Apple not supporting older Mac mini like they used to

Pat Schaefer wrote:

will have no supported browser going forward ... (Lack of support aka reject from websites aka useless

has already happened to Yosemite).

Firefox 115 ESR support continues until Sep. 2024. After that, it doesn't suddenly stop working with websites. It could well be another 3-4 years before that even begins to happen.

IMHO if you exercise a reasonable degree of care in your internet activities and use at least an ad blocker like uBlock Origin + Privacy Badger you should be able to continue using FFOX 115 ESR on Mojave for the forseeable future.

Pat Schaefer wrote:

Thanks for that info : )

so you are confirming that my Mojave stronghold on Mac mini (Late 2018)

last redoubt of Intel 32-bit / 64-bit software

will have no supported browser going forward

Probably won't … unless you want to grab a. copy of the source code for one of the Open Source browsers, and support it yourself, or pay someone to support it for you.

(Lack of support aka reject from websites aka useless

has already happened to Yosemite).

Doesn't mean that all Web sites are going to immediately reject your browsers, making them useless. This time last year, I was using an iMac running High Sierra, its version of Safari, and Firefox 115 ESR. Hardware problems forced its retirement before being shut out of Web sites could become a major problem.

Note that the original https security protocol was found to be much less secure than people had thought, leading to a scramble to upgrade security in browsers and Web sites everywhere. From what I've read in these forums, I believe that El Capitah's version of Safari was the first version of Safari to get the https security upgrade.

Thus one problem with the versions of Safari in Yosemite and earlier may be that modern https sites are unwilling to make connections to browsers that cannot speak any of the newer security protocols.

IMHO because Apple dropped

legacy support from 7 years to 3 years

because they can no longer afford to support legacy Mac Mini users.

yeah right, pull the other one ; )

The Mac mini (2018) shipped with Mojave, can run Sonoma, and will be able to run Sequoia.

macOS Sequoia Preview - Apple

That means that Apple has supported it – or will support it – with at least seven major versions of macOS (Mojave, Catalina, Big Sur, Monterey, Ventura, Sonoma, Sequoia).

You seem to be confusing support for that Mac with support for a particular version of macOS. I am not sure that Apple has ever committed to supporting a particular version of macOS for seven years. They assume that, if you want updates, you'll install newer versions of macOS as they become available for your machine.

Pat Schaefer wrote:

Not sure what I was doing but was surprised to be told Safari was not supported use x y, z.

Apple currently ties Safari updates to macOS updates. So if you are using Mojave, you are using an old version of Safari.

Firefox 115 ESR will run on Mojave. That version of Firefox no longer gets new features, and after this September, Mozilla will no longer provide even "critical security updates" for it.

Mozilla Support – Firefox users on macOS 10.12, 10.13 and 10.14 moving to Extended Support Release

The 2018 Mac mini can run any of the later three supported macOS versions.

If you choose not to update in order to run older software, then that is your choice.

If I was intent on keeping and running older software, I would use one of my 2012 Mac mini's w/SSD for that and update the 2018 to macOS 12, 13 or 14.

I would comment that just because Apple is no longer providing updates for older versions of macOS does not make them unusable or unsafe. On the contrary, there are good reasons to continue using them. Not all "new features" are particularly useful or necessary and in fact Apple has also removed various functionality with each successive release of macOS.

I am still using the following, they all run perfectly well and I have no security concerns about them:

• Monterey 12.7.5 on an iMac. Running all the latest versions of my apps.
• Catalina 10.15.7 on a couple of iMacs. A few exceptions but generally running all the latest versions of my apps.
• High Sierra 10.13.6 on a MBP & a couple of iMacs in order to continue using certain 32-bit apps including Adobe CS6.
• Snow Leopard 10.6.8 on a MBP & an iMac in order to continue running Final Cut, QuickTime Pro, MPEG Streamclip, iDVD, Adobe Acrobat (full version) and a few other older apps that are still completely functional but not available on later versions of macOS.

Even on the iMac that I'm running Monterey on, I have no forseeable plans to upgrade it to Ventura, Sonoma or Sequoia. It's too painful & expensive in time & money to rework/upgrade/replace all the integrated software & hardware in my systems.

Regarding supported browsers (Mojave included), see @a brody's User Tip here:

Browsers by Mac operating system - Apple Community

There are good updated Browsers for Mojave, just not Safari, Mojave is my goto MacOS still.

den.thed wrote:

What I was suggesting was to use a 2012 running Mojave for the older 32bit software and then use 2018 Mac mini for everything else that requires a later more secure macOS version.

I think it used to possible to dual-boot. Unfortunately, the security changes in recent versions of macOS might have put a crimp on this useful feature.

Use more than one version of macOS on Mac - Apple Support

"This “dual boot” setup is a convenient way to try a later version of macOS while temporarily keeping the currently installed macOS for older software that still needs it.

This is not a long-term way to continue using an earlier macOS after upgrading. Later macOS versions can install changes designed to keep your Mac secure, and these changes can affect your computer's ability to continue using a significantly earlier version."

Pat Schaefer wrote:

Thanks for the suggestions.

You're welcome.

Am curious why the 2012 mini.

Because it is/was the preferred transitional model that could run Mojave and be upgraded to a 1T SSD with 16GB of RAM.

I could have bought one

but I chose the mini (late 2018) as it would project me further into the future.

2018 + 7 years average legacy support = 2025.

That's what I signed up for.

That is the source of my lament 😭

The 2018 does not future protect, if you do not upgrade the macOS.

What I was suggesting was to use a 2012 running Mojave for the older 32bit software and then use 2018 Mac mini for everything else that requires a later more secure macOS version.

Also curious about SSD recommendation.

I am sure I got this wrong

but the speed advantage disappears

when you realize it does not really copy the file

only the inode?

How does that work?

The 2012 was easy to upgrade and was the preferred model for speed because it has a SATA lll 6G drive controller.

The 2018 already has a much faster SSD.

Pat Schaefer wrote:

Also curious about SSD recommendation.

I am sure I got this wrong

but the speed advantage disappears

when you realize it does not really copy the file

only the inode?

How does that work?

Sounds like you are referring to APFS.

APFS has a feature where, if you duplicate a file, in such a way that the filesystem knows about it, it does not immediately make a copy of the whole file. It creates another file entry, pointing to the same data. If you then modify either file – so that their contents should diverge – the filesystem allocates extra space, separating out their data so that in fact the parts that are different are stored separately.

This is also known as "copy on write" and was likely inspired by how virtual memory works in various operating systems and operating system kernels – especially macOS, NeXTstep, Mach, and Accent.

Note that when the files remain the same, this saves time, and wear and tear on the drive. However, if the files ultimately diverge, you still have to pay for that in terms of writes and in terms of storage used. "Copy on write" just changes the timing of when that happens (and would be an example of "lazy evaluation").

This can also make backup "interesting". If APFS has made extensive use of this feature on the drive that you're backing up, that doesn't mean that the backup will have the files cleverly arranged in the same way. The backup program may well create completely separate files on the backup drive, causing your backup to be a LOT bigger than your original.