www. O S N E W S .com
News Features Interviews
BlogContact Editorials
.
Apple prepares macOS for discontinuation of 32-bit app support
By Thom Holwerda, submitted by Drumhellar on 2018-02-03 14:15:01

When users attempt to launch a 32-bit app in 10.13.4, it will still launch, but it will do so with a warning message notifying the user that the app will eventually not be compatible with the operating system unless it is updated. This follows the same approach that Apple took with iOS, which completed its sunset of 32-bit app support with iOS 11 last fall.

This is good. I would prefer other companies, too, take a more aggressive approach towards deprecating outdated technology in consumer technology.

 Email a friend - Printer friendly - Related stories
.
Read Comments: 1-10 -- 11-20 -- 21-30 -- 31-40 -- 41-50 -- 51-60 -- 61-70 -- 71-80 -- 81-90 -- 91-94
.
Still Using Approach.
By dionicio on 2018-02-04 02:06:35
And Old Relational DB Manager from Lotus. I Won't Learn another package, for the now and then, very casual need.

Setting up a quick Win7 32bits partition image over SSD. (Won't go virtual on DB jobs). Handling indexes and tables over RAM disk, fast.

Mind, what remains of, my main asset. Hardly working on not to repeat myself.

Suspecting of lots of 16bits blocks impeding the carry of this legacy to Win10.
Permalink - Score: 0
.
The Myth of 64 bits
By softdrat on 2018-02-04 05:00:21
64 is twice 32, so it must be better. Right?

NOT!

Most of the apps that I run are written by .. me. All working fine in a 32 bit environment.

So what happens when you move to a 64 bit machine? Gah! Memory exhaustion. All those 32 bit pointers, which were largely innocous before, now become 64 bit pointers, for which almost half of the bits are zero. So if our app uses lots of pointers, like mine do, now the memory footprint has nearly doubled, all in order to store zeroes.

At least fore me, going to 64 bits means that nearly half your memery is wasted. YMMV
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[2]: Not a good thing
By bert64 on 2018-02-04 06:04:23
The first x86 mac came out in 2006, but x86_64 was already available then... It was Apple who chose to go with the 32bit core duo series for their first x86 laptops and imacs... The first mac pro was 64bit right from the start, as was the second generation of macbook.
The G5 was also 64bit, the 32bit macbook was actually a step backwards...

They could quite easily have gone direct to 64bit x86, and never had to worry about 32bit compatibility at all, but it's all because intel's only competitive laptop chip at the time was 32bit... They would have had to go with a power hungry p4 chip, or used an AMD processor in their laptops.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[3]: Needs to be done...
By judgen on 2018-02-04 06:37:24
Actually in 2020. But close enough.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[2]: Comment by ebasconp
By ssokolow on 2018-02-04 06:51:00
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X32...
Permalink - Score: 3
.
RE: Comment by Kroc
By Poseidon on 2018-02-04 09:04:23
Not at all. This will make it easier for apple to maintain software and have it be even better and faster.

In a computer science point of view strictly, this allows the default precision be higher for mathematics and numbers, a very integral part. Handling more numbers at once without having to process more code or loops is great for energy efficiency and code efficiency, and this is the same for all 64 bit CPUs using 64 bit instructions instead of 32 bit instructions.

Now that being said, switching from intel to arm is mostly just a compiler optimization task, and iOS and macOS are not that different on the entire base system, which means that it's already technically been done a while back.

All in all, switching ot another architecture is just a matter of them optimizing their compilers.


The move to 64 bit is welcome and I love that it's finally happening, as any developer will tell you. You can just worry about supporting the newest technologies and languages which are optimized for 64 bits, the same with the IDEs, without having to do alternative code segments for 32 bit sections.

I apologize for the long rant, but the myth of "Oh they're switching now because of X!" has to stop at some point.
Permalink - Score: 0
.
RE: Comment by ssokolow
By fmaxwell on 2018-02-04 09:19:58
> > This is good. I would prefer other companies, too, take a more aggressive approach towards deprecating outdated technology in consumer technology.

This is yet another reason I'd never use a Mac.


Good. As a Mac user, I don't want a bunch of new users coming over to Mac and advocating that MacOS become the kind of bloated mess that Windows has become with its never-break-anything mentality and the millions of lines of code to try to make that happen.

Edited 2018-02-04 09:25 UTC
Permalink - Score: 3
.
Windows 10 should do the same thing
By rklrkl on 2018-02-04 11:03:48
It's about time one of these Windows 10 big updates did a similar thing and warned of the deprecation of 32-bit support. It still annoys me that because there's no schedule to do so, we're *still* seeing 32-bit-only new applications being released.

I've been on 64-bit desktops in Linux and Windows since 2005 and Linux is so much further down the 64-bit road than pitiful Windows is.

At the very least, Microsoft should pull all 32-bit Windows 10 ISOs to stop it being installed on new kit (how many years has it been since a new desktop or laptop wasn't capable of running a 64-bit OS? Must be well over 5 years now).
Permalink - Score: 1
.
RE: Windows 10 should do the same thing
By Poseidon on 2018-02-04 11:58:23
The huge mistake that microsoft did was to sell people off on 32 bit office until very recently.

If you called them, they would tell you to buy the 32 bit version (as of the 2013 version), and furthermore, even the latest and greatest office 365 is, by default, from the installer, 32 bit.

They sort of dug themselves a bit of a grave, although I don't blame them, they have been keeping a gigantic Office legacy code compatible with modern code.

But I agree, they should get rid of the 32 bit versions of everything even if it breaks a bunch of very old software.
Permalink - Score: 1
.
RE: Comment by ebasconp
By Poseidon on 2018-02-04 12:02:14
On a compiler level and a software engineering level, it's easier to maintain only the newer architectures (especially for security) and the advantages of 64 bit and up instructions instead of the older instructions will make software even better once it is left behind.

It's not only about memory, but speed of processing and security.

Updates can also be released quicker because there's less testing and compatibility required, whilst IDEs can move beyond 1990s too...

I don't know about you, but when you install Visual Studio (latest and greatest), you need to install a lot of legacy support software just to build UWP, so yeah.
Permalink - Score: 1

Read Comments 1-10 -- 11-20 -- 21-30 -- 31-40 -- 41-50 -- 51-60 -- 61-70 -- 71-80 -- 81-90 -- 91-94

No new comments are allowed for stories older than 10 days.
This story is now archived.

.
News Features Interviews
BlogContact Editorials
.
WAP site - RSS feed
© OSNews LLC 1997-2007. All Rights Reserved.
The readers' comments are owned and a responsibility of whoever posted them.
Prefer the desktop version of OSNews?