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
thejadedmonkey
macrumors G3
Or maybe all of the professionals who need "all apps" haven't complained because they haven't updated yet.
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 603
You already get a warning every time you open an app in El Capitan. But if you have Gatekeeper disabled, you can click OPEN ANYWAY. Removing that option in preferences is a huge mistake. Hardly anyone likes the Apple App Store for Macs and developers have to pay a fee to register with Apple, don't they? I know a LOT of software I use (MakeMKV, Handbrake, Subler, etc.) are not registered and are indispensable for a home theater buff that wants to run off KODI + Mac server.
With current macOS defaults you can just right click on the file and then click Open, and then you get the option to run it anyway.
Look people, we may not like it but maintaining 32-bit compatibility is a PITA. There has been so much time since you could write 64-bit apps. It's time to move on.
cmaier
Suspended
The developer fee is around $90/year, last I checked. Not exactly a barrier for developers. Bigger problem is App Store limitations (lack of upgrade pricing, demos, inability to use certain apis, requirement for App Store review, etc)
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 603
It might be a barrier for open source and freeware authors that create a Mac version out of the goodness of their hearts rather than some expected profit (e.g. Handbrake, Subler, etc.). There's also the matter of Apple not allowing certain types of Apps on their App store, so the ONLY benefit an author who cannot hawk their program on the App Store gets is getting around their gatekeeper (I think the app only has to be by a recognized developer, not actually on the App store).
These sorts of things make the Mac less desirable for both author and user alike for widespread software (i.e. Linux conversions, blu-ray copying/ripping software, etc.) Personally, I don't want to see LESS software available for my computer. The Mac had many years or small support compared to Windows and between 2012 and at least a couple of years ago, I thought the support has been pretty good (very few things I wanted weren't available for the Mac) and that includes many top tier games thanks to the efforts of Aspyr, Valve, etc. But right when Apple brought out Metal, I noticed immediately gaming started to dry up again. Most blamed this on developers having to convert to Metal, but I see very few that really have. The Mac is a desert for games once again and now it seems Apple wants to do the same for application software, caring more about their personal profits than the good of the Mac user and the health of the overall platform in general. They already managed to drive away MANY MANY professionals between the Final Cut Pro fiasco and that STUPID "trash can" Mac Pro.
[doublepost=1518383501][/doublepost]
Is that something you know personally or is it just made up conjecture to try and win an argument? Unless you work for Apple and work on macOS personally, I don't see how you could possibly have any idea how it's a "PITA" for you personally.
Maintaining backwards compatibility is always a PITA. Maintaining 32-bit support is backwards compatibility at this point, it has been so long. You have to run and maintain a whole set of 32-bit libraries which takes resources on the Mac running them, and takes resources in terms of people maintaining them.
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 603
Yes, I have to maintain a spice cabinet with oregano, garlic and basil to make Italian dishes. It takes resources and it's a PITA. But if you want Italian dishes, short of going to a restaurant, you MUST maintain those spices. The Mac community stands to lose a LOT more than just a few spices with the loss of 32-bit apps and games. Keeping some old libraries around is NOT A BIG DEAL and the fact that certain people act like it's a REAL CHORE just demonstrates how out of touch some people in this world are when it comes what matters and what doesn't.
That’s not the same at all. And besides, 32-bit library’s take extra resources when they are run on top of the 64-bit system whenever a 32-bit app is opened
I just hope they will make 32bit libs an optional extra download for users who still want to use some of these older applications without having to resort to dual booting/vm's.
They said the next version will only run 32-bit apps "with compromises". So there'll probably be a Rosetta like layer for a release or two. But count on support disappearing in the future.
Dubdrifter
Suspended
"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.
In iOS 11, 32-bit apps cannot be installed or launched. Attempting to open a non-supported 32-bit app gives a message notifying users that the app needs to be updated before it can run on iOS 11".
With so many 'professional' Apps produced by Third Parties made obsolete everytime Apple so-called OS 'Upgrades' ….. leaving 95% of serious users experiencing a 'Downgrade in user performance ….. when will Apple learn to produce a smooth customer transition experience …. and keep relevancy to the clearly more brilliant programmers of the past as far as 'professional' Apps are concerned.
Older MacBook Pros with greater connectivity are collectors items these days …. the new MBP no longer has serious Pro status, classed as a mere 'toy' with a fraction of the flexibility.
Whoever is making these sorts of decisions needs a serious head examination …. and clearly isn't product testing in the field in 'professional' environments.
Time for ALL SERIOUS PROFESSIONAL MUSICIANS AND PHOTOGRAPHERS, MOVIE MAKERS ETC TO "AGGRESSIVELY" WARN APPLE THAT THEY ARE NO LONGER SUPPORTING ANY FUTURE APPLE iOS 'DOWNGRADES'.
["No point going APPLE 64-bit ….. when the SOFTWARE experience is SH*T"]
….. I feel a Rap coming on ….. better still, print the tee-shirts and put a free sample on Big Bang Theory.
Enough is enough Apple …. clearly going rotten at the core.
In iOS 11, 32-bit apps cannot be installed or launched. Attempting to open a non-supported 32-bit app gives a message notifying users that the app needs to be updated before it can run on iOS 11".
With so many 'professional' Apps produced by Third Parties made obsolete everytime Apple so-called OS 'Upgrades' ….. leaving 95% of serious users experiencing a 'Downgrade in user performance ….. when will Apple learn to produce a smooth customer transition experience …. and keep relevancy to the clearly more brilliant programmers of the past as far as 'professional' Apps are concerned.
Older MacBook Pros with greater connectivity are collectors items these days …. the new MBP no longer has serious Pro status, classed as a mere 'toy' with a fraction of the flexibility.
Whoever is making these sorts of decisions needs a serious head examination …. and clearly isn't product testing in the field in 'professional' environments.
Time for ALL SERIOUS PROFESSIONAL MUSICIANS AND PHOTOGRAPHERS, MOVIE MAKERS ETC TO "AGGRESSIVELY" WARN APPLE THAT THEY ARE NO LONGER SUPPORTING ANY FUTURE APPLE iOS 'DOWNGRADES'.
["No point going APPLE 64-bit ….. when the SOFTWARE experience is SH*T"]
….. I feel a Rap coming on ….. better still, print the tee-shirts and put a free sample on Big Bang Theory.
Enough is enough Apple …. clearly going rotten at the core.
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 603
Sadly, it is almost exactly like keeping those spices. They take up some space, but it's NOTHING compared to modern hard drives. The extra resources are NEGLIGIBLE, especially compared the extra resources Apple requires to run newer OS versions that offer hardly any new features. Like iOS., it gets slower and Slower and SLOWER and for NO GAINS. Siri? So what.
But you have to cut them off at some point. Otherwise they’d still be supporting 68k and PowerPC, 16-bit and classic apps. At some point you have to move forward.
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 603
Those are different processors. 32-bit on Intel is not an issue. I've already said they need to create a sandboxed type "emulation" (for lack of a better word offhand) environment to run the software before they "move on" else they dump 12 years of games (almost none are 64-bit and NEVER WILL BE) and god knows how much still useful productivity software. We'll see what Apple does, but if they just ditch it like they did with iOS, it's going to wipe out a LOT of software.
chucker23n1
macrumors G3
Actually, x86-32 is a different architecture. And the 32-bit Objective-C runtime is significantly different from the 64-bit one. And there's tons of legacy code such as QuickTime that was never moved to 64-bit and implicitly still had to be maintained. They will soon be able to cut that off.
64-bit Intel applications have been possible since 10.5 in October 2007. Just how "productive" can "productivity" software be when its vendor hasn't bothered to update it in over a decade?
[doublepost=1518889435][/doublepost]
Some portions of the UI (e.g., the menu bar) are still Carbon, but for the most part, no, Carbon is dead.
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 603
It implicitly still had to be maintained? But removing 32-bit support "allows" them to DITCH IT??? I'm sorry, but your reasoning here makes no sense to me what-so-ever. If they want to ditch it, then ditch it. Using 32-bit support as an EXCUSE is LAME. Apple should be honest. You're implying they're not.
You seem to be under the utterly mistaken impression that something being "productive" has ANYTHING to do with whether and application is 32-bit or 64-bit. It does not for 99% of all software. As in not one bit. As in AT ALL. As in who gives a flying rat's hind quarter??? I'm sorry, but your "reasons" are not acceptable in any sense of the word. They're illogical, irrational and have NOTHING and I mean NOTHING to do with anything. You also steadfastly REFUSE to deal with the issue of gaming (surprise surprise). Games are not typically updated years after their release as it's not profitable to waste time on old games. That does not mean we users want our games to stop working.
The REASON a lot of software was or is still 32-bit ("unproductive" as it may SEEM to you) is that it was 32-bit on Windows and then it was ported over. Even the previous Microsoft Office was still 32-bit. You can call that lazy if you want, but I'll take an available software package over and unavailable software package and the simple fact is that the Mac computer market is TINY compared to the Windows one. The fact we have some ports at all is a minor miracle.
And yet you don't think it's odd the menu bar is still Carbon? What kind of "productive" OS still uses Carbon??? 🙄
The Vice Commodore 64 Emulator had Cocoa support in the past and has moved on to SDL for newer development because it's cross-platform compatible and makes life easier for the developers. That sucks for us Mac users because the SDL interface sucks. But THAT is the problem in life. Things you want to be something else AREN'T and just ditching them when they're desirable (e.g. to play old C64 games) is not a very good or useful option. And yes Vice is available in 64-bit, but Cocoa is more important to the GUI than 32-bit versus 64-bit that has ZERO impact on an 8-bit computer emulation.
which is a good thing in the long run. Software that hasn't been updated in decades doesn't follow today's standards and practices. Software needs to move forward, otherwise we'd be stuck with apps like IE6 etc.
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 603
(shakes head) Decades? It's been ONE since Intel, not three or four. Besides, games man. Games! I think some people need to spend less time selling ads for Facebook and actually have some fun once in awhile and maybe then they'd actually give a crap about things that matter to more than just people telling people they're taking a dump right now on Twitter as if the whole world cared what they're doing. Older great games don't need updating and they don't need to move forward. Some are classics. They should not be lost for stupid reasons.
Be realistic. There is maybe a 1-3% system improvement to be had for getting rid of 32-bit software. Every macOS update slows it another 10-15% (on purpose to "encourage" you to buy a new Mac; this has been PROVEN with iOS now with the battery fiasco, etc.) It's meaningless. It's simply a mystery why some of you continue to defend a null point. Apple is stupid to do this. Every step backwards in terms of market share or less software is just another nail in the Mac's coffin in the long run. Desktops in general are dying. We don't need to speed it up. If you think getting rid of software and games in particular to free up a few dozen megabytes of storage and 2% overhead makes up for losing over 80% of all Mac games ever made, well I think you have your priorities wrong.
Now IF they can do this and have some kind of virtual layer that will allow older apps and games to continue to run inside a 64-bit boxed layer or something, then it's not so bad. The problem is that Apple hasn't announced exactly what they're doing and never do like having a mystery is a good thing somehow for a platform that controls 5-12% of the market (depending on whether you only look at desktops in homes) at best. Their history with both iOS and Rosetta doesn't exactly encourage me to think they're going to go out of their way for the Mac user's interests. They seem intent on moving all software to their "App Store" for no other reason than they can get 1/3 the profits of everything made in the entire world for Macs like the money grubbers they so obviously are. The App Store is doing TERRIBLE for the Mac because it SUCKS. For games, it means higher prices and less compatibility for networked PC games (more like NONE). The ONLY reason it's not doing terrible for iOS is that people have NO CHOICE outside of hacking their phones that Apple tries desperately to stop at all costs because they apparently believe in Socialism/Communism rather than a free market where all compete evenly. If they take the next step to make everything App Store only, the Mac is DEAD. I know I would abandon it forever at that point. Better smeg (Win10) than dead.
Does the current macOS license allow one to run an older version of OS X (which includes Carbon, or even PPC emulation) in an x86 VM running on Apple hardware.
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 603
Even if it did, it doesn't change the fact that the last time I looked something like VMWare Fusion doesn't support sound even, let alone video hardware acceleration or 3D. You are VERY limited in what you can actually run. It's GREAT for running Requiem, however. 😉