While this may be true for 3rd party apps, I believe I've seen enough evidence of Carbon in recent macOS versions to think it's still alive, and 64-bit, at least for internal use.
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 to Phase Out 32-Bit Mac Apps Starting in January 2018
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
While this may be true for 3rd party apps, I believe I've seen enough evidence of Carbon in recent macOS versions to think it's still alive, and 64-bit, at least for internal use.
Geekbench is a typical toy benchmark that doesn't stress the memory subsystem enough. Once you get "real" work loads that don't fit into L3 the relative results might be very different. Usually Intel comes out on top because they are really good at memory subsystems. I'd also like to see an A10X benchmark with highly "branchy" code like GCC.
And you're assuming the apps are Mac exclusive, which they aren't. A Windows machine will have no problem running them.
It is funny, I was watching "Windows Weekly" twit.tv most recent episode and Paul Thurrott (noted Windows author/podcaster etc. and Windows guru type) and he was giving a backhanded complement on the fact that Apple was more aggressive with regards to decommissioning legacy stuff in their OS.... while Microsoft was not.... which was likely the foundation that you are having to reboot the operating system now up to 3 times a month because of patching etc.... and the majority of that is aimed at legacy stuff (including win32) which was acting as a vector for attack on the OS more than what it would be if Microsoft were more aggressive. Now to be fair, at the same time I think he would be more likely to support a way of continuing with legacy applications (an application sandbox/wrapper that a developer could wrap around a legacy app) and eliminating the legacy code from the Operating System. I still think that Apple has given and will give more than enough time to those that have applications to make the architectural changes to the code so it will run without compromise when it 32 bit is decommissioned in 27 months.
exactly i won't upgrade then LOL , if my imac not compatible go back to windows or linux for next machine
[doublepost=1506261471][/doublepost]
that's like saying dishwasher is upgraded won't was old dishes. there are basis functions that continue to work breaking apps on purpose is not necessary
Microsoft killed support for 16-bit apps in 64-bit Windows. They will eventually do the same for 32-bit apps.
I use an older CPU for legacy apps since Apple takes pride in deprecating things every 3 years or so. You can buy an older Mac from https://www.powermax.com with no sales tax and for a bit over 30% the original price.
They also have capable mid priced Macs if that is your thing. https://www.powermax.com/product/used-mac-pro-mid-2010-19/
If you need to go back into the time machine I have used these guys. http://resale.headgap.com
They also have capable mid priced Macs if that is your thing. https://www.powermax.com/product/used-mac-pro-mid-2010-19/
If you need to go back into the time machine I have used these guys. http://resale.headgap.com
Last edited:
Another alternative is running an older version of OS X in a virtual machine.
Let's cut to the chase. The main reason to do this is not any technical reason. It's simply to sell more Apple Macs and all new software. Apple has a long history of deactivating their Pro apps from working in future OS's simply for non-technical reasons to get the money all over again. This is a gift for dvelopers.
As usual, Apple is not very consumer friendly.
[doublepost=1506264243][/doublepost]
MONEY is the reason for everything. Nope, no real technical reason. Sorry. MONEY.
As usual, Apple is not very consumer friendly.
[doublepost=1506264243][/doublepost]
MONEY is the reason for everything. Nope, no real technical reason. Sorry. MONEY.
Let's cut to the chase. The main reason to do this is not any technical reason. It's simply to sell more Apple Macs and all new software. Apple has a long history of deactivating their Pro apps from working in future OS's simply for non-technical reasons to get the money all over again. This is a gift for dvelopers.
As usual, Apple is not very consumer friendly.
[doublepost=1506264243][/doublepost]
MONEY is the reason for everything. Nope, no real technical reason. Sorry. MONEY.
As already suggested, keep your legacy apps in a virtual machine and it's win-win. You can update your current machine to 64 bits if desired, while keeping those 32 bit apps you paid for, all for free. No pressure to give anyone a single red cent.
I don’t have many 32bit apps. But your post raises a side question for me: How do you set up a VM on a Mac and what software do you need?
Let's cut to the chase. The main reason to do this is not any technical reason. It's simply to sell more Apple Macs and all new software. Apple has a long history of deactivating their Pro apps from working in future OS's simply for non-technical reasons to get the money all over again. This is a gift for dvelopers.
As usual, Apple is not very consumer friendly.
[doublepost=1506264243][/doublepost]
MONEY is the reason for everything. Nope, no real technical reason. Sorry. MONEY.
The machine has to continue. They believe it stimulates progress (income).
1. I have never, ever upgraded a dishwasher - nor would I given the option.
2. I would reasonably expect that after 10 years a dishwasher would fail altogether and not wash anything anymore.
People like you do not understand technology at all. There are many benefits for 64-bit only apps & a 64-bit only ecosystem:
https://www.quora.com/What-does-64-...oes-a-64-bit-processor-bring-to-mobile-phones
https://www.nextbrainitech.com/blog...p-from-32-bit-to-64-bit-and-why-its-necessary
Apple are doing this because it's essential. We need to embrace the technology we have and more forward, not sit back. Do you really think your redundant apps make use of the modern technology they run on? What about security, or lack of? Anyone still crying about lack of 32-bit support won't get any sympathy from the majority.
Move forward or get left behind.
Do you mean people like you? You must, since everything you said is based on spin rather than a single explanation of how it benefits a single user.
You say that, but you provide not one single word of PROOF to back up the nonsense you're spouting.
Apple already supports 64-bit. Keeping 32-bit app support is in no way holding Apple from moving forward.
What makes an older app "redundant" (is an older game "redundant" in any way?) and why does it need to use so-called "modern" technology to be useful? A lot of free software is no longer maintained. That doesn't mean it no longer has a use.
What does security have to do with being able to run legacy 32-bit apps?
I really LOVE when someone claims "everyone" or a "majority" agrees with them. Where did you pull that statistic from? Your hind quarters??? Frankly, it's SAD when people just make things up and throw them out there as if that somehow make their opinion worth something. Sorry, guy, but you are not god or the center of the Universe no matter how many "friends" you have on Facebook.
And for those that think a virtual box will help to run an older OS, etc., just keep in mind that something like VMWare Fusion has zero support for even SOUND on a virtual Mac, let alone accelerated 3D graphics or the like. I've got Snow Leopard Server running in VMware, but it runs like crap compared to the real thing. So it may or may not be a suitable replacement if a given abandoned app is needed.
This has nothing to do with moving forward other than perhaps Apple wishing to reduce the number of programmers needed to maintain the OS for Macs since Macs represent a tiny percentage of their income compared to phones. I believe they are slowly moving towards a Mac "world" where the Apple Store is the ONLY method of installing software. This has not do with security concerns, but their desire to take 30% of all profits from every programmer for the Mac on Earth like they do with iOS Apps.
Worse yet is the lack of empathy or compassion for people affected. It seems like mankind goes through cycles of repeated behaviors, never learning a thing from history and everyone always placing themselves first in the Universe as if no one else matters but them and their desires. It's a shame.
Pity you didn't really take it what I said, you could have educated yourself a little. And why do you want empathy? If your crappy old apps were that important to the developer, they'd be modern updates available. If the developer has abandoned them and left them in an insecure out of date state, why on earth do you want to use them?
put this another way. if the app hasn't been updated to 64 bit yet, it's 99% likely you are one of hte only people who care about that app.
When a 32-bit app is loaded, there is the time to load the 32-bit libraries into memory. There is also the added space the libraries consume in memory.
Other overhead is more subtle. As long as those 32-bit apps are loadable, Apple must make sure that zero-day malware doesn't use those old 32-bit libraries to hack users. It's similar to the old Rosetta libraries used to allow PowerPC code to run on Intel processors: there was a continuing resource drain to make certain those libraries continued to be viable.
Finally, there's a cost to support users: some users will be unhappy when performance degrades when they launch a single 32-bit app. They shouldn't be amazed those apps ding performance a bit; they should be amazed those ancient compiles still work at all. Apple burns hours in Genius Bars world wide to support these legacy apps. Normal lines of support may not help. Users -- like you -- are oblivious to the continuing overhead of supporting those 32-bit libraries.
Clearly, an abrupt dropping of 32 bit support would be bad, but this end of support was announced a long time ago. The time has come.
I see NOTHING mentioned in any of these posts justifying 32-bit apps being dropped. It is clearly Apple views the Mac as disposable and is looking to drop their maintenance costs and continue sneaking towards App store only in the future (so they get a percentage of ALL app sales and can control what you can and cannot do on your computer as they already do on iOS devices. If they don't like it, you can't use it). That is not my idea of a positive future for any form of computing. The entire Internet is going more and more commercial result driven in Google and Bing with corporate responses always first and user reviews and comments buried pages down in many cases. Corporate greed is ruining the Internet. It is fast becoming the corporate version of Big Brother and Apple is ever getting closer to closed computing in general. I have no desire to let Apple decide what I can cannot run on my computer. You people cheering the end of 32-bit apps are not seeing the dark side at all. While Windows can continue to run programs and games made long ago, the Mac keeps wiping out what few Apps it has and making them obsolete. But then their hardware offerings have consistently been a joke on the Mac side for years (still no Mac Mini update or real Mac Pro update). It's insane how the richest tech company on the planet can't manage to keep their computers up-to-date when even two-bit resellers can.
They kind of already did by removing the "allow all apps" from the System Preferences in High Sierra, only regainable via a Terminal command. I guess not enough people complained so they're taking the next step.
Does anyone know exactly how aggressive the next macOS would be, I read about a warning every time you open an app? Can you turn the warnings off with some Terminal command? Can you in the 10.13.4 beta? I can stand one warning the first time, but not every time. Good to know which is the last Mac you can buy and run 32-bit apps on without annoyance, assuming you never update it after either High Sierra or the next macOS version.