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

[jeremiah256]

Please be specific. What are the advantages to the user for Apple not "having to carry the baggage to also enable 32-bit software"

To be fair, @applezulu didn't say it was advantageous for users. Users will probably not see any benefit that they can easily point to and say, "Yes! 32-bits were holding us back." But, Apple probably does have a good grip on which customers and how many of them are still using 32-bit applications and a milestone has been met and they have made a business decision to off-load that architecture to their own benefit and to move forward.

I will say this. macOS and iOS is a constantly moving target for those looking to create exploits. In addition to regular updates, every year the OSes have major changes. And every now and then, Apple does something like this and wipes the slate clean.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

How so? Seems doubtful Swift or any of the standard Cocoa frameworks ( i.e. Foundation, AppKit ) rely on Carbon?
[doublepost=1496902267][/doublepost] 32-bit apps run faster on newer processors than they do on older processors, so maybe the poster will elaborate.

We're discussing macOS not iOS and many analogies don't apply. 32-bit apps will only dynamically load Carbon but if you don't run a 32-bit app nothing is loaded even if Carbon is available. In that case there is NO impact on "memory resources" ( the Carbon framework disk space foot print is approximately 27 MB, so disk space is not really an issue )

This simply is not an accurate generalization. As noted above, the Carbon framework takes little disk space and the only time it is loaded is when a 32-bit app requests it. Where's the bloat?

It has been a good 30 years or so since I wrote assembly language programs... so if I get some stuff wrong about the architecture I am sure someone will correct me.

You are likely correct that 32-bit apps will run faster on newer processors than older because of improvements in things like cycles per instruction, caching and even clock speeds of the processor itself. What you are not getting though are things like more internal registers, and registers that are 64 bits wide. These things would increase performance for larger integer math (and there are many that write programs without optimizing the size of their primitives to what is used - so they might use 64 bit integers even though they only needed 32 bit integers). Using 32 bit architecture to do 64 bit integer math would mean multiple trips to pull data into different registers etc. Things like accessing memory outside of 32 bit addressing space means that you would have to page and potentially page back and forth when your dealing with stuff like that. The internal microcode over time will move to optimize 64 bit over 32 bit etc. as well.

macOS and iOS are both the same operating system at the base and there are likely more libraries that have 32 bit and 64 bit versions of it than just Carbon. The more duplicate stuff you have to load into memory the more memory you use up, the more likely your going to have to move to slower access right down to having to swap out to hard drive or SSD storage. (I am not an OS expert) but I know Windows has both 32 and 64 bit dlls for a lot of stuff -- so I expect the same for macOS -- not just Carbon.

Then of course if you leave code in for backward compatibility - the older it is the more afraid the devs are of dealing with it and both the 32 and 64 bit additional stuff would also include other stuff that is there for reasons no one really knows but are afraid to strip. If the culture is to strip out old stuff you get more of an environment where you trim down the entire OS by not being afraid of doing so (IMHO). When you get into this type of culture you end up adding code in each successive version but never removing old obsolete code.... hence a continuous feedback loop that leads to a bloated OS.

 

[ikir]

it is the right choice, who else is saying Apple should not doing it is crazy! Speaking of Windows which can run very old software is one of the main reason Windows and its software runs so bad.

Blame developers not Apple!
[doublepost=1496905554][/doublepost]

Aaaand CS4 for the Mac is 32 Bit, not 64. Yeah, I'm behind the times on updating, but I don't use it often enough to justify the $$$$$$ for the upgrades, let alone Adobe's "subscription" service; and honestly, all I need are Photoshop and Bridge, not the rest of it.

Definitely time to find alternatives. I have Affinity, I need to figure out how to use it.

Just buy Pixelmator.

 

[potatis]

Is this somehow related to APFS? (from apple.com: "Advanced. A new 64‑bit architecture is designed for today’s flash technology and ready for tomorrow’s new storage capabilities.")

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Is this somehow related to APFS? (from apple.com: "Advanced. A new 64‑bit architecture is designed for today’s flash technology and ready for tomorrow’s new storage capabilities.")

If it was related you would not be able to store stuff for the next 27 months if it were a 32 bit app

 

[MrChurchyard]

How so? Seems doubtful Swift or any of the standard Cocoa frameworks ( i.e. Foundation, AppKit ) rely on Carbon?

Swift cannot target the legacy runtime that 32-bit apps on macOS use.
[doublepost=1496909644][/doublepost]

Is this somehow related to APFS? (from apple.com: "Advanced. A new 64‑bit architecture is designed for today’s flash technology and ready for tomorrow’s new storage capabilities.")

No. If it were, you could not use APFS on High Sierra.

 

[weckart]

You wouldn't happen to have a link to that or remember the user's forum name would you? I enjoy that sort of entertainment.

Sadly not. I can't quite remember the posters name but I think it started with a z and ended in -boy. All the threads have either been wastelanded or archived now. He was just relentless and ranty. Not sure what he said for the mods to finally lose their patience.

 

[D.H.]

Well, I've got essential work software that isn't 64-bit. Guess I just won't update to High Sierra and will have to consider going back to Windows when I need a new machine.

No kidding. There are Windows annoyances, but the hardware is MUCH cheaper than proprietary Mac hardware (Built-in video and soldered drives on MacBooks and iMacs, really? Apple? Hello!). Steve Jobs was getting away from that whole proprietary hardware issue. Now, looks as if the disastrous, pre-Jobs, sink Apple crew is at it again.

I built a Windows machine last spring. Entire build price was half what Apple charges for a comparable system. Matter of fact, I got a much better machine than anything Apple offers... including a Mac Pro. I'm also running Mac OS Sierra along with Windows on a dual boot Hackintosh PC! It smokes!!!

I love Apple... or, at least I did. Almost every month that goes by leaves me with less reasons to stick with my long time tech-love... Apple! Unfortunately, those sentiments are also starting to apply to my iPhone because of the direction iOS took starting with iOS 10.

I don't like iOS 10 very much. And it's really the little things they change for seemingly very little or absolutely no reason that are so irritating and frustratingly unnecessary. As an example, compared to the elegant, almost beautiful iOS 9 notifications, iOS 10 notifications and widgets are hideously garrish-looking. I hate those stupid looking white cards plastered on my screen. I don't even use widgets and notifications any longer... it's THAT ugly and screen consuming to me. VERY Android looking in my opinion. If I wanted Android, I would have purchased a Samsung.

Hey, wait a minute... a few more frustrations and a shiny new Samsung could very well be in my future.

Apple should stop changing things simply for the sake of change and/or to substitute for the lack of innovation and creativity it so desperately needs. Concentrate on leaving near-perfection as it is while creating NEW and innovative products again... you know, Apple, the way Steve Jobs did?

 

[dilbert99]

I am curious, like what?
[doublepost=1496796453][/doublepost]
You must be new here? Apple has done this for decades. Part of reason Windows has had so much trouble is the complexity of decades of compatibility...

And as much as I hated Microsoft in the past they should be applauded for backwards compatibility. Not like Apple who shafts its customers at any opportunity.
[doublepost=1496916086][/doublepost]

I'm also not seeing an issue here. You can't expect them to support things forever. 10 years since they moved to 64bit seems good to me.

Presumably the reason they are doing this is so that they don't have to keep writing 32bit support into the OS. THat probably takes a lot of manpower each time you update the OS.

Apple are one of the richest companies on the planet. They don't need to worry about manpower compared to other companies.
Can you imagine what would happen if Apple supplied the software for your car and dropped support after 10 years.
What if there is any equipment out there running custom apps that were developed long ago and can't be updated.
Or any apps that people use that are no longer updated.

 

[Bacillus]

I am sure a 200 billion company - if it wanted - could cure 32bit legacy SW via smart emulation without too much burden on today's exploding gigabytes storage and memory solutions.
Think of Rosetta (only at Apple) - only too much to repeat that effort ?
Regarding exploits in legacy SW: that hasn't exactly been Apple's commercial priority, let alone headache for the last 25 years, so why would it suddenly become now ?
If these guys want to play a role in car, banking, in-home, security and other industries, they'd better start realising what their responsibilities are. Look at their conduit in the AV/media industry...where they lately tend to be opportunistic, fast money-movers.

 

[Apple Mac Daz]

They run. Just don't update the OS.

So what happens when ios screws up and your forced to re install then it's iOS 11 with no option to stay on 10

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Regarding exploits in legacy SW: that hasn't exactly been Apple's commercial priority, let alone headache for the last 25 years, so why would it suddenly become now ?

Bull!

Your wrong about it not being an Apple priority. Gatekeeper (introduced in Lion), developer certificates, System Integrity Protection (SIP) are just a few additional security hardening that has been added over the last few years - in addition to the security updates to deal with potential and already breached risks. These in addition to the design that went in up front to ensure that Apple is reasonably secure from threats (as much as you can while allowing users to use the system without much notice of security). It is not a noticeable headache for the last 25 years exactly because Apple has made it priority.
[doublepost=1496918900][/doublepost]

So what happens when ios screws up and your forced to re install then it's iOS 11 with no option to stay on 10

I skipped a whole version with my iPhone 4S... they did not "force" anything on me.
[doublepost=1496919063][/doublepost]

Apple are one of the richest companies on the planet.

They are a rich company because they run the company as a company and not as a charity.... yet they have still given away the upgrades free.... They won't do it because it is not worth it.... and the event is still a good 27 months away at least (that is assuming you upgrade right on schedule - there is no reason why you have to since they apply security patches to older versions). I don't think they have released an "official policy" to the public -- but generally security patches can typically continue for 3+ years following release. So you are really talking about it being 6 years from now before you "have to move" for security reasons and stop using 32 bit apps.

Dam you Apple, you are one of the richest companies in the world -- at least you can do is give me a free Mac! You know buy 5 get 1 free... after all it is one of the richest companies.

 

[Bacillus]

Bull!

Your wrong about it not being an Apple priority. Gatekeeper (introduced in Lion), developer certificates, System Integrity Protection (SIP) are just a few additional security hardening that has been added over the last few years - in addition to the security updates to deal with potential and already breached risks. These in addition to the design that went in up front to ensure that Apple is reasonably secure from threats (as much as you can while allowing users to use the system without much notice of security). It is not a noticeable headache for the last 25 years exactly because Apple has made it priority.

OK, if that would suffice than it would not need to be a reason to orphane 32bit (by abstaining emulation)

 

[Freyqq]

Well then it is on them to update those apps. They still have plenty of time to get with the program. If they choose not to, that's on them.

They won't update them. They will release a newer version and ask you to upgrade.

Also, old games will never get updated, for instance Diablo II.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

OK, if that would suffice than it would not need to be a reason to orphane 32bit (by abstaining emulation)

Old unmaintained code, coded bloat (more code; more potential problem code) -- all are potential avenues for crackers to take advantage of.

Another avenue is the lack of discipline in development shops as well.... they use 3rd party libraries and if it continues working they never get newer versions of it..... never do a full audit to find that the old 3rd party libraries are listed on security bulletins etc. So even if they were proactive in fixing their own code -- they assume that all the libraries magically never have security issues in them.

You still have a good 5 years of use of your 32 bit apps before it would become an issue on your current hardware (I said 6 but I double counted 1 year) [a security issue]

 

[GadgetDon]

To be fair, @applezulu didn't say it was advantageous for users. Users will probably not see any benefit that they can easily point to and say, "Yes! 32-bits were holding us back." But, Apple probably does have a good grip on which customers and how many of them are still using 32-bit applications and a milestone has been met and they have made a business decision to off-load that architecture to their own benefit and to move forward.

I will say this. macOS and iOS is a constantly moving target for those looking to create exploits. In addition to regular updates, every year the OSes have major changes. And every now and then, Apple does something like this and wipes the slate clean.

I >DON'T< think Apple has a good grip on which customers and how many of them are using 32-bit applications, I think they're going to get a lot of pushback (including from Enterprises). When Apple puts their foot in it, it's usually from an attitude of "we know what the users need". (See pro apps, tubular Mac Pro, iMovie, and more). And when they get both feet in it, it's because they assume that when Apple says jump, everyone (suppliers, developers, users) say "how high".

This, if they go through with it, may well have them stepping in it up to their hips. Without a clearcut reason for the user (the ones providing Apple's profits), arbitrarily killing a lot of programs is going to make people looking at options.

Fortunately, I do think Apple will get the blowback in High Sierra's warnings about 32 bit apps, and there will be assurances of "We never meant that 32 bit apps will stop running completely..." - unless Apple's arrogance kicks in (which happens)

 

[cmaier]

So what happens when ios screws up and your forced to re install then it's iOS 11 with no option to stay on 10

That's life. If the developer didn't update the app, then the app might very well stop working for other reasons, anyway. Any time you buy software you are only promised that it will run right on a specific set of operating system versions and hardware.

 

[dilbert99]

Dam you Apple, you are one of the richest companies in the world -- at least you can do is give me a free Mac! You know buy 5 get 1 free... after all it is one of the richest companies.

I'd rather Apple didn't get there by gouging every last penny from its customers.

 

[diamond.g]

I >DON'T< think Apple has a good grip on which customers and how many of them are using 32-bit applications, I think they're going to get a lot of pushback (including from Enterprises). When Apple puts their foot in it, it's usually from an attitude of "we know what the users need". (See pro apps, tubular Mac Pro, iMovie, and more). And when they get both feet in it, it's because they assume that when Apple says jump, everyone (suppliers, developers, users) say "how high".

This, if they go through with it, may well have them stepping in it up to their hips. Without a clearcut reason for the user (the ones providing Apple's profits), arbitrarily killing a lot of programs is going to make people looking at options.

Fortunately, I do think Apple will get the blowback in High Sierra's warnings about 32 bit apps, and there will be assurances of "We never meant that 32 bit apps will stop running completely..." - unless Apple's arrogance kicks in (which happens)

It could be possible that this restriction is for App Store apps only.

 

[Dranix]

It could be possible that this restriction is for App Store apps only.

And we still talk about at earliest macOS 10.15...

 

[potatis]

It could be possible that this restriction is for App Store apps only.

No it said in this article that the App Store restriction will take place in a year. So they can't be meaning that they will restrict the App Store apps after that.

 

[Hoosier317]

They won't update them. They will release a newer version and ask you to upgrade.

Also, old games will never get updated, for instance Diablo II.

Then blame lies at the feet of those developers, rather than going after Apple for moving forward...as some in this thread have done.

 

[huperniketes]

Why would you EOL 32-bit userland apps? This is absurd and Apple is being lazy. Are you trying to tell me that the High Sierra successor won't have 32-bit versions of the libraries?

Even the vaunted Snow Leopard, which Tim Cook promised was free of PowerPC code actually had PowerPC libraries because it takes time to remove the settings which include other CPUs from Apple's code (the Xcode build configuration). A company that values its customers' time and resources will accommodate them.

Apple is only looking to optimize its own time and resources here. Apple is telling its customers, "Screw you. Smile more!"

 

[jeremiah256]

I >DON'T< think Apple has a good grip on which customers and how many of them are using 32-bit applications, I think they're going to get a lot of pushback (including from Enterprises). When Apple puts their foot in it, it's usually from an attitude of "we know what the users need". (See pro apps, tubular Mac Pro, iMovie, and more). And when they get both feet in it, it's because they assume that when Apple says jump, everyone (suppliers, developers, users) say "how high".

This, if they go through with it, may well have them stepping in it up to their hips. Without a clearcut reason for the user (the ones providing Apple's profits), arbitrarily killing a lot of programs is going to make people looking at options.

Fortunately, I do think Apple will get the blowback in High Sierra's warnings about 32 bit apps, and there will be assurances of "We never meant that 32 bit apps will stop running completely..." - unless Apple's arrogance kicks in (which happens)

Respectfully disagree about the push back coming down on Apple. The apps people have listed so far are games, applications that already have 64-bit options, or from companies that no longer exist. Enterprises have either already moved on, have upgrading already in their budget but just haven't executed yet, or are going to be forced to put it in their budget. The number of enterprises that are not prepared to upgrade or shift to Windows is likely very small.


Edit: This is assuming said enterprises need to update to the latest or greatest at all. If it's isolated equipment, no muss no fuss.

 

[applezulu]

Well, I've got essential work software that isn't 64-bit. Guess I just won't update to High Sierra and will have to consider going back to Windows when I need a new machine.

So, your legacy 32-bit Mac apps are going to run on your new Windows machine? That's fascinating.
[doublepost=1496954351][/doublepost]

I >DON'T< think Apple has a good grip on which customers and how many of them are using 32-bit applications, I think they're going to get a lot of pushback (including from Enterprises). When Apple puts their foot in it, it's usually from an attitude of "we know what the users need". (See pro apps, tubular Mac Pro, iMovie, and more). And when they get both feet in it, it's because they assume that when Apple says jump, everyone (suppliers, developers, users) say "how high".

This, if they go through with it, may well have them stepping in it up to their hips. Without a clearcut reason for the user (the ones providing Apple's profits), arbitrarily killing a lot of programs is going to make people looking at options.

Fortunately, I do think Apple will get the blowback in High Sierra's warnings about 32 bit apps, and there will be assurances of "We never meant that 32 bit apps will stop running completely..." - unless Apple's arrogance kicks in (which happens)

What about all your legacy 16-bit applications? Windows doesn't even support those.

Seriously. This isn't just about the number of bits. Technology advances. Some businesses and companies build their operations around some piece of equipment or software or whatever, and don't come up with plans to keep their operations current. Some just keep the old gear running and they're fine. Others go out of business, and still others scramble and find currently available solutions. If you've got mission-critical 32-bit applications, you've got a couple of years to figure it out, and really, it's longer than that, because no one is forcing you to buy new hardware or update your OS.

For a company like Apple, there is a trade-off between developing new technology and maintaining legacy tech. They cannot reasonably be expected to do both in perpetuity. Particularly for Apple, their entire model is based on limiting variables. Their operating systems are not designed to run non-Apple hardware. Their hardware is not designed to allow users to swap out or add endless parts and pieces under the hood. They produce regular OS upgrades and new hardware. The OS updates are free, and they have a much higher rate of adoption of new operating systems than other companies. They also draw a clear trailing edge for what hardware and operating systems they will support. All this means their machines have far fewer variables baked into them, which translates into their famous 'it just works' ethos.

If you want your legacy stuff to be supported forever, don't buy Apple gear. Then again, you may be disappointed in Windows, too, because your 16-bit apps won't run over there anymore, either.