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 I would prefer other companies, too, take a more aggressive approach towards deprecating outdated technology in consumer technology.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
RE[3]: Comment by ssokolow
By fmaxwell on 2018-02-04 23:41:22
> I understand, it is good that Apple is giving you a chance to repurchase or just throw away software you've paid for.
I understand, it is good that your car manufacturer is giving you a chance to repurchase or just throw away music you've paid for on cassettes and 8-track tapes.

> Stupid Windows users, with their stupid being able to run software from 10 years ago.
Stupid Mac users, with their valuing performance, stability, security, and maintainability over the ability to run Jurassic apps.
Permalink - Score: 1
Typical Apple
By mz721 on 2018-02-05 02:49:38
Apple is great if you fit into their box. They tell you what you want (you don't need a USB port, you don't need a headphone jack, you don't need 32-bit support...) and if you agree (ie like their products and like having the latest version of stuff) then fine. If you like anything out of the ordinary ... not so good. It's good we have choice in the marketplace. Windows is more ragged than Mac but much better for long term support and range of software. Linux is there if you don't need to use commercial software or can virtualize it, but you prob have to be a little more savvy. Mac is great if you don't want to think about the machine at all (and are happy to pay for the privilege) and don't do anything bespoke.
Permalink - Score: 4
RE: And what about....
By woegjiub on 2018-02-05 03:41:54
Fuck games. If you wanted those, you'd use a console or windows.
Permalink - Score: 1
RE: Typical Apple
By agentj on 2018-02-05 04:09:26
USB or headphone jack is completely different than 32bit support. What's the point of maintaining 32bit apps ? Changing app from 32bit to 64bit is simpler than interfacing USB-C device to USB 3.0 port. If you use some severely outdated piece of crap of software that developer never bothers to update, then stick with the old ass caveman hardware.

Linux and compatibility ? It's a complete joke. Linux apps will usually break the next week after you compile them and update any library in the system - that's why no serious developer will ever support linux unless they fix their compatibility problems. Shipping .so or static linking is laughable "solution" - you miss various things. They drop support for various things in kernel all the time, because - IT'S A MAGIC - there are no infinite developer resources.
Permalink - Score: 0
RE[4]: Comment by ssokolow
By Alfman on 2018-02-05 05:04:28

> I understand, it is good that your car manufacturer is giving you a chance to repurchase or just throw away music you've paid for on cassettes and 8-track tapes.

Apple may not wish to support 32bit software, that's their prerogative. But your analogy is a bit off. 8 track->cassette->CD is replacing one technology with a new & incompatible technology. This doesn't match the situation for x86 hardware, since 32bit->64bit is largely the same technology with new extensions (like larger registers). Some features like segments were removed, but these weren't generally used in 32bit code (they were used by 16bit DOS eons ago). One way to make your analogy more accurate would be for your car manufacturer to stop supporting audio CDs but to continue supporting MP3 CDs. In other words, the hardware is still physically capable of supporting the legacy format, but your manufacturer chose not to.

From an x86 hardware perspective the 32bit and 64bit components can't be fully separated because 64bit registers and mov instructions are an extension of 32bit ones and not a replacement! So even 64bit x86 compilers can still generate 32bit instructions/addresses/regi sters depending on the software requirements.

Here is a very brief overview:

Edited 2018-02-05 05:13 UTC
Permalink - Score: 5
RE[2]: Windows 10 should do the same thing
By The1stImmortal on 2018-02-05 05:44:31
> they should get rid of the 32 bit versions of everything even if it breaks a bunch of very old software.
Why though?
The only disadvantage to supporting 32 bit software on a 64 bit OS is having to keep 32 bit userspace components around. And most of them are just 32 bit recompilations of essentially the same 64 bit code anyway, which has a side benefit of helping make sure the code is portable and relatively clean.
You have the option in server editions of windows to not install the 32 bit compatibility layer. It saves some space. That's about it.

32 bit isn't bad. 16 bit isn't bad. 8 bit isn't bad. If it does what it needs to and is relatively easy to maintain, what's it matter?
Permalink - Score: 3
RE[2]: Typical Apple
By Kochise on 2018-02-05 06:11:33
Probably because not every software needs more than 4GB of memory. Things worked pretty well until recently, 32 bits is enough for Word and stuff. If you need them to be 64 bits then there are questions pending. Not everyone runs a server farm in their garage. At least 32 bits apps are more easily sand-boxed into a 64 bits system. Better security it is.
Permalink - Score: 2
RE[2]: And what about....
By leech on 2018-02-05 07:27:35
Oh I agree with you. In fact I see little to no reason to use a Mac at all. :) I was just giving an example of why you'd want to keep 32bit around.

To be fair, I do use Linux for gaming where I can. Simply because I have the hardware, where you can't actually get game-worthy hardware for macOS.

Edited 2018-02-05 07:28 UTC
Permalink - Score: 3
RE[3]: Is 32-bit architecture that out-dated?
By bert64 on 2018-02-05 07:58:52
A modern mac purchased today can run ancient macos versions and associated software under emulation, with performance superior to the real hardware.
Permalink - Score: 2
RE[3]: Comment by bamdad
By bert64 on 2018-02-05 08:08:14
Having open source drivers for these peripherals is extremely important...

I have several printers and scanners which came with official drivers for windows and macos, these drivers were 32bit and powerpc respectively, they don't work anymore on modern versions. Modern Linux distros however support these devices out of the box, even on 64bit or ARM.

I used to use an Alpha workstation for my desktop and open source drivers for all kinds of hardware which never officially supported the alpha would run just fine.

Nowadays when i buy peripherals i check for open source drivers before i make the purchase, or i look for devices which support open standards and don't need custom drivers (eg postscript when it comes to printers).

I have some old printers which support postscript, either via ethernet to parallel adapters or via their built in 10baseT ethernet controllers. Virtually anything will happily print to these printers despite their age. I can also print to any modern postscript printer using an ancient os if necessary.
Permalink - Score: 3

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?