Apple re-arms the iMac with 10th-gen Intel Core silicon Apple has upgraded its iMac range. The 27-inch model now offers tenth-gen Intel Core i5 processors with six or eight cores at 3.1GHz or 3.3GHz, or a Core i7 with eight cores and 3.8GHZ clockspeed that bursts to 5.0GHz. Apple’s specs suggest the Core i5 on offer are the model 10500 and 10600, but the specs offered for the i7 …
21" model with a decent second monitor would be a more than adequate set up for me.
I have one of the 2016 27-inchers and it's been a great value machine, still blazingly fast and with the 5k Retina display. But that's the problem: that machine is more than good enough and there's not much tempting me to upgrade. In the same way I have a 2015 Macbook Air which is still - IMO - better than the new models.
Basically I'm not seeing anything from Apple that's tempting me to upgrade. Even if these machines are better than my current setup, they are not *that* much better that I'd bother for a considerable time, at which point they'd probably be available second hand. Have we reached a point where hardware several years old is good enough for most people? See also: phones.
The only reason I have to upgrade is Apple's bullshit planned obsolescence.
Older iMacs (like the 2011 one I have) are barred from running the latest versions of MacOS. And therefore I can't run the latest Xcode. Which means I can't release any iOS apps.
Yes, the machine still works - it's probably one of the most underused computers in the world. But it's completely and utterly useless to me now.
(I'm not upgrading anytime soon though. Fuck Apple.)
Nice idea. The problem is the GPU. It's not supported by Metal, which is basically the main requirement for newer versions of MacOS.
Not being able to use the latest OS is not really the thing I have a problem with. It's the fact Xcode is so tied to the OS that it's impossible to run it on older versions of MacOS. That's a shitty way to force people to upgrade. Especially given the version of the OS I do have installed is only three years old. Visual Studio 2019, on the other hand, still supports Windows 7, which was released 11 years ago.
Better still, why doesn't Apple sell a DIY replacement metal compatible MXM Graphics Card for the 2009-2012 iMac, set the profit margin to the same or even higher, as they make on a new iMac.
There's absolutely nothing stopping them from doing this.
Would save an awful lot of landfill, increase the number of iMacs running the latest macos, give small independent computer shops some work (i.e. give something back during this Coronavirus epidemic), but Apple's environmental policy is mostly bullshit green-wash, obviously.
The 2009-2012 iMac are surprisingly easy to work on with some caveats, the outer glass is held by magnets (newer iMacs are all glued up, pain in the neck). The biggest issue is the shortness of the cabling between the display and logicboard, and the unusual lift clamp is pretty secure, it will pull the tracks off the logic board before disconnecting the cable, under force, if you pivot the screen out too far before detaching properly.
Really? I'm surprised since "Apple", "not" and "DIY" are three words I normally see in close acquaintance. Does the intermediate "not" make them distant acquaintances instead? Inquiring minds, etc.
Perhaps you were thinking of Microsoft. Microsoft DOS/Windows = DIY.
Isn't this how MS got the jump on Apple AND IBM in the '80s and '90s?
"I'm sorry, sir. You cannot run this suspicious software on APPLE! And your cheap hardware card will NOT work with our premium systems!"
Apple could have quite easily issued a soft lock (minor warning) against running new macos version, but instead they force a hard lock and push people towards software like dosdude's macos patches.
Cook's idea of privacy and security, is clearly one where you keeping buying "new and shiny" and keep paying Apple.
Cook clearly doesn't seem to give a shit about legacy products that are very capable of running the latest OS, after all, these machines have 3rd/4th Gen Intel with dedicated Nvidia/AMD Graphics (i.e. pretty quick), otherwise there wouldn't be a hard lockout. The irony is they run Windows 10 (and Linux) really well, if you know how to get the drivers by hacking the Win10 Bootcamp compatible drivers from newer models of iMac.
So these older 2011/2012 models are actually more secure running Windows 10 than macos, who'd have thought?
I have a mate with a old white MacBook from 2007 that only goes up to Lion. (10.7.5) We installed Win 10 on it yesterday as it was the only way of running modern software on it.
SSD, 4GB RAM and W10 2004 on it with a bit of driver INF hacking to get it all going.
Works surprisingly well.
"But it's completely and utterly useless to me now"
There are online instructions, including on Youtube (look up DOSDude1), about how to install later operating systems (Catalina, Mojave, High Sierra) on older Macs. Similarly, there are hacks around to run older software, such as the much missed Aperture, on later operating systems.
If all else fails you can try to install a Linux distribution.
I'm currently running a late 2012 21" iMac as my main work from home machine, if I need a bit more beef I have an i7 Mac Mini Server, also late 2012 with 16gb RAM and a new SSD. I don't run the Mini as my main machine as it's only plugged into a regular 24" monitor that's not as pleasing to the eye as the iMac.
I also have a thunderbolt cable to make the iMac appear as a second screen for the Mini if I need dual displays.
I'm due a work laptop upgrade soon, I'm actually holding off the upgrade to see the new Arm MacBooks, as they may come within budget instead of an HP Probook
My desktop setup is a mid-2011 21.5” iMac with a 24” second monitor running via an OWC Thunderbolt hub. The 256GB SSD and 16MB Ram do all I need, including Windows 10 and Ubuntu through Parallels (not the speediest as the VMs run off the internal 2TB HD. Being limited to High Sierra is a minor annoyance. I’ve tried to convince myself I need to upgrade but a new one wouldn’t do anything new, just load a second or two faster. The 27” model would have been nice but I wouldn’t fit my office arrangement - and my dual monitor arrangement is probably better and certainly less hassle than an office refit (and it’s done well for over 8 years)!
Apple hardware, unless you buy the base models, lasts well and few people probably *need* the latest OS.
I don't think Apple expect people to upgrade their iMacs particularly often. They just keep improving the specs in line with current tech. It's not a bottom of the line beige box which is creaking when you buy it, your Mac should really last until something fails, or they drop OS support, unless you run particularly demanding software.
@Charlie Clark.
Too true. As an example,
Several iMacs from 2008 didn't get High Sierra because they had an older (replaceable) mini-pci network card based on the Broadcom 94321 chipset rather than the later Broadcom 94322 Card. Fixing that was just a case of adding the hardware ID, if Apple had chosen to, but clearly it offered a legitimate point in time (in Apple's eyes) to obsolete older kit.
In their eyes, backporting compatibility for the older driver Broadcom 94321 was too much effort, even for something as simple as changing the hardware IDs.
Even worse, IMO, was the failure to fix bugs in older OS, simply shrugging shoulders and pointing to the new "free" which fixed it by adding new bugs. I seem to remember a crippling Bluetooth bug in Lion that only Mountain Lion "fixed". Hardware interrupts (like Time Machine waking up) have been a plague since the switch to x86_64.
Plus ça change…
"They definitely do like to pull the rug after about 5 years"
If I remember correctly, when they last changed microprocessor architecture, they stopped supplying new operating systems for the old architecture after only three years.
Tim Cook has shown himself to be a serial deprecator, so much so that this month's Tech Advisor told readers not to buy any new Intel Macs because they'd likely only get short term support despite the current Apple promises...cue potential Osborne effect.
Apple continues to provide security patches for older OS versions for several years after a new version comes out. So Macs still have a supported OS for something like three years after they drop off the support list for the latest-greatest.
After that ends, there are still other options. I have a 2009 Mini that had to get off the MacOS train somewhere around El Capitan, and is now happily running Ubuntu desktop. If the full-fat GUI gets too pokey, it can be a headless non-GUI server.
Also: unlike you-know-who in Redmond, Apple doesn't force you to install OS updates. If you rely on 32-bit apps or drivers in the Age of Catalina, stay on Mojave. If you don't like Mojave, stay on High Sierra. Your choice.
Basically I'm not seeing anything from Apple that's tempting me to upgrade
You say that like its a bad thing. Wouldn't you rather have your "more than adequate" 2016 Mac last you as long as possible, rather than feeling like yours is out of date every 2-3 years like happened back when Intel was able to make big leaps in performance?
If you use a little intelligence you would realize that we will not see any ARM based machines till Big Sur is finalized and developers have had the time to move there applications to ARM and checked them out on the kit that Apple has leased to them for that purpose.
Apple will not ship a machine that doesn't have a large portion of current applications upgraded because to do so would mean NO sales.
The top end iMacs come with Intel i9, not i7. Maybe that’s why you can’t find them.
Apple said it would take two years to replace everything with ARM, starting at the end of the week. So I would expect a few intel updates in the next two years. And I expect only machines to be replaced where they actually have a _faster_ ARM chip, so replacing 10 core intel i9 will take a bit longer.
Given the general long life of Macs (annoying OS-based planned obsolescence aside), could the announcement of impending ARM chippery see a bit of Osborne Effect?
Though on the flip side who knows how/when that's going to work out, and I'm sure most seasoned Reg readers will adopt a bit of a wait-and-see attitude whilst all the fanbois find all the bugs etc.
On a personal level I'm most concerned about how the move to ARM will impact my use of virtualisation for x86 stuff and my small collection of games.
The so-called Osbourne effect was a new manager hired by Osbourne, who found 200,000 or so old motherboards for the old model that were supposed to be dumped; he decided that was such a waste of money that he purchased all the parts needed to turn them into 200,000 old model computers, some at high prices because the outdated parts were not manufactured anymore, and then tried to sell 200,000 computers that nobody wanted after draining the company's cash reserves.
> The so-called Osbourne effect was a new manager hired by Osbourne
Nope. Osbourne suffered from three issues:
1) Competition from other companies selling cheaper and better hardware, which drove down sales...
2) ... which led to a marketing push for the new machines, which drove down sales of existing kit...
3) ... which led to some bright spark coming up with the idea of trying to refurb and sell off the mountain of obsolete kit they had as a result of 1) and 2)
Without 1) and 2), the company wouldn't have had the unused inventory. And arguably, without the chilling effect 2) had on pre-orders, they might have had the cashflow to pay for the refurb - the $2 million quoted on Wikipedia is a fair amount of cash even today, but it still only works out at about $10 per refurbished machine, which would then presumably have had a retail price somewhere north of $1000.
(OTOH, there's always the chance that if they had completed the refurb, the cheap machines would have flooded the market and depressed sales of their newer models even further. You pays your money and you takes your chances...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect
I thought the Osbourne effect was that they announced the new model prematurely. Their sales tanked because nobody wanted to buy the “old” (current) model and the new model wasn’t ready, hence they went bust.
Yes, that's what I and everybody else (except for 1 or 2 people apparently) mean by the "The Osborne Effect".
BTW, I've got an Osborne 1 in the garage if anybody wants to make an offer on it. It booted off 5" floppies and everything worked the last time I powered it up (probably about 5 years ago).
From the 1980s through to the 2000s, each upgrade would bring a significant boost to productivity. More recently, the difference for many users is less noticeable - Photoshop taking 0.1 seconds to apply a filter as opposed to 0.2 seconds, for example, is not world changing.
So, one would expect the Osbourne Effect to be rarer these days.
>Photoshop taking 0.1 seconds to apply a filter as opposed to 0.2 seconds, for example, is not world changing.
But last years model being locked out of the app store is significant.
The 'nice' thing about software as a service is that you can obsolete your own products instantly
"So, one would expect the Osbourne Effect to be rarer these days."
There are three main reasons why it's not. First, people fear obsolescence of older devices, not because they're actually obsolete, but because the manufacturer drops support. The more locked the device is, the higher the fear. I have little fear with a standard computer because I have confidence I can find drivers and boot other things. I have less confidence with an ARM-based computer because their drivers have proven to be a nightmare. I definitely feel this with phones, because the chances that someone will find a way to break the bootloader and give me extra software is rather low.
Second, pricing is a little crazy. I may not have a problem buying older hardware, but if the manufacturer is releasing an update, I may wait for them to do that before I go to buy the older version. I'm hoping the prices will get brought down, which is mostly true because when it was the current model it was ridiculously expensive. If you do intend to buy computers or phones from well-known manufacturers, expect the quoted prices to be inexplicable and the sale prices heavily discounted and yet still a lot more expensive than you would have expected from a few years ago.
Finally, there's exactly the point you brought up. In the 1980s, people waited so they'd get a better product. Now, they wait because they can't get a better product. If my phone is a little annoying and I'm considering a replacement, I might buy something now. But if someone says that there will be a better model in a few months, I can wait; I'm not losing out much. For example, someone I know who likes iPhones and small phones was looking to replace their device early this year. I advised them to wait because there were these rumors of a smaller iPhone to be released. They put up with their old device for longer based on that recommendation.
Given the general long life of Macs (annoying OS-based planned obsolescence aside), could the announcement of impending ARM chippery see a bit of Osborne Effect?
I doubt it. If anything professional users will pick up a late-model Intel iMac to last them through the transition period, picking up ARM in 5 years time when the ecosystem and third party software has all settled down. Let the consumers and bleeding-edge die-hards find the bugs.
Most consumers won't care that much, they're buying it for macOS, not the chippery. If they need a new box they'll buy a new box. They're not bouncing on their heels for the ARM version.
"Given the general long life of Macs (annoying OS-based planned obsolescence aside), could the announcement of impending ARM chippery see a bit of Osborne Effect?"
Now that they are effectively on death row, there is no way I'd buy, or suggest to others, a new Intel Mac because that runs the strong risk of being a severe waste of money not least because of the very real threat of early deprecation by Apple.
A more cost efficient option might be to buy a used Intel Mac as a stopgap and then buy a new Arm Mac when they go on sale.
"That will be kind of painful on ARM Macs for Windows applications that aren't ported to ARM"
There might be other unforeseen consequences of the move to Arm chips, particularly in respect of professional, technical and scientific software.
For example, Autodesk has already stopped producing two applications for macOS and that phenomenon might increase if other software companies perceive that this is effectively a further move for Macs from being serious professional machines to becoming lifestyle toys.
Why do you think moving to ARM will make them "lifestyle toys". I'm pretty sure the ARM Macs will outperform their x86 forebears pretty much across the board. Shouldn't professionals want the best tools? The iPhone, with its SoC running at 2.6 GHz, matches per thread perform with a 4.5 GHz Core i7. Apple doesn't need to improve on that much to beat every CPU Intel makes (and every one AMD makes, again in per thread performance)
We'll have to see how they do on multithread when they transition the bigger machines, but I'm willing to bet they best the x86 duo there as well.
"Why do you think moving to ARM will...to bet they best the x86 duo there as well"
It will be for independent adjudicators, such as Phoronix, to judge whether and by how far Arm beats x64 Intel. Furthermore, any advantage will be relatively modest and certainly not earth shaking order of magnitude territory.
Arm Mac users should be able to use and enjoy Apple, Microsoft, Adobe and Serif Affinity software from the start. They should also be able to play Apple Arcade games natively but that will not make up for the loss of existing, and non-porting of future, AAA games. Similarly, Boot Camp will be a thing of past too and that is likely to lose professional customers who can't now use specific Windows software that way any more.
Apple's deprecation of common open standards will have negative consequences for professional software and there will almost certainly be the loss of some CAD, scientific, engineering, architectural, 3D compositing, etc software packages making the Apple software ecosystem poorer so making Apple products less desirable to professionals and scientists.
All that could have been avoided if Apple had partnered with AMD instead.
>>Apple fanbois may disagree and make what could well be the last ever Intel-powered iMac upgrade a collectors’ item. ®
This, IMO. I rushed to buy the Mac Mini 2012 for similar reasons when they ruined the 2014 iteration. I'm still on that MacMini and I suspect I might hold out until the final Intel model (rumours of a refresh are rafe) because I have no idea how running Parallels is going to work on Arm.
But also disappointing because Apple has promised that it will soon offer its own Arm-based silicon across the Mac range
The announcement was "on Apple silicon before the end of the year". I've always interpreted this to mean an announcement of some devices in November or so for delivery in December. Given what's been released this year, something low end might be expected. Many people will be holding off investing in new hardware until it's clear what the strategy will be.
....Mr. Cook stated quite clearly, in plain English understandable even on the other side of the Atlantic, that the replacement of Intel processors with Apple silicon would take place over the next two years. Not next week, not by the end of this year (though two Apple Silcon laptops are rumored), but by 2022 July.
"....Mr. Cook stated quite clearly, in plain English understandable even on the other side of the Atlantic, that the replacement of Intel processors with Apple silicon would take place over the next two years. Not next week, not by the end of this year (though two Apple Silcon laptops are rumored), but by 2022 July"
While this move should allow seamless access to the iPad and iPhone software ecosystems, at the other end it could also mean the loss of some serious professional software big names and products.
A safer option might have been to ditch Intel, pair up with AMD instead and go for flawless emulation of phone and tablet apps on Macs.
Pros for x86_64:
Pros for Arm:
"loss of some serious professional software big names and products."
Given how big Apple is in certain industries, the software for those industries *will* follow. Besides, Apple has a track record of ensuring transitions such as these go smoothly. I wouldn't be surprised if in many cases all you needed to do was to change the compilation target.
"Given how big Apple is in certain industries, the software for those industries *will* follow. Besides, Apple has a track record of ensuring transitions such as these go smoothly. I wouldn't be surprised if in many cases all you needed to do was to change the compilation target"
That will almost certainly not be the case and Apple will take a software hit at the professional end of things not least because a lot of scientific software relies on cross platform open source standards that Apple is now completely abandoning. In addition, Autodesk will no longer be producing their Alias and VRED software for Macs and that is just the start of what is to come as a direct result of Apple's voluntary move to Arm architecture.
I've seen this happen numerous times on Apple forums where professionals have been displeased by the performance of the Mac butterfly keyboards and gimmicks like the touch bar so much so that they've left the entire Apple ecosystem, iPhones included and they've taken their families with them. More of that type of desertion is almost certainly on its way.
Regarding "cross platform open source standards", remember that MacOS is a Unix system at heart. It's Windows that is the exception to that these days.
And, speaking of unix systems, my ARM-powered Raspberry PI runs all the usual Linux programs that I would expect quite happily, so I have no doubt that Apple will make it so that pretty much all that developers have to do is kick off a compile for the new architecture. They do have quite a lot of history and experience buiilt up in doing just that, after all.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
