Apple released macOS 14.0 Sonoma today, and what’s the best way to celebrate the new release? Why, the Ars Technica review, of course.
So macOS Sonoma is a perfectly typical macOS release, a sort of “Ventura-plus” that probably has one or two additions that any given person will find useful but which otherwise just keeps your Mac secure and avoids weird iCloud compatibility problems with whatever software is running on your phone. You probably don’t need to run out and install it, but there’s no real reason to avoid it if you’re not aware of some specific bug or compatibility problem that affects the software you use. It’s business as usual for Mac owners. Let’s dive in.
You can download and install it from the usual place if your Mac supports it.
Well, looks like my 2017 iMac has been left behind. I’ll get two more years of security updates on Ventura, and then I’m software obsolete in September 2025.
Oddly enough, that’s about the same time that my 2017 t470s gets obsoleted (it’s unsupported under Windows 11, and Windows 10 support ends in October 2025).
Both of these are shorter support windows than I got from my 2011 iMac or 2012 (non-Retina) Macbook Pro, which both clocked in at 10 years.
Of all of these, the Thinkpad was the most expensive machine (at a retail price of about $1600). The MBP (retail $1200) was the next most expensive and had the longest support life. And so the whole situation makes me realize that:
a) for all the complaining people may do about the support life of Apple’s computers, that support life isn’t any shorter than their Wintel counterparts and — outside the windows of Apples architecture changes — is somewhat better.
b) spending more on a computer probably ought to get you a longer period of software support, but does not necessarily.
c) of all these software support examples, the short lifespan for the Thinkpad is the most nonsensical, and
d) this is a preposterous waste. My 2012 MacBook Pro and 2011 iMac are still perfectly serviceable pieces of hardware, just as my 2017 Thinkpad and iMac will be perfectly serviceable in 2025. It seems totally reasonable to mandate 15 years of software support for this kind of hardware, which is generally very well made and would otherwise last an arbitrarily long time.
Brainworm,
A lot of windows users were up in arms when microsoft decided to block capable computers from installing windows 11 (*). As far as I know, before windows 11, microsoft never tried to stop people from upgrading to a new version of windows on existing hardware. Even the first 64bit computers can install windows 10 two decades later.
* It’s not that hard to actually bypass the windows hardware checks.
https://www.tomshardware.com/how-to/bypass-windows-11-tpm-requirement
I suspect it’s a whole lot easier to do with windows than macos.
Yeah but then again many of us have been using computers much longer than the manufacturer’s official support window. I have a thinkpad as well and I don’t know/care about the officially EOL thanks to the fact that I’m not dependent on manufacturers for updates. Even a full decade from now I suspect that if the hardware is still working, it will still be able to run the operating systems and programs I need. Contrast this to android, those are so vendor locked they end up being trash at EOL and you need software upgrades….grrr!
I agree. If I were a mac user this would drive me nuts… I’ve bought a lot of used equipment on the IBM PC side, high end stuff discounted to affordable prices. It just works. Reusing equipment that still works perfectly is much greener than recycling it right away. But if I were running macos, I’d have to contend with official platform EOL creeping up on me and then having to upgrade on apple’s schedule rather than my own.
“It seems totally reasonable to mandate 15 years of software support for this kind of hardware”
That’s an interesting thought to ponder. Who’s software do we mandate?
I am happy with Apple dropping ‘OS’ support for my Sandy bridge era machines that served me well for 10+ years. It keeps their OS clean. But on the other hand, many Apps don’t really need/use the latest hardware features like an OS does. I am irritated that Slack dropped support for Mac OS 10.13 that came out only 6 years ago. Was there some killer feature as to why an instant messaging app need 2018 technology for that 2017 couldn’t handle? I suspect no. it probably came down to Slack only checking the compatibility box for only the last 6! releases of MacOS instead of 7 to test against, even though there was probably little difference in the APIs they used. I also kind of understand Apple depreciating x86 support quicker than the previous generation. Especially since my $1000 MacBook, was relatively cheap compared to a MacBook from 10 years ago. Apple moving to a new OS every 2 years or allow the in between years to be x.5 releases that autoupdate and disappear may help third party software support fewer OS releases. I do think Apple needs some pressure to care more about this issue. They need to make it easier for third parties to keep a wide range of long term OS release support. They might even need to, gasp, provide some small API updates to older OSs, similar to our Microsoft might have a .net update for an older OS.
I was thinking 15 years of security updates and 15 years of api/abi continuity, since it’s clear that manufacturers (like Apple) and cartels (like Wintel) are deprecating software in order to artificially obsolete hardware. And then it’s up to the taxpayer to responsibly dispose of whatever e-waste this creates.
Brainworm,
I can think of a lot of things intel are guilty of,..
https://www.reuters.com/technology/eu-re-imposes-400-mln-fine-intel-abuse-market-power-2023-09-22/
…but I feel their the level of generational compatibility has been second to none. Honestly I’m tempted to say one of the best hedges against premature obsolescence is to go with x86. So when you criticize them specifically of deprecating software in order to artificially obsolete hardware, am I missing something?
Windows 11. There, you’ve got a software update just obsoleting even very new hardware — anything without TPM 2.0, which is pretty much anything before 2018/19. And so despite the fact that this new hardware is perfectly capable, it’s gonna end up in a landfill a full decade before it otherwise would have.
From this outside, this looks like the old MS/Intel duopoly in action — slowing down the adoption of cheaper, more efficient chips by making ARM a clear second-class citizen, and goosing sales in what has since 2021 been a lagging PC market.
Brainworm,
Yea, except that’s microsoft doing. Not intel or amd. Intel are guilty of many things, but in this specific case your blame is very misplaced. IMHO x86 has a far better compatibility track record than anything else in it’s class.
I wish ARM could do software compatibility as well as x86 has. For as long as I’ve been buying ARM based mobiles and SBCs this has been my main ongoing gripe with ARM devices. I’m not an ms/intel fanboy, but it makes no sense to blame ARM’s standard and portability problems on “wintel”. This is 100% the fault of ARM chip makers and manufacturers.
My Grand daughter was given an old iMac duo core which worked well until Minecraft moved to an unsupported Java version.
I just installed Ubuntu and now all her software including Java are all current and will be until the machine dies.
@Brainworm
“for all the complaining people may do about the support life of Apple’s computers, that support life isn’t any shorter than their Wintel counterparts”
While I understand the evidence you are citing in this case. I really do not believe this is a valid take-away. The arbitrary obsolescence of older CPUs with Windows 11 is really unprecedented in the history of Windows. It seems logical to see it as a one-time event and not a pattern.
Apple purposely obsoletes older hardware with every release of MacOS and has been doing so for many years. Even worse, they pressure application developers to end support for older versions of the OS. Pragmatically, this really does obsolete older hardware. Apple will even disable specific functionality that are “supported” even though there is no clear hardware reason for doing so ( I am thinking of not allowing AirPlay as an example ). So, Apple starts to push you off of older releases even before they stop support and then use the power of the app ecosystem to incent you not to use an unsupported OS even on older hardware.
In contrast, Windows 10 will install just fine on computers that are 20 years old and, with a little tuning, will even run acceptably. Most Windows applications continue to run on and be compatible with Windows 7. Infamously, Windows XP was officially supported for close to 15 years and you did not even need to upgrade the OS all that time. I bet you could install Windows 10 on your 2011 iMac today and would continue to receive updates for 4 more years.
As a general statement, saying that Apple hardware “support life isn’t any shorter than their Wintel counterparts” is really misleading.
Also, while I am not advocating this…
Coaxing MacOS to run on older hardware can be a serious undertaking and often requires a significant backporting effort. Once installed, there are often features from the new OS that will not work or work poorly. Again, in contrast, the issue with Windows 11 is already somewhat famously a simple install-time restriction and easily defeated. The OS itself will install and run just fine on much older hardware unmodified. Once installed there is really no difference between supported and unsupported hardware from a user point of view. At least, that is the situation for now.
This is not a Windows advocacy post by the way. I do not use it very often.
tanishaj,
I agree with pretty much your entire post. I am disappointed that microsoft has opted for artificial hardware restrictions for windows 11, especially for hardware that is so recent. But a single exception over decades doesn’t yet signify a new trend of regularly obsoleting hardware like macos does. It will be interesting to see if microsoft will actually take steps to forcefully block older hardware or will continue allowing users to bypass the installer restrictions.
After 2025 you will not receive more security updates?
because if you keep getting security updates then I don’t see the problem. Your machine is old, the possibilities of exploiting the hardware have already been made with the new systems. There should be no new updates for your hardware. In Windows the drivers stop updating after a few years or stop supporting older hardware. Your machine will continue to serve and the applications will continue to run for much longer.
Nope. 2025 is the end of security updates a.k.a. the point at which Microsoft and Apple decide they are no longer responsible for having shipped broken software.
I think everybody understands that e.g. older cars do not have the same features as newer cars. But it is reasonable for someone who buys a new car to expect that it will be repairable afterwards, and that e..g. customers have a right to buy generic replacement parts for a car once the manufacturer ceases to make them. Ford can’t just sit on the patents to parts for a ’68 Mustang and be like “sorry dude. You’re not allowed to restore this thing to working condition because we won’t sell you replacement parts and we’ll sue anyone who tries to make them.”
A computer ought to be the same way. If Apple or Microsoft don’t want to fix their broken software, fine, Third parties ought to be allowed to do it. But instead, we allow manufacturers to sit on software and other patents & protections that effectively render their broken machines unrepairable. You might as well let Samsung or Frigidaire install a software kill switch on your dishwasher.
And once upon a time, the “applications will continue to run” line made a kind of sense, because it meant that your old computer could still do everything it could when you bought it. But not anymore, right? I bought a machine that could safely access the internet, and now it can’t. I bought a machine that could play games X, Y, and Z, and now it can’t because whatever client (Steam, Epic, etc.) can’t phone home. Ditto Photoshop, Office, etc. If I can’t connect safely to the internet, those won’t activate and won’t run.
Brainworm,
(My emphasis)
Did you actually mean software here? Right to repair has mostly been focused around hardware, but the right to repair software is quite an interesting idea. Obviously this is one of the basic tenants of FOSS. But how would your proposal that 3rd parties be allowed to fix apple/microsoft software work?
Unfortunately home appliances aren’t what they used to be. it’s become quite common that modern appliances are killed by dirt cheap computer boards that never the less cost hundreds of dollars to replace. Even the repair technicians themselves are willing to talk about how much of a scam it is. The companies don’t have an incentive to sell products that can be easily/cheaply repaired. Our pain is their gain.
The important thing to me is that security updates be available from SOMEONE. They don’t need to be available from the original developer, and they don’t need to be available from multiple developers.
Sort of like car parts. Any auto manufacturer’s contract with their supplier will stipulate that any given part must remain available to the manufacturer for some period of time. Sometimes the supplier does that themselves. Other times, they’ll contract out the manufacture of that part to a smaller operation (since fewer people are buying body panels for 1985 Mustangs than they used to).
That’s not the same thing as right to repair, exactly; R2R for software would effectively require developers to distribute source code, and no matter how you tie that down with contracts or licenses that kind of obligation would make trade secrets very hard to protect. That’s not for everybody.
At the same time, there’s a lot of equipment out there — in hospitals, for instance — that runs on obsoleted OSs, that can’t be updated to a newer OS, and that is still otherwise perfectly usable — and I mean that has a hardware service life of like 20 years beyond what the OS provides.
It does not seem right that a company that made a now-deprecated OS, and has benefited from patent protections, etc., has an unlimited right to ensure that their software remains unusable on its original hardware.
Brainworm,
I:MHO hospitals should be using FOSS. Hospitals pay good money, and they should be entitled to the source. But FOSS has always had a complicated relationship with for profit companies. FOSS software developers often struggle financially when others use their software for free and it’s really unclear to me how to fix this in a free market way. Non-free market solutions are easier to come up with, such as using public money to pay for the development of FOSS software which everyone can use. Alas this goes against our capitalistic foundations.
Maybe businesses should be contractually/legally compelled to open source products that they no longer want to support themselves.
Two things I noticed that are all under the hood changes not listed:
0) Transcoding video files is faster on M chips using Handbreak.
1) All browsers tested run faster to start, along with page load-times..
Flat ugly and regressive to the point it is reactionary.
No mac will never return to a main desktop, it will be stuck as a dev plattform for ios.