Apple to Phase Out 32-Bit Mac Apps Starting in January 2018

[kiwipeso1]

Hopefully someone will write a sort of shell that will let old apps work. Burn has been one of my best tools for creating and copying CDs - especially audio CDs since Disk Utility won’t. And it lets you copy from one to CD directly to another if you have two drives.

But it was written for OS X 10.6, hasn’t been updated since

I guess I’m correct in that we won’t be able to run non-Mac AppStore apps either?

Toast Burn on the app store requires Lion and like the other Corel toast apps and MyDVD Pro is compatible with El Capitan. Toast Audio is also available if you only want audio CDs.
[doublepost=1496829029][/doublepost]

They could avoid that problem if they allowed new Macs to run older operating systems. I'd love to buy a new Mac and run OS10.9, which was the last OS not to start causing cracks to appear in software I use.

VMware fusion, or even that half-baked Parallels Desktop, will do what you want. You can run both at the same time, with the Mavericks virtual machine running in an emulator app, all you will need is 16GB ram ideally so you can run everything well at the same time.

 

[WatchFromAfar]

And I believe when you allow for both 32 bit and 64 bit apps to run at the same time seamlessly - the OS will have to use up more memory resources .... hence the often ridiculed iOS warning about 32 bit apps affecting performance. It might not "affect" performance individually, but the OS will use up more resources and cause more swapping etc.

You're right up to a point, let me explain.

Lets say you have a system library that lets you wright to a text file. If a 32-bit app needs that functionality you need a 32-bit version of that library. If a 64-bit app needs that functionality you will use the 64-bit version of that library that ships will a modern OS.

Now lets say you are running that 32-bit app and that 64-bit app at the same time you will have two versions of the write to text library in memory (the 32-bit & version and the 64-bit version). This is what Apple means by a decrease in performance or higher memory usage and technically they are correct.

However, if you take a step back and ignore the 32-bit/64-bit aspect of the library you will see that there are two libraries in memory. This is the same performance hit as running two 64-bit libraries at the same time (or two 32-bit libraries for that matter). So do discontinue 32-bit for performance reasons is a bit disingenuous. I'll give Apple the benefit of the doubt and say they want to create a situation where there are as few libraries loaded into memory as possible; a good thing.

I realise I've simplified this but I hope some posters can now understand the situation.

 

[kiwipeso1]

I build all my source code as universal 32+64 bit binaries. Compiling in 32 bit is for me an extra check for ensuring my code quality, as sometimes you get warnings when compiling in 32 bit that don't show up in 64 bit builds.

Apple is simply throwing away all reasons why it was the greatest platform for development. First they get rid of standard APIs. Now they limit the power of the fat binary concept.

I was happy by the new Macs just announced, thinking I won't have to move to Linux in the future, but I see this possibility can't be ruled out, as Apple is willing to limit development possibilities for the sake of hardware obsolescence and quick money income.

There is no reason you can't just get a maxed out iMac Pro and run VMware fusion for compiling fat binaries and checking compatibility. You would then also be able to code absurdly high specced apps and games if you really want.

 

[jeremiah256]

Not it isn't. Mainstream support (which is service packs with new features etc) ended in 2015. Extended support lasts to Jan 2020 and is all the security and vulnerability patches. So Microsoft offers a good 5 or so years of service packs, where as Apple does 1 year (of 10.x.x updates), Apple offers around 3 years of security support, Microsoft offers 11 in this instance.

Got it. More reason for those who need or want long term support to choose Windows over Apple. Those of us that choose to (or can) update their hardware every five years or so? You have options.

 

[pika2000]

I'm digging the 64-bit only transition, I don't understand all the hate. If you don't like it, you're perfectly welcome to stay on the older OS, many of my production macs are one to two OS's behind because updates often break compatibility and it takes time for software to catch up.

I know guys who are still rocking Snow Leopard in recording studio's because they have hardware interfaces that aren't supported by the devs anymore. So what? Buy new hardware or don't update the OS.

This. I don't understand why people want to halt progress for everyone just because they are using an old application. And unlike iOS, not uodating macOS is not as intrusive.

If one still use 32 bit apps, just don't upgrade. Don't tell everybody else to stay behind.

 

[kiwipeso1]

You also won't get security updates, you won't be able to Safari and iTunes and Pages and Numbers to the current version.

I haven't updated Photoshop Elements 9 because I haven't HAD TO. I'm not in the habit of spending money I don't need to, and none of the features in newer versions were compelling to me. I'm also running Microsoft Office 2008 (because I rarely need it, Pages and Numbers is almost always good enough. I can't update Socialite because it was abandoned by its creator (and I haven't found anything that meets my needs).

Other 32 bit programs I depend on are BBEDit, YummyFTP Pro (they presumably will be updated), Bento (that's NOT getting updated), and a few games (not a chance)

Yes, in theory, some library could always change, these apps could be dependent upon some hidden quirk of how the OS works, and they could die. I get that, and I'm OK with. Wiping them all out with a "No 32 bit apps for YOU!", I'm not OK with.

This is not "We're switching to better processors". This is not "we're making the system more secure". This is "We don't want to be bothered supporting 32 bit programs anymore". I've owned a Mac since 1984, been a developer, seen it evolve and improve. I've been an early adopter for every new version of the OS because the changes have been improving my experience. I've seen Windows go from "The Mac hit with a Bizarro Ray" (3) to "first signs of intelligent life" (95) to "finally usable" (XP) to "Not bad" (7) to "this is a serious option" (10) but never made the leap. If Apple kills my 32 bit apps, it'll be time to consider the switch.

Try Pixelmator on the app store, it is cheaper than Adobe CC and powerful enough.
BBEdit was on the app store a while ago, but may now be only on their website. It is still being updated as far as I know.
If you are doing website uploading on FTP, then Rapidweaver 7 has FTP publishing built in.

 

[oldmacs]

Got it. More reason for those who need or want long term support to choose Windows over Apple. Those of us that choose to (or can) update their hardware every five years or so? You have options.

Thats not the point I'm trying to make. Apple should support things for a long time - they charge a lot of money and pretend to care for the environment.

 

[a0me]

Anyone else find it annoying how quickly Apple obsoletes older software on their platforms?

If someone needs to run software that hasn't been updated in years can't they just run them in a Virtual Machine?

 

[oldmacs]

Ok, but come on: every piece of software becomes outdated sooner or later. Developers should have updated their app to run in 64-bit mode by now. They could since snow leopard.

But they haven't. I would argue that Apple (the ones who have the resources and money) should be the ones to help at least maintain support. Some developers pack up, some discontinue applications. Some applications are very niche. I am sure there is a way that Apple could help to allow us who want to continue using applications that are stuck on 32 bit, without 'ruining' the experience for those who don't need it. They did it with Rosetta and Classic.

Back in the day you could run 68k software on the most modern of PPC computers.
[doublepost=1496833011][/doublepost]

If someone needs to run software that hasn't been updated in years can't they just run them in a Virtual Machine?

Some of this software isn't even that old, and most don't want to stuff around with virtual machines, especially if an application is part of a workflow. Apple doesn't make it easy to virtualise either. If they wanted to build something akin to classic that allowed coexistence of 32bit and 64bit software that would be fantastic.

 

[opeter]

Bye, bye, Adobe CS apps!

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Thats not the point I'm trying to make. Apple should support things for a long time - they charge a lot of money.

11 years is actually a pretty long time in computing history.... My Mac Pro 2008 (which I am using right now) -- runs 64 bit apps. The OS supported 64 bit apps since Leopard (2007). That will be a total of 11 years next release.

 

[oldmacs]

11 years is actually a pretty long time in computing history.... My Mac Pro 2008 (which I am using right now) -- runs 64 bit apps. The OS supported 64 bit apps since Leopard (2007). That will be a total of 11 years next release.

Thats not really related to what I was saying. Apple does NOT support its computers for 11 years, they drop support (For no reason) in a much shorter time period. My 2008 White MacBook only got 3.5 years.

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

Even annoying-as-hell Windows can often run 20 year old binaries. TWO DECADES ago.

Oh the irony....

 

[jdogg836]

Thats not the point I'm trying to make. Apple should support things for a long time - they charge a lot of money and pretend to care for the environment.

I want progress, not being held behind at the risk of legacy software or hardware. Apple has a clear warning system, followed by pulling the band-aid off. Developers have had plenty of time, Apple users have had plenty of warnings to help push the developers to do the right thing.

 

[jaymie1983]

Hate or love it,capitalism demands us to keep buying new, the only way to force people is with moves like this

 

[jeremiah256]

I

Thats not the point I'm trying to make. Apple should support things for a long time - they charge a lot of money and pretend to care for the environment.

I don't agree when it comes to their OS. I'd rather not have iOS or macOS progress held hostage by apps that haven't been converted.

High Sierras will support Macs from 2009. Software from 2009 is not their responsibility.

 

[potatis]

So all 32-bits apps will be deleted from app store in a year, macOS 10.14 will bug users when launching a 32-bit app even when installed from outside the app store, and 10.15 will not run them at all (like 10.7 didn't run PPC).

 

[Geurt]

Do we get our money back for our old apps that don't run ?

You have to ask t

Why?

Why would they go out of their way to break backwards compatibility AGAIN?

I'm still running a 10.6 VM so I can use some PowerPC apps that will never be upgraded.

I'm still running SheepShaver so I can use Classic apps that will never be upgraded.

Apple could have taken steps to avoid both of those problems.

And now they're going to deliberately break 32-bit apps? This is really inexcusable.

You want to know why I need more than 16GB RAM in a laptop? This sort of thing is a BIG part of why.

yes, please stop technological progress so we can keep you happy ... stil having fun with your Intel 8088/8086?

 

[vmachiel]

They did it with Rosetta and Classic.

What we're in right now, is the "Rosetta" for 32-bit apps. It has been since Snow Leopard in 09.

 

[mkeeley]

Testing. Each time a new version of macOS is developed, they have to test both sets of libraries. Gets old after awhile...

That's their job, don't like testing then find something different to do.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Don't know exactly what it will be.... In the platforms keynote session they said:

High Sierra will be the last macOS release to support 32-bit apps without compromises
​

I don't think it is High Sierra that will do the warning, it is the following version. If it warns you it must actually run it.

 

[robeddie]

Sad. I use a number of great legacy apps that are no longer supported. This will kill them.

Umm, then dont update past high sierra?

 

[Glideslope]

Do we get our money back for our old apps that don't run ?

Do you receive the original cost of your Ford when you sell it 4 years after ownership?
[doublepost=1496835229][/doublepost]

Sad. I use a number of great legacy apps that are no longer supported. This will kill them.

My God. Move on Man !!!!

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Do you receive the original cost of your Ford when you sell it 4 years after ownership?
[doublepost=1496835229][/doublepost]

My God. Move on Man !!!!

LOL. Yes, if this will kill them - then those affected should start immediately start finding an alternative platform.... because you don't want to run systems of a dead company

 

[potatis]

So all 32-bits apps will be deleted from app store in a year, macOS 10.14 will bug users when launching a 32-bit app even when installed from outside the app store, and 10.15 will not run them at all (like 10.7 didn't run PPC).

Don't know exactly what it will be.... In the platforms keynote session they said:

High Sierra will be the last macOS release to support 32-bit apps without compromises
​

I don't think it is High Sierra that will do the warning, it is the following version. If it warns you it must actually run it.

That's what I understood from the text below what you marked in bold:
"Starting in January of 2018, all new apps submitted to the Mac App Store must be 64-bit, and all apps and app updates submitted must be 64-bit by June 2018. With the next version of macOS after High Sierra, Apple will begin "aggressively" warning users about 32-bit apps before eventually phasing them out all together."