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

[oldmacs]

Ok i think this is bundled with some specific hardware. I'd suggest to either dual boot or keep a 32bit capable OS on a bootable external drive. Of course you can also just keep on using High Sierra (and nothing afterwards). You'd have to check if it's working when running in a VM (as it is bundled with a special hardware). Just wondering if iMovie (or fcp) isn't up for the job too if it's using a standard video capture API.

I wouldn't capture directly into h264 by the way - but use ProRes as an intermediary format and later compress to h264 (after cutting, color correction, deinterlace, etc.)

I've got no interest in stuffing around with vms and dual booting these days. I buy apple partially for the 'it just works' experience, yet increasingly it just doesn't work with out fiddling around and I may as well go to Windows 10. Apple could just keep comsptiblitly or build something like they did with classic or Rosetta.

 

[sudo1996]

Great! Does this mean Apple will finally drag Compressor for FCPX into the 21st Century and create a 64 bit version?

I don't understand what exactly is better about 64-bit in every situation, and I don't think very many people here do. 64-bit definitely uses way more RAM in practice. If you're dealing with 64-bit floats and integers, I'll bet it's faster. If you're dealing with 32-bit, which is probably fine for many, IDK. There's SSE and such to speed it up, but does that end up being faster or slower on Intel processors?
[doublepost=1496810348][/doublepost]

Does this mean that wine/playonmac won't run anymore??

Oh shoot! Just checked... 64-bit Wine was recently released for OS X. I remember having issues before and somehow concluded that I could only do it in BSD/Linux. I'm going to make sure PlayOnMac is updated before I update my OS.

 

[jeh72]

Oh shoot! Just checked... 64-bit Wine was recently released for OS X. I remember having issues before and somehow concluded that I could only do it in BSD/Linux. I'm going to make sure PlayOnMac is updated before I update my OS.

The problem with that is 64-bit wine only runs 64-bit windows programs...for the vast majority of windows apps we need 32-bit wine

 

[konqerror]

ARM runs 32-bit software fine.

If they were going to make a Intel on ARM emulator, it would be easier for them to write for one architecture not two. This is like how Rosetta only supported PowerPC and dropped 68k.

I don't understand what exactly is better about 64-bit in every situation, and I don't think very many people here do. 64-bit definitely uses way more RAM in practice. If you're dealing with 64-bit floats and integers, I'll bet it's faster..

Floats don't matter. They were always 64 bit double (actually 80 bit on x87 which is now deprecated in 64-bit code).

Where you get the performance boost is the fact that in both AArch64 and AMD64, they doubled the register counts. It's a big deal because x86 hardly had any to begin with. Because of the new calling convention enabled, any app that calls functions gains.

There's also another thing on AArch64. 32 bit ARM had this unique feature where every instruction is conditional. My understanding is that it does not play well with modern branch predictors and by eliminating this from 64-bit ARM, you gain in power and performance. It may be a factor in why Apple wants to completely lose 32-bit ARM so they can optimize solely for the cleaner architecture.

 

[M2M]

I've got no interest in stuffing around with vms and dual booting these days. I buy apple partially for the 'it just works' experience, yet increasingly it just doesn't work with out fiddling around and I may as well go to Windows 10. Apple could just keep comsptiblitly or build something like they did with classic or Rosetta.

Like I said.
Have you tried capturing the footage through QuickTime X? If not, try this:

Open QuickTime Player.

Select File>New Movie Recording.

The resulting window will probably display your iSight camera. Click the down arrow to the right of the record button, and you should be able to select the source(s), quality, and destination of the captured file.

Hope this works. If Elgato is your only 32bit app and this works then you are Fine.

 

[sudo1996]

If they were going to make a Intel on ARM emulator, it would be easier for them to write for one architecture not two. This is like how Rosetta only supported PowerPC and dropped 68k.

AFAIK it's easy for a 64-bit architecture to support 32-bit processes. Not the other way around.

 

[Tubamajuba]

You're mad because people want to stay in their ecosystem/workflow? Maybe you should find more sensical things to be mad about.

I'm not mad in the slightest. Heck, I'm actually quite happy, seeing as I've used a good balance of both Windows and Mac computers over the years because I know that neither platform alone will completely meet my needs and both platforms have their strengths. It boggles my mind how many people on this site seemingly hate everything Apple does and yet they won't look elsewhere for products they might be happier with.

 

[sudo1996]

The problem with that is 64-bit wine only runs 64-bit windows programs...for the vast majority of windows apps we need 32-bit wine

Oh dang, didn't know 64-bit Wine only ran 64-bit Windows programs. That really screws everything up. Argh. Why the heck are so many Windows programs 32-bit only? I've almost never needed to worry about the underlying architecture when writing in C. Are these people doing hacks in assembly? I wouldn't put it past them, considering that Windows 9 was skipped purely because so many devs were checking the Windows version with string comparison to "98" and "95".

 

[UL2RA]

I'm not mad in the slightest. Heck, I'm actually quite happy, seeing as I've used a good balance of both Windows and Mac computers over the years because I know that neither platform alone will completely meet my needs and both platforms have their strengths. It boggles my mind how many people on this site seemingly hate everything Apple does and yet they won't look elsewhere for products they might be happier with.

I think people have a right to complain about the platform they're on. There is no perfect platform. But I also agree that some people just seem to be mad about everything ... they're never satisfied.

 

[Jeaz]

This will be a rather significant blow on games, as most of them are 32-bit, even new ones today. For older games it's definitely more difficult to update to ensure compatibility. In reality, it won't happen so a vast catalogue of games will be unplayable after MacOS 10.15 or whenever it happens.

 

[theBigD23]

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.

It's called progress. You can still run 10.6 and run POWERPC apps(!) and not upgrade to a 2017 OS.

 

[Tubamajuba]

I think people have a right to complain about the platform they're on. There is no perfect platform. But I also agree that some people just seem to be mad about everything ... they're never satisfied.

I agree, and I'm not trying to downplay the fact that losing 32-bit support will inconvenience quite a few Mac users. I just think there's a lot of hyperbole being thrown around in here, and in the end things will be quite alright. People made it through the initial x86 transition, they'll make it again this time. It won't be easy for some people, of course.

 

[Nermal]

This will be a rather significant blow on games, as most of them are 32-bit, even new ones today. For older games it's definitely more difficult to update to ensure compatibility. In reality, it won't happen so a vast catalogue of games will be unplayable after MacOS 10.15 or whenever it happens.

Indeed. I just went through all my apps and more than a quarter of them are still 32-bit. Most of those are games.

 

[sudo1996]

There's also another thing on AArch64. 32 bit ARM had this unique feature where every instruction is conditional. My understanding is that it does not play well with modern branch predictors and by eliminating this from 64-bit ARM, you gain in power and performance. It may be a factor in why Apple wants to completely lose 32-bit ARM so they can optimize solely for the cleaner architecture.

Didn't know this at all. Thanks, that's interesting. I suppose they could use an emulation layer to handle 32-bit without impacting 64-bit performance, but at that point, it's probably not worth it.

 

[Westside guy]

I have to admit that a couple of my favorite games are old 32-bit games, long gone from the App Store, which I initially purchased / downloaded on my first iPod Touch.

OH... Reading fail. Sorry guys (not that this isn't an iOS issue as well).

 

[jeh72]

Wow, I just checked my apps in the system information app. I have quite a few apps that are 32bit, and nearly every single game I have installed is 32bit. Steam, many steam games, the Blizzard app, and some of its games are 32bit.

edit: Wait - does this 32bit constraint only apply to apps in the App Store? That would make the most sense...Apple would be nuts to drop support for all 32bit apps.

 

[GadgetDon]

I agree, and I'm not trying to downplay the fact that losing 32-bit support will inconvenience quite a few Mac users. I just think there's a lot of hyperbole being thrown around in here, and in the end things will be quite alright. People made it through the initial x86 transition, they'll make it again this time. It won't be easy for some people, of course.

The x86 transition provided a clear benefit for users (the PowerPC design just wasn't provided what was needed for Macs, particularly in laptops). And it was a transition that needed to be done, they couldn't ship Macs with both x86 and Power PC processors.

This provides no advantage to the users (oh wow it'll save a couple hundred Megabytes of RAM from my 8 gigabytes) and Apple CAN write their OS to handle 32 bit apps, they do it now.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Staying on old OS releases is bad for security. It means if you want to run older software and new, you have to keep multiple computers around, or run virtual machines. All of which is a pain in the ass.

There's no reason to get rid of 32-bit support. Having it doesn't slow anything down. Sure, the libraries on the system use a tiny bit of space, but it's microscopic on today's huge media. Hell, even Rosetta, which let you run PowerPC code on Intel, was a tiny library.

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

 

[JediZenMaster]

So I guess the question is do we think everything is going to be supported forever?

 

[Dalavia]

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

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.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

because people will eventually get over it or switch to windows or some other system and then they won't have to make sure they never break any 32-bit support every time they want to upgrade anything in the kernal or drivers. tons of old old apple internal code can just go away and the 15 people left there who remember how to keep it running will no longer hold sway. progress on the 'modern' side of the os will accelerate into the future and new 'modern' apps will come about to replace the ones that are no longer available but still have market value. the world will continue to spin around the sun and apple will continue to make heaps of cash they can't even bring back home.

Hahahaha!

If you want to see how NOT to do a 32 to 64 bit transition, look no farther than Windows!

 

[Amazing Iceman]

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

From who? The developer abandoned the app, so your $1.00 investment just ran out of juice.
[doublepost=1496812867][/doublepost]

because people will eventually get over it or switch to windows or some other system and then they won't have to make sure they never break any 32-bit support every time they want to upgrade anything in the kernal or drivers. tons of old old apple internal code can just go away and the 15 people left there who remember how to keep it running will no longer hold sway. progress on the 'modern' side of the os will accelerate into the future and new 'modern' apps will come about to replace the ones that are no longer available but still have market value. the world will continue to spin around the sun and apple will continue to make heaps of cash they can't even bring back home.

Thanks for the laughs, I guess you have no clue about Windows transition from 16-bit to 32-bit to 64-bit, and how much of a pain that was and still is.
In reallity, the only reason why a user may need to worry about a transition of this kind, is when the developers abandon their product, so it doesn't get updated to stay current with the evolution of the OS.

 

[stiligFox]

A little hack isn't going to fix this. They're removing the 32-bit libraries, so you're out of luck unless you've got a VM ready.

Bah!

Although, I just checked and Burn has always been 64bit

http://burn-osx.sourceforge.net/Pages/English/home.html
I’ll have to find some better subtitle editors though.

Cheers!

 

[sudo1996]

Hahahaha!

If you want to see how NOT to do a 32 to 64 bit transition, look no farther than Windows!

It's cringeworthy, but the fact is that if you use Windows, you almost never have to worry about backwards compatibility. Partially because you're always stuck in the past in some ways. But then again you're stuck in the past with graphics in macOS (unless Apple changes something).

 

[oldmacs]

Like I said.
Have you tried capturing the footage through QuickTime X? If not, try this:

Open QuickTime Player.

Select File>New Movie Recording.

The resulting window will probably display your iSight camera. Click the down arrow to the right of the record button, and you should be able to select the source(s), quality, and destination of the captured file.

Hope this works. If Elgato is your only 32bit app and this works then you are Fine.

It doesn't work through quick time. I've got about 30 or so apps that are 32 bit, don't have the time to list them, but elgato was just one example,