being x86-compatible also has its uses. That is, why Rosetta 2 exists. Applying the 7 year support window, they should support it till 2030. Especially, as it was the most expensive hardware sold.

Re: macOS 27 won’t be supporting Intel anymore

#108

Post by _ph_ »

icedchai wrote: post #68
microtonal wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though buying a Mac Pro in 2023 would be a bit weird. The writing was on the wall. By that point the M1 was almost out for three years and even the Mac Studio with M1 Ultra had been out for a year. (IMO it stopped making sense buying an Intel Mac after the M1 Air or if your want to be generous the M1 Pro/Max-based MacBook Pros.)

I agree, it is weird, but there were certain workloads (like those needing large memory) that wouldn't run anywhere else. Remember that M1 Ultra, at that time, was limited to 128G of RAM. M2 Ultra brought it to 192G. Intel Mac Pros could take 1.5 TB.

I wonder what the market price of 1.5 TB RAM today would be and if selling that off would pay for the whole Mac Pro :)
Post reply on HN