Will Apple drop 32-bit support with Lion?

[Morris]

i think its early. mac pro 1,1 would be pissed

There is no need for them to be pissed. The Mac Pro1,1 has 64bit CPUs (Xeon Clovertown) so are not in any way affected if Apple would stop supporting 32bit CPUs.

It is irrelevant whether 95 or even 100% or users have 64 bit processors, what matters if how many users' hardware has a full set of 64 bit drivers.

What also matters is how many peripherals from third parties also have 64 bit drivers


There is simply no way that 10.7 will drop 32 bit support. I imagine well over half of all macs on the market at the moment do not support a 64 bit kernel, and even if they did, a great number of printers, usb devices and pci-x ones would be made completely incompatible.

None of that is relevant for dropping support for 32bit CPUs. A lot of people with Core2Duo CPUs but with older machines will just run 10.7 with a 32bit kernel. No need for 64bit drivers.

To get this clear, I am not saying that machines that are currently running a 32bit kernel would be dropped. Only machines with CoreDuo CPUs.

So, if you currently run a 32bit kernel, you will probably still do under 10.7. However, most of your software and OS will be running under 64bit, as it already does for almost everyone who currently runs Snow Leopard.

It is very simple:

• Forget about EFIs, they have nothing to do with this
• Forget about Kernels, they have nothing to do with this
• Forget about drivers, they have nothing to do with this
• Only think about CPUs. If it is older than Core2Duo, I am expecting it not to be supported.

 

[alleycat]

Mac Pro 1,1 owner here. If they drop me, then I'm dropping Apple. Especially in this economy, I'm not made of money, and would like to see my desktop's useful life extended.

Build a Windows machine? It might happen for this 20 year Mac vet.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Apple drops support for the 32-bit Intel Macs with Lion. However... moving to K64 as the default for all supported Macs will cause hardware headaches, most definitely. I think there's a 50% chance K64 will be the default. Finally, the 3rd point mentioned: 32-bit application support. No reason for that to go away. Most of the applications that benefit greatly from being 64-bit native have made the move already. The remainder either do not benefit at all or don't benefit enough to justify migrating.

 

[matspekkie]

I don't think they can drop it yet. First of cpu is one thing the second thing is you efi. for example my macbook 2.1 has a 64bit cpu the efi is 32 bit so it is impossible to run a 64bit kernel. Then of course you have a lot of 3th party hardware that needs 64 bit drivers. And a lot don't have these at the moment (digidesign /avid) etc etc. the real advantage of 64 bit would be memory addressing more than the 4GB limit 32 bit has. so far slow leopard has done a good job being compatible with the both. you can try run your computer in 64
mode only see if everything still works. just hold 6+4 during boot and check system profiler afterwards. I wonder why itunes is still 32 bit??

 

[wrldwzrd89]

I don't think they can drop it yet. First of cpu is one thing the second thing is you efi. for example my macbook 2.1 has a 64bit cpu the efi is 32 bit so it is impossible to run a 64bit kernel. Then of course you have a lot of 3th party hardware that needs 64 bit drivers. And a lot don't have these at the moment (digidesign /avid) etc etc. the real advantage of 64 bit would be memory addressing more than the 4GB limit 32 bit has. so far slow leopard has done a good job being compatible with the both. you can try run your computer in 64
mode only see if everything still works. just hold 6+4 during boot and check system profiler afterwards. I wonder why itunes is still 32 bit??

You forget that dropping compatibility with 32-bit Macs and dropping compatibility with 32-bit software are NOT at all related.

 

[mrsir2009]

I want the whole OS to be 64bit. There aren't tons of people using 32bit Macs that would want to (or be able to) upgrade to Lion anyway.

 

[Dentunes]

It better not be 64 bit only

Hi all,

I am a huge Apple fan and have purchased many of their products over the years. I currently have a Mac Pro 2,1 which has a 32bit EFI. While I can understand dropping PPC support as it is a completely different processor, I can't understand them dropping 32 bit support for a few reasons. Firstly, no Mac computer with a 32bit EFI will run a 64 bit kernel. Period. That wipes out quite a few Intel Macs, C2D and XEON included.

Secondly - A Jan 1, 2008 Mac Pro running Clovertown processors use a 32bit EFI, rendering them obsolete if that were the case. That would mean a Mac still under warranty with Apple Care, if purchased, would not be able to run current software. That doesn't make sense.

Finally, there are consumer computers in the Mac range currently that do not run 64 bit and need to be hacked to make them run. This is believed to be Apple differentiating the consumer lines to the pro lines.

There will be MANY unhappy users if 32bit is discontinued, myself included. That would only be done to push people to buy new products and in that case I have to give it to Microsoft. They do NOT do that. If your computer has the speed, Windows will run it. My 2 cents.

 

[MattInOz]

Hi all,

I am a huge Apple fan and have purchased many of their products over the years. I currently have a Mac Pro 2,1 which has a 32bit EFI. While I can understand dropping PPC support as it is a completely different processor, I can't understand them dropping 32 bit support for a few reasons. Firstly, no Mac computer with a 32bit EFI will run a 64 bit kernel. Period. That wipes out quite a few Intel Macs, C2D and XEON included.

Happy to be corrected, I didn't think it was that cut and dried. I was of the understanding that a 64bit Kernel can run on a 32bit EFI and has been done on a number of other systems. It's just that Apple choose not to support it in Snow Leopard. Maybe they saw it as a battle that could wait till later in the transition. That was 2+ year ago and they might have a plan that makes 64bit relevant to more people and worth the work of getting it to run on the 32bit EFI machines. I fully agree these machines are too new to be left behind.

It does raise the question, why is 64bit important for the common garden user?
I mean I understand it gives the computer the ability to address lots more memory but does that open up any interesting things?

I was thinking like mapping the whole hard drive to a region of the address space so that individual objects could be called direct from storage then returned as soon as operations where complete on them instead of the whole file and replace/upgrade virtual memory. So things like the users documents, core data stores, nib files, even program code could be a spare bundle of objects instead of being loaded as complete file to RAM unarchived to objects for used then with periodic rearchieved and saved to disk with the risk of loosing some work if an error occurs between.

Could this a way of Apple to add the two features they didn't say much about AutoSave and Apps relaunching where you left them?

 

[Morris]

Hi all,

I am a huge Apple fan and have purchased many of their products over the years. I currently have a Mac Pro 2,1 which has a 32bit EFI. While I can understand dropping PPC support as it is a completely different processor, I can't understand them dropping 32 bit support for a few reasons. Firstly, no Mac computer with a 32bit EFI will run a 64 bit kernel. Period. That wipes out quite a few Intel Macs, C2D and XEON included.

The Mac Pro 2,1 has a 64bit processor and if Apple were to decide to drop support for 32bit CPUs (as I expect they will) your machine will not be affected. Your EFI has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Secondly - A Jan 1, 2008 Mac Pro running Clovertown processors use a 32bit EFI, rendering them obsolete if that were the case. That would mean a Mac still under warranty with Apple Care, if purchased, would not be able to run current software. That doesn't make sense.

EFI is irrelevant, it's the CPU. Clovertowns are 64bit processors and are running 64bit code as we speak on millions of Macs, by default, for quite some time now.

Finally, there are consumer computers in the Mac range currently that do not run 64 bit and need to be hacked to make them run. This is believed to be Apple differentiating the consumer lines to the pro lines.

There will be MANY unhappy users if 32bit is discontinued, myself included. That would only be done to push people to buy new products and in that case I have to give it to Microsoft. They do NOT do that. If your computer has the speed, Windows will run it. My 2 cents.

Forget about EFI, that has nothing to do with this. You and everyone who has bought a Mac in the last few years has a 64bit machine, from the most basic consumer model to the high end pro machine. Years ago, Apple sold 32bit machines for a short while (less than a year) and no 32bit Pro has been sold for about nine years now.

Dropping support for 32bit CPUs will not affect you, anybody with a Mac Pro or anyone who has bought a Mac in the last four years.

 

[dermeister]

The Mac Pro 2,1 has a 64bit processor and if Apple were to decide to drop support for 32bit CPUs (as I expect they will) your machine will not be affected. Your EFI has absolutely nothing to do with this.
EFI is irrelevant, it's the CPU. Clovertowns are 64bit processors and are running 64bit code as we speak on millions of Macs, by default, for quite some time now.


Forget about EFI, that has nothing to do with this. You and everyone who has bought a Mac in the last few years has a 64bit machine, from the most basic consumer model to the high end pro machine. Years ago, Apple sold 32bit machines for a short while (less than a year) and no 32bit Pro has been sold for about nine years now.

Dropping support for 32bit CPUs will not affect you, anybody with a Mac Pro or anyone who has bought a Mac in the last four years.

I think the case most people are concerned about (including me) is 64bit CPU machines stuck with EFI32s, which means they NEED a 32bit kernel.

What are we talking about exactly when we say 10.7 is "dropping 32bit"? Let's clarify!

Does it mean the 32bit kernel is kept, and all Apple/system processes are 64bit only, along with support for running old 32bit apps? This scenario is fine by me.

Or does it mean the kernel is 64bit only, and all Apple/system processes are 64bit only, along with support for running old 32bit apps? This scenario wipes out everybody in the EFI32+64bit CPU category.

The latter case would greatly piss me off. The only thing that could make the latter case fine would be a firmware update if update the EFI to 64bit... If that's even possible. I know Apple doesn't like to talk about future products to keep their edge, but they should really give us a clue on this. They could stop all the agony by answering this simple question.

They have already done a terrible job of supporting the macpro1,1, and making 10.7 EFI64-only would be the final F.U. to every owner out there.

 

[Yaboze]

I doubt it. Everyone wanted MS to do that with Windows 7 or maybe even Vista and there are still a lot of machines out there with 32-bit CPU's.

You also have to keep in mind that a 64-bit system requires more default memory. It's not a good idea to run a 64-bit OS with just 1-2GB of ram, which is possible now (although not great at 1GB), but due to addressing, more default ram is needed (4GB +).

Even if Lion was 64-bit, a 32-bit iLife or iWork would still run. I run a Windows 7 64-bit desktop and the majority of my apps and games are 32-bit still. Ironically enough, iTunes is one of the few 64-bit apps I do have installed, but I just use it for playback, all of my stuff is done on the Mac. The PC is just for working from home and games.

 

[logandzwon]

I highly, highly doubt they will drop 32 bit support. It's not about the machine but the devices. Many still don't have 64 drivers.

I would like to see the default kernel be 64 though. As of SL only for the servers are 64 by default.

You can boot a 64-bit kernel with a 32-EFI. Only your bootloader needs to be 32-bit. Apple currently does not allow this. I am pretty sure Ubuntu 64bit will boot on a mac with a 32 bit EFI. The page gives a good explanation; http://www.ahatfullofsky.comuv.com/English/Programs/SMS/SMS.html

 

[wildpod]

Don't count on it. Seeing as most of the machines apple sells are notebooks with 4 or less GB of memory, the advantages of dropping 32bit mode would be almost none.
That is not to say that they should not do it, they should at least enable the 64bit kernel by default on every new machine they sell since they are all capable of using it, and provide an option for everyone upgrading to enable it too.

 

[slb]

Requiring a 64-bit processor would mean AppKit could take advantage of the modern Objective-C 2.0 run-time used by iOS. This would initially be a developer-only benefit, but it would trickle down to users in improvements to the application frameworks. Snow Leopard dropped PowerPC support, so I would not be surprised if Lion dropped support for 32-bit processors. By the end of 2011, 32-bit Intel Macs will be six years old (time flies). The last PowerPC Macs were only four years old when OS X stopped supporting them in Snow Leopard.

Many posters are mentioning the current lack of 64-bit kernels and drivers. A 64-bit kernel is not required to run 64-bit applications on OS X, so it's an irrelevant issue.

 

[chrismacguy]

While I could see them dropping Support for Core Duo/Core Solo Macs (and the MP 1,1), I fully expect them to have 64-bit drivers for every Mac with a Core 2 Duo processor inside, however I expect they wont just so they dont annoy all the people who bought said MP 1,1s.

 

[Tower-Union]

Dermeister laid this out very well about 5 posts up. 64 bit DRIVERS are fine, even great! 64 bit kernel= Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1 people are all screwed. This has been covered many times in these forums, a lot of us Mac Pro 1,1 people are pretty steamed about this.

 

[chrismacguy]

no 32bit Pro has been sold for about nine years now.

Last Time I checked the Mac Pro shipped in 2006. Thats a lot more recent than nine years ago. Thats 5 by my count. Nine Years Ago Apple was shipping PowerPC G4 based computers at the high-end. These arent Pros. They are PowerMacs. Massive, Massive difference

 

[Morris]

Dermeister laid this out very well about 5 posts up. 64 bit DRIVERS are fine, even great! 64 bit kernel= Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1 people are all screwed. This has been covered many times in these forums, a lot of us Mac Pro 1,1 people are pretty steamed about this.

The Mac Pro 1,1 uses a XEON CPU, they don't come in 32bit variety. If Apple were to drop support for 32bit CPUs (as I expect them to do for the many benefits that have been repeated throughout this thread) the Mac Pro 1,1 will happily run Lion as 32bit Mac Pros simply do not exist.

Last Time I checked the Mac Pro shipped in 2006. Thats a lot more recent than nine years ago. Thats 5 by my count. Nine Years Ago Apple was shipping PowerPC G4 based computers at the high-end. These arent Pros. They are PowerMacs. Massive, Massive difference

Yes, and that Mac Pro that shipped in 2006 has a XEON as CPU. In other words, it is a 64 bit machine. If Lion would drop support for 32bit processors, it would still run perfectly on that 5 year old Mac Pro.

Again, the last 32bit CPU Apple used in its pro line was the G4, nine years ago, it has been exclusively 64bit ever since.

If your Mac Pro runs Snow Leopard it will run a 64bit-CPU-only Lion, simple.

 

[GBGamer007]

If Apple switches to only 64 bit support I will switch to Linux on Dells. I understand the move to Intel-only support, but this would be the last straw. Otherwise, I don't think Apple will move to only 64-bit support. Their history has been one of supporting processors well past their shelf end date.

 

[Mal]

If Apple switches to only 64 bit support I will switch to Linux on Dells. I understand the move to Intel-only support, but this would be the last straw. Otherwise, I don't think Apple will move to only 64-bit support. Their history has been one of supporting processors well past their shelf end date.

That's a pretty illogical viewpoint. You'll switch because Apple stops supporting computers that are 4+ years old? Even if you don't have one? 64-bit only support would only (possibly) affect the Core Duo MacBooks and Mac Mini's from the original Intel switch. I doubt more than 1% of Macs in use today would be affected by that decision, if they even make it.

jW

 

[petvas]

Apple won't drop support for the 32bit kernel, as the latest Macbook Airs do load it instead of the 64bit. I am sure Apple wouldn't be so crazy not supporting the MBA on Lion.

 

[asdf542]

Apple won't drop support for the 32bit kernel, as the latest Macbook Airs do load it instead of the 64bit. I am sure Apple wouldn't be so crazy not supporting the MBA on Lion.

Actually all of those MacBook Airs are capable of running a 64-bit kernel(even though that's not what this thread is about, it's about dropping 32-bit processors)

http://www.everymac.com/articles/q&...-bit-macs-64-bit-efi-boot-in-64-bit-mode.html

All of the Macs with an asterisk next to 32 under boot are capable of running a 64-bit kernel, Apple just doesn't allow it for whatever reason.

The only machines people are suggesting will get dropped from Lion are those that have a 32-bit processor which will be all of the Core Duo/Solo machines. Should Apple want to remove the 32-bit kernel after Lion then only some early Core 2 Duo Macs and late 2006 Mac Pros will not be supported(which by the time that happens those machines will be 6-7 years old if the next major OS release is in 2013).

 

[petvas]

Actually all of those MacBook Airs are capable of running a 64-bit kernel(even though that's not what this thread is about, it's about dropping 32-bit processors)

http://www.everymac.com/articles/q&...-bit-macs-64-bit-efi-boot-in-64-bit-mode.html

All of the Macs with an asterisk next to 32 under boot are capable of running a 64-bit kernel, Apple just doesn't allow it for whatever reason.

The only machines people are suggesting will get dropped from Lion are those that have a 32-bit processor which will be all of the Core Duo/Solo machines. Should Apple want to remove the 32-bit kernel after Lion then only some early Core 2 Duo Macs and late 2006 Mac Pros will not be supported(which by the time that happens those machines will be 6-7 years old if the next major OS release is in 2013).

Yes, that is correct. I hadn't checked if the Air has a 64bit EFI. I still don't think Apple will drop 32bit support. Maybe the next version.

 

[karsten]

Actually all of those MacBook Airs are capable of running a 64-bit kernel(even though that's not what this thread is about, it's about dropping 32-bit processors)

http://www.everymac.com/articles/q&...-bit-macs-64-bit-efi-boot-in-64-bit-mode.html

All of the Macs with an asterisk next to 32 under boot are capable of running a 64-bit kernel, Apple just doesn't allow it for whatever reason.

The only machines people are suggesting will get dropped from Lion are those that have a 32-bit processor which will be all of the Core Duo/Solo machines. Should Apple want to remove the 32-bit kernel after Lion then only some early Core 2 Duo Macs and late 2006 Mac Pros will not be supported(which by the time that happens those machines will be 6-7 years old if the next major OS release is in 2013).

actually people are suggesting dropping support for any machine with a 32-bit EFI regardless of its processor being 64 or 32-bit. i.e. the original macbook air and the original mac pro

 

[mjsmke]

If they dropped support for PPC Macs 5 years after they stopped producing them it'l probably be a few years yet before they go 64Bit only.

If they do it too quick it may push people away from Macs.