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 I would prefer other companies, too, take a more aggressive approach towards deprecating outdated technology in consumer technology.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]: Typical Apple
By bert64 on 2018-02-05 08:18:58
You don't always need 64bit, but the frequently with which you do need it are increasing every day. Consumer laptops are now frequently coming with >4GB of ram, a browser with many tabes open can easily consume more than 4GB. And remember the 4GB limit is address space, not total ram usage of a process.

Having both 64bit and 32bit support requires support in the kernel, 2 sets of userland libraries etc, and the 32bit libraries will contain support for more legacy features (ie anything that got deprecated before 64bit was introduced likely wont have been compiled into the 64bit builds).

So yes individual 64bit apps may consume more resources than 32, but having a mix of 32/64 and all the legacy baggage associated with 32bit libs going back 20+ years could actually result in higher resource usage than a pure 64bit system.

Then there are the quirks of amd64, where the 64bit mode adds a lot more registers for example... The lack of registers in 32bit mode can be a performance bottleneck, which is eliminated by running in 64bit mode. Many programs run faster, even if they don't take advantage of any other 64bit features.

By only supporting 64bit you also rebase the lowest common denominator, there are more cpu features that you can take for granted and use without having to have multiple code paths to support older processors.

There are many benefits to moving towards pure 64bit... The stupid thing for Apple is that they never should have supported 32bit x86 at all... Microsoft has a long legacy of 32bit x86 support, but Apple moved from powerpc to x86 *after* amd64 was already established. They could very easily have made OSX 64bit-only right from the very first non-powerpc version.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[2]: Windows 10 should do the same thing
By REM2000 on 2018-02-05 08:36:27
ironically Office on the Mac is 64bit, like windows, i think legacy and bad code which really holds back 64bit office. Take for example Microsoft's own platforms such as GP and CRM, all recommendations are for 32bit office due to compatibility problems using Microsoft Office on Microsoft Windows Client, connecting to Microsoft GP which in turn is running on Microsoft Windows Server and a Microsoft SQL Server back end.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE: Typical Apple
By REM2000 on 2018-02-05 08:48:33
Thats the key thing though, its why a lot of people (not all purchase apple equipment).

You purchase it knowing it has a set working life but during that life it's going to be fully supported in both software and hardware. Like you say you purchase apps from the vendors and you buy into their support cycle as well, which if you use the mac for work is pretty much how you will see that device and others such as a company van on lease.

As others have mentioned Windows is the other route, you get one year support from the company supplying the hardware, you then can pay for support for windows, however people can run software and hardware for as long as they wish, if something breaks then they either pay microsoft for help or replace the item (sorry we dont sell that scanner anymore, purchase our new one) however you have more control.

Personally i use both, i see the benefits in both, with apple i know im on a treadmill and i accept it as it works well for me. However i do use my windows pc to play older games and run older software.

Checking my mac i see that all of the software i use is 64bit already so i wont be affected by the upgrade, one of the last hold outs for me was dropbox.
Permalink - Score: 1
.
RE[4]: Typical Apple
By Kochise on 2018-02-05 10:56:49
I understand your concerns about 64 bits performance and less 32 bits support bloat. However I would have to wonder why browsers needs so much memory nowadays, web pages doesn't features 4K pictures. Coders should be more frugal about memory consumption.

Apple chose Intel because of deal, better overall performance and power economy in 2006 face to AMD's offering, and also the integrated Wifi AMD was lacking (the whole Centrino stuff).

Apple made the transition in early 2006 when the Core 2 Duo would only be available later that year, once the first Intel Mac were shipped with 32 bits cpus.
Permalink - Score: 1
.
RE[3]: Comment by ssokolow
By The123king on 2018-02-05 11:16:14
You forget that 16bit apps were depreciated from Windows in every 64 bit verion of Windows that has been released
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[5]: Comment by ssokolow
By fmaxwell on 2018-02-05 12:18:28
> But your analogy is a bit off. 8 track->cassette-& ;gt;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).
That's like contending that x86 Linux binaries should run on x86 Windows computers because they use the same hardware "technology." This is about the OS, not the CPU. It's about Apple deciding to retire a lot of code in their OS by dumping support for 32 bit apps. You can talk in vague terms about how things are "largely the same technology," but the 32 bit apps can't run any more and it's not because Apple incorporated something in their OS to block execution of 32 bit apps that would otherwise run without a problem.

P.S. Thanks for the link, but I've been developing in assembly since 1980.
Permalink - Score: 1
.
RE[4]: Comment by ebasconp
By ahferroin7 on 2018-02-05 12:25:55
Nope, Linux is it, as it requires core-system support in the OS kernel.

TBH, it barely exists on Linux as it is though. It's buggy as hell, can't easily co-exist with a regular 32-bit userspace on the same system without some significant effort, and pretty much nobody uses it (largely because cases where you're sufficiently memory constrained for the few hundred pointers being twice the size to matter don't generally use 64-bit x86 CPU's, and x86 is the only arch that was stupid enough to begin with that it needed extra registers in 64-bit mode). The only distro I know of which even remotely supports it is Gentoo, and even they don't really support it to any significant degree.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[3]: And what about....
By fmaxwell on 2018-02-05 12:31:08
> 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.

If you're a gamer, then Mac is clearly not the platform of choice. But if you're a developer, it's a great platform. I was surprised at how many of my coworkers in aerospace had moved to Mac (not just me!).
Permalink - Score: 1
.
RE[3]: And what about....
By ahferroin7 on 2018-02-05 12:35:57
Um, hardware isn't an issue to the degree you would think. The only big hardware issue is that they insist on using Intel GPU's on most of their systems except the Mac Pro's, but even that isn't as much of a handicap as you would think (the only recent triple-A game I've seen that doesn't run well enough to play on a 6th or 7th gen Core i5's integrated GPU is Evolve Stage 2. 2016 DOOM, Warframe, Overwatch, Borderlands (except the first which has a shitty renderer), Mass Effect (again, except for the first), Saints Row, Assassin's Creed, and most MMO's all get a reasonable 40-50 FPS on the low settings on a 6th-gen i5's iGPU, which is absolutely playable despite what most hard-core gamers might say).

The issue for most people with gaming on macOS is the insane latency in the input drivers. Apple's stock keyboards have some of the lowest hardware latency around, but their input layer is so bad that it pushes the latency to almost double what you see on Windows or Linux, and near triple what most console systems have.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE: Not a good thing
By ahferroin7 on 2018-02-05 12:39:19
Outside of x86, yes, there's really not much benefit unless you are handling very large amounts of data or need to deal with large numbers (though TBH, there are a lot more things that need to handle 64-bit integers than you probably realize, especially since files larger than 4GB are not all that uncommon).

On x86 though, the 8 extra general-purpose registers can actually have a pretty serious impact on performance of an application because the base register set is absolute shit (4 registers that all have odd restrictions on how they can be used as a result of the original hardware implementation).
Permalink - Score: 2

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?