I know it is wrong. It is a very big sarcasm. But config like my Macbook air is impossible to run VM unless VM system is as old as Windows 3.1, which is not even fluent 100% for some reason.
And no. I have tried. The lag of VM system is insane.
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
And no. I have tried. The lag of VM system is insane.
You do not understand what 128-bit means. a 64-bit OS can store 2^64=
18446744073709600000 of values, a 128-bit can store 2^128=
340282366920938000000000000000000000000 (hope you see the difference) which is a number soooooo large we cannot even pronounce. 64-bit will be fine for the coming years just by cheer amount opportunities still unused. Before 128-bit becomes main stream, we will not be around anymore for a long time.
Btw 32 bit is "only" 4.294.967.296, a rather small amount compared to 64 and 128-bit, that is the reason to no longer support this. The increase is incomparable with the examples you are giving, btw I started with about the same configuration on me first 25Mhz machine (1 Kb ram and 20Mb disk) and I was not a toddler back than.
Last edited:
He was clearly joking
[doublepost=1523540440][/doublepost]
You are free to run an old OS to support your old software.
I was thinking the same thing. If they're really about to change processor architectures and none of this will work natively, dropping 32-bit Intel support soon seems like an odd move (unless, maybe, ARM can emulate x64 better than x86 and they plan on including another Rosetta-type environment, which I imagine they would if they do this, but I have no idea how well it performs with x86 vs x64 emulation).
To be clear, from the beginning we support 64bit address space. We did not, however, support physical RAM corresponding to 2^64. Just a semantic nit since your first clause and second clause are in disagreement.
At the current technological development of DIMMs, we're unlikely to be jumping to substantial increases in memory per node any time soon. The technology isn't there and dealing with more DIMMs increases the possible points of failure.
[doublepost=1523541179][/doublepost]
That's not quite how this works. The burden for a user to keep using their current software shouldn't be "go use an old OS". It should be "just run it on the latest version of macOS". That is not clearly shows Apple care not about their consumers.
The is simply the law of physics, while 128-bit is pure mathematics.
Last edited:
In this case the warning only occurs once per affected app. It's not going to "nag" you.
I'm not entirely sure the successor to 64-bit is 128-bits. That ignores the case of 96-bit systems.
Even if x86-32 bit somehow runs less efficiently than 64 in an emulator, that hardly seems to be a good reason for this level of headache. There is a lot of legacy 32-bit code out there that will simply not be updated to 64 and once the ARM shift happens in only 2 years, it's ALL going to be legacy run under emulation, 32 and 64 alike. Or all abandoned if they don't come out with an emulator.
That's correct.
Anyway 32bit apps should be compatible with next macOS version, but I guess it would be the last one to support them.
Apple said that High Sierra is the last os that will run 32bit apps "without compromise" so next version will in some way support 32bit.
Rosetta actually translated PPC instructions (nothing G5-specific) to Intel, for PPC-compiled OS X apps. It wasn't for OS9. It ceased being a default install after Leopard, but was available through Snow Leopard. By the standards of emulators, I remember it being better than it had any right to be.
You may be thinking of the "Classic" environment, which went away with the Intel switch. These days, when I want to wax nostalgic, I play with OS 9 with Sheepshaver--until it's affected by the change.
[doublepost=1523551248][/doublepost]
I've been guessing for a while that the first "compromise" will be dropping Carbon support. Also, the fact that any 32-bit support remains gives me some hope that 10.14 will install on my 5,1 cheese grater MP (in response to others who predict that Metal will be the cutoff.) But watch them fool me
Don't blame Apple, blame the developers. Snow Leopard started the transition to 64-bit almost 10 years ago now. It's time.
LOL...and 18 months from now they warn developers that all the code they have written for Mac OS has to be scrapped, recompiled and/or rewritten.
It's like they hate their developers and want them to go away.
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...se-custom-mac-chips-starting-in-2020.2113132/
It's like they hate their developers and want them to go away.
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...se-custom-mac-chips-starting-in-2020.2113132/
For a variety of reasons, there is no movement to 128-bit computers at this moment. There's just no reason to do it. You've have to change a whole world-wide hardware industry for almost no tangible benefit. I suppose it will come, but not in the forseeable future.
Oh yeah. Time to buy new devices and run simulator to run all apps that are written for intel processor.
I'd say it's more like there's NO POINT to it since NO ONE uses the Mac App Store. They will probably FORCE future Mac users to use the Mac App store, though and that will finally kill the Mac off FOREVER (Tim Cook will LOVE that since he hates Macs). It's not even close to buy a game, for example from the Steam store and the Mac App Store. The App Store almost always costs more, doesn't discount, doesn't allow demo versions and won't talk to PC clients. Worthless.
Yea they hate their developers so much they only gave them a two year heads up.
Apple today reminded developers about upcoming changes being made to the Mac App Store. Starting on June 1, all new app updates submitted to the Mac App Store must support 64-bit.
Apple already requires new apps submitted to the Mac App Store to offer 64-bit support, a change that went into effect in January of 2018, so this upcoming policy shift will only affect older apps that have not yet implemented 64-bit support.
Along with the warning to developers, Apple says customers who are running the latest macOS 10.13.4 update will begin receiving warning messages when launching a 32-bit app for the first time to let them know that the app is not optimized for their Mac. According to TechCrunch, these warnings will start at midnight Pacific Time on April 12.Apple used a similar warning system when phasing out 32-bit support on iOS before eventually ending support with iOS 11, and the company has said the same plan will be used as 32-bit Mac apps are phased out.
Apple first warned developers and consumers about the impending Mac App Store changes starting last June at the 2017 Worldwide Developers Conference. Apple is slowly ending support for 32-bit Mac apps and has said macOS High Sierra will be the "last macOS release to support 32-bit apps without compromises" and "all future Mac software will eventually be required to be 64-bit."
Article Link: Apple Reminds Developers App Updates Must Support 64-Bit Starting June 2018, Warns Customers About Unoptimized Apps
Nobody is forcing you to update your operating system. We really don't need all the baggage that 32-bit has, I'm happy they are doing this because it will make things easier for developers.