My laptop is from ~2006. I can still run OpenBSD and Chromium with ~15 tabs open, and play videos well up to 720p, 1080p is wasting HD size because the screen is smaller than that.
If I want to run Big Sur, it's my only legitimate option.
So yes, if I want to continue to use macOS and want to stay on the latest release, then "having to upgrade hardware" is the only route. If you take issue with me calling that "forcing" then fine, but it's obvious how I'm using that term.
Plenty of hardware from 2013 runs current operating systems- basically only in the Apple ecosystem is this a problem. I doubt there's any _technical_ reason older hardware cannot run newer versions of macOS. Apple just draws a line whereever they want.
I understand this is a "known concern" of being a part of the Apple ecosystem- but it's one of the first times I've encountered it personally, so yes, it's frustrating.
A known “concern”? It’s a known benefit of owning Apple hardware. 7 years of support. You’re asking too much. Hope you enjoy forced reboots and telemetry on Windows
That's a legit argument against Android, but the exact opposite holds for Windows. You can run Windows 10 on 10 years old hardware, 15 if you push it and I'm not exaggerating. I'm typing this on my 10 years old desktop PC running Windows 10 as we speak, and it's very smooth. I'd have been very pissed off if three years ago Microsoft decided to not support my PC because "7 years is long enough". Yes I hate forced reboots, but that's beside the point here.
I already use Windows on another PC, and while I don't love telemetry, the only reboots I get are during my scheduled "okay to install updates" hours which is at like 5am when I don't notice it.
I'm not MS's biggest fan, and I have my own peeves with Windows, but the way you worded this seems unnecessarily hostile.
I use Windows, Linux, and macOS for various purposes and I understand the benefits and drawbacks of using them. You don't need to talk down to me about telemetry and updates.
Spinning having to buy unnecessary new hardware to continue running an up-to-date OS as a benefit seems ridiculous to me.
Strictly speaking, "company drops support for software X" isn't always a bad thing, when it forces people to move on. For example, Windows XP dragged on for far too long, and there's a good argument that it should have been discontinued earlier.
I have 10 year old PCs that are perfectly functional. My main desktop is mostly from 2012 with a couple upgrades in between and works like a champ. 7 years is far too low. This is planned obsolescence.
With Apple preventing dual boot on ARM this problem will only get worse.
I run Mojave perfectly well on a mid 2012 Macbook Pro, a friend of mine even on a 2008 one (also well for his needs).
Durability has long been a feature of these machines, even sadder to be forced into hardware upgrades by what seems to be intentionally broken core features like wifi.
It has nothing to do with a lack of capability of the older machine. They just decided it wasn't worth the effort to support the model of wifi chipset present in the older models, effectively killing them off.
I think you may be projecting. Wifi cards go bad. It happens. Sometimes they can be replaced. Sometimes not. I've had it happen to lots of my machines over the last two decades.
But I don't think it's fair to characterize what could very well be a hardware fault as the work of some bean counter in Cupertino sitting behind his desk rubbing his hands with glee.
I can't find reference here, but I remember a discussion with an Apple engineer who said that AirDrop had been blocked in a certain model, "due to incompatible wifi", but that the wifi card mentioned was not one they'd ever heard of being put in a production Mac, i.e. "ass-covering BS".
Even Apple doesn’t have unlimited resources. They may still offer patches for outdated WiFi cards in a future update but it’s silly to commit to doing so in your initial OS release.
> That is a 7 years old iMac. Apple is not forcing you.
This attitude needs to stop.
If a user's needs are met with a 7 year old machine and they are happy without upgrading then artificially obsoleting it in the name of capitalism is not progress, it's irresponsible.
Apparently I should not have used the word forced because some people went full-boar pedantic about it unfortunately. It's forced in terms of "if I want to run Big Sur, I have no choice" (thought that was obvious).
Not forced, but unnecessarily required to purchase new hardware to run the latest OS version which should not have any reason for not working on the older hardware. I still think that's a problem.
If there was a feature of Big Sur that required particular hardware to run, then I would be more understanding. Yes, I can stay on Catalina on my iMac, but it will continue to get more out of date when Apple could have easily kept supporting it. I'm understanding enough to know Apple has business reasons for doing it, and maybe even technical ones (that no one has yet explained) but it doesn't mean I agree with it.
This is so silly. First, Apple’s history is that they will continue to support older hardware with security updates even if they can’t support them with the latest OS.
Sometimes older hardware isn’t capable of supporting new features. In prior cases it might not have a 64 bit processor or not enough memory, and of course you can’t expect support in those cases.
In this it’s old WiFi hardware that can’t support new features. It would be dumb for Apple to take engineers off making Big Sur more solid for 98% of Macs to waste time on this problem for a tiny percent of the active base.
Apple is doing exactly the right thing. Make it work well for the vast majority, then see if they can take it farther back in the first couple of bug fix releases.