They’ve technically kept macOS backwards compatible with 32-but apps since Snow leopard.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Reminds Developers App Updates Must Support 64-Bit Starting June 2018, Warns Customers About Unoptimized Apps
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They’ve technically kept macOS backwards compatible with 32-but apps since Snow leopard.
Since when is 128 right around the corner? 64 is a sweet spot in some ways because you usually don't need more than that for your floats and ints, whereas 32 was too small.
[doublepost=1523512927][/doublepost]
Addressable memory isn't the only thing you need more bits for. Also, a 32-bit computer can have more than 4GiB of RAM. It's just that one process can only use 4GiB.
[doublepost=1523513042][/doublepost]
Some low-level things will always be bit-dependent. App devs, on the other hand, just have to hit "compile" to do 64... except when they rely on 32-bit-only libraries. Often the case with games. Argh.
[doublepost=1523513695][/doublepost]
Numbers is absolute garbage. I like Pages and Keynote, but gosh.
Last edited:
I still have a large amount of mission critical 32 bit apps that do not have replacement.
Guess it is time for me to stop buying new devices. Who knows. Maybe Apple will force all new devices to be synced with only the latest version of iTunes and macOS.
Guess it is time for me to stop buying new devices. Who knows. Maybe Apple will force all new devices to be synced with only the latest version of iTunes and macOS.
Why? The problem is not with Apple but with some of the developers not moving along in time. 64-bit has been around since 2008 (i believe) on the Mac, that's 10 years now, come on.
[doublepost=1523516287][/doublepost]
He? haven't seen a single 128-bit OS or possessor yet and probably never will. You amaze me! Do you even know what 128 bit means?
[doublepost=1523516461][/doublepost]
They did this years ago, wake up!
download virtual box and run the old version of MacOS in a VM. Not that difficult to do these days.
Last edited:
Its coming? Office 64-bit has been there for about 2 years!
[doublepost=1523516933][/doublepost]
What the hell do you program if anything at all?
Not gonna run well On a machine that has only 4GB of ram and poultry core i5 processor. Your setup needs an over-maxed-out Mac Pro that does not even exist to run smoothly.
That's their ultimate goal in this moment: moving away from creating the machines that allowed users the greatest degree of freedom in the market, to a jail of teen and teen-like users that will do what Apple says and in the moment that Apple says it. If you add into the equation that Tim Cook is really pushing hard for his political career, the evolution from the past Apple (empowering the user) to the current Apple (weak teens with non-critic behaviour) makes a lot of sense.
The low-level things you say are either syscall code (which is very very few lines of code, and, moreover they're kept unchanged for years and years without needing maintenance) or drivers (but, again, the vast majority of drivers code is C/C++ rather than assembly).
Lots of people are wrongly seeing this move like "evolution" or like "reducing costs", being "efficient", etc... but that's not the case. The guy who said this is about the convergence between iOS and MacOS is closer to the right reason, IMHO. All of this is about taking a good OS and converting it into something that no serious computer user in the world would call a OS.
The funny thing is Compressor is exempt from the warning... actually it seems any app signed as an Apple app is exempt.
A 3D modeller
A 2D image+vectorial composer
A finite element mesher
A finite element solver
The whole source tree was started back in 1996, then with Silicon Graphics workstations (machines which I guess you never saw nor used, given your writing style). The whole source tree has been maintained from 1996 until nowadays, and it builds and runs in MacOS, Linux, Windows, as well as in any UNIX-like machine with little or no porting effort. I do care about 32 bit correctness even if I compile on 64 bit, because if your code only compiles for 64 bit, I'm sorry, but your code is broken.
[doublepost=1523518488][/doublepost]
The fact that Apple did this pop-up appear after a given date, rather than immediately after the update, says a lot about the kind of user-control strategy that currently rules Apple.
I only have 3 32-bit apps on my iMac, all 3 are from Apple, practice what you preach guys...
That’s what it was! I couldn’t remember what caused the incompatibility issues with some of my older apps two updates ago.
Ok, the 4Gb of Ram isn't that great but to say that you need a maxed out Mac Pro (or similar machine) is just plain wrong.
I have 4 VM's (Windows Server 2012) running at the moment on my MBP. Yes, it is an i7 with 16Gb of ram but only 8.3Gb is currently being used. You could probably get away with one VM in 4GB. Setting the max RAM of the VM is the key here. Anyway, it won't cost you anything apart from some time to try it out.
"machines which I guess you never saw nor used, given your writing style", what is that supposed to mean?
Perhaps you should take a look at your own style (not really positive or contributing).
Hmm? All I'm saying is that it is bad (from development point of view) that Apple drops 32-bit, because it prevents us from checking 32-bit correctness in our code. How can that affirmation be non-positive or non-contributing?
If what you're saying is that you didn't understand what I meant by the sentence above, then let me explain it: If the single fact that a developer continues to build both in 32 bit and 64 bit in order to help maintain high quality standards in the source code is an affirmation that drives you into exclaiming this:
...then obviously you don't have a background in computing. That's what I meant when I said that you probably never saw nor used the machines I was mentioning.
I am talking about your choice of words highlighted in red. This is pure negative:
There’s no reason to do this, Apple, except if reason is your new arrogance to force the world into your will. As a developer, when we moved all our code from 32 to 64-bit, it became whatever-bit compatible (yes, even 128-bit or whatever), because we use C/C++ standard type sizes. We can safely build and run in both 32 and 64 bits now. So, unless you’re using bad code practices, keeping 32-bit compatibility is no effort for you.
This is even another bad point for you Apple. I’m sick I just cannot answer “no” to your endless and repetitive and boring nagging popups... first it was iOS, now it’s MacOS as well. I’m sick of having to answer “not now” and being asked next week again. In the past, Apple products were the ones that let you answer “no”, but now it’s always “yes, sir”, “your will sir”, “as you wish sir”, and I’m fed up with all this.
Recently was forced to upgrade from Snow Leopard to El Capitan due to compatible hardware upgrade.
Looks like I'll wait another 5 versions before upgrading again. But by that time they will have stopped using x86 hardware and completed the switchover to the A20x bionic processors and all the real productive software will have moved exclusively to Windows 10.
Meanwhile 90% of my Snow Leopard software still works fine on El Capitan whether 32 or 64 bit.
Looks like I'll wait another 5 versions before upgrading again. But by that time they will have stopped using x86 hardware and completed the switchover to the A20x bionic processors and all the real productive software will have moved exclusively to Windows 10.
Meanwhile 90% of my Snow Leopard software still works fine on El Capitan whether 32 or 64 bit.
It doesn’t matter if it’s 50 years. A consumer’s software investment is more important than anything else. The underlying OS is there to provide software services to a user’s chosen programs, not dictate how they should be run. By doing away with 32 bit support Apple is giving developers the finger.
Oh, do you feel they are negative? When you describe a negative situation and you oppose it, you're being positive. If you shut down your facebook account (or, even better, never created one) you're not being negative, but positive... you're indeed being exemplary to your friends and colleagues. The same is true when you love the Mac and disagree with the current Apple strategies.
You don't play games do you?
It's kind of ironic-- The games that I can max out, and play at 5K, will soon all be lost to me.
To add to your point, no AMD64 (the ISA which modern AMD and Intel CPUs use) CPU currently supports a 64bit address space, both AMD and Intel's CPUs supports 64bit address spaces in the ISA only, the hardware only supports 48bits, if you try and address something larger then the CPU will throw an exception.
Last edited:
When I was a toddler, computers had 256bit ram chips, and having a whole 1 KILOBYTE for personal use was a big deal. My first computer had 16KB memory, most of which was taken up by the BASIC OS. From 1KB to the first 4GB personal computers took let's say, 3-4 decades. It's the same quantitative jump to having 16 EB (Exabyte) in a personal computer, possibly in a slightly longer time frame.
Right now the chinese Sunway TaihuLight, the fastest supercomputer in the world, has 1.3PB of RAM (1000TB = 1PB, 1000 PB= 1 EB) and 20 PB of storage. That indicates in about 10 years time, 2030 or so, supercomputers will be dealing with EB scale RAM. In another 10 years time, 2040 or so, that tech will filter down to high-end company and personal use.
That means right now researchers are laying the bricks for 128 bit filesystems and OSes - it takes 10+ years of work before silicon can be mass-produced. For example, Sun's ZFS filesystem is already 128 bit, and at one point was on the cards to replace Apple's HFS+ filesystem in 2006-2007, before Apple pulled out of work on ZFS.