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

[johannnn]

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.

You didnt update CS for forever, but you have to click the "upgrade macOS" button? Just stay with High Sierra and you won't have any problem.

 

[jeh72]

Does anyone know for sure if this is just App Store apps, or if 32bit is being disabled for the entire OS?

 

[KPOM]

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

Emulation is an option. Parallels Fusion and VMware support running older macOS versions.

 

[asiga]

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.

 

[Cigsm]

Apple supports phones that are 5 years old, you think that's planned obsolescence??? Meanwhile some 90 of android users can't even get the latest OS

Apple has become a quite expensive ride.

The iPhone 5, released on September 21, 2012, illustrates this well. According to Wikipedia it was developed under the guidance of Tim Cook, and the last iPhone overseen by Steve Jobs. With the release of iOS 11 in January 2018 it will also be obsolete, as no longer supported.

While many customers seem to take it for granted that they will be upgrading iPhones on a regular basis, perhaps some misgivings now that the price tag has reached and exceeded $1,000. Elsewhere in Apple's realm where even a mid-range laptop can cost well over $2,000, there are those who expect them to last awhile.

They should. The hardware is generally well-crafted, even if discrepancies such as ill-conceived gpu's which suffer untimely failures exist. One pays a premium for such equipment not only with the expectation of premium ease of use, etc., but as well overall quality which should last.

Yet is becoming increasingly apparent that Apple's latest OS of an operating strategy is planned obsolescence. Not just with software which may be abandoned—despite the sizeable monetary investment, as well time, many may have in it—but as well in all this beautiful hardware which could often continue to function well for decades, but by design is now often made obsolete by Apple in about five years, and something they will not even touch or repair in about seven.

That is the reality faced (if otherwise ignored) when one purchases their first or ongoing new toy (or actual business computer) from Apple. If anything made worse due their growing propensity to release software and hardware which isn't even as capable or well thought out as that which preceded it.

Thus one can be stuck in the position of holding onto older hardware and/or software simply because it does the job better than anything now on offer, hoping but knowing that it is only a question of time before something (even if minor and otherwise easily fixed) just gives out.

Then, if electing to remain within the Apple ecosystem in purchasing new equipment (of hopefully some merit), knowing all that money has only bought a limited amount of time. The clock is already counting down . . . and if this trend continue Apple's share price only increase.

One needn't be only a luddite to see something wrong with this. Obviously Apple's products have come a long way since the inception of the company; there is an inherent cost to innovation and progress. But when otherwise happy customers suddenly find themselves with relatively new products but out in the cold due decisions Apple could and arguably should not have made—then something stinks in Denmark (er, Cupertino.)

 

[sudo1996]

Emulation is an option. Parallels Fusion and VMware support running older macOS versions.

Can a VM like VMWare run 32-bit guest programs on a 64-bit host? They aren't emulating CPU architecture. I don't know much about VMs but have been told they're pretty close to native nowadays.

You can use SheepShaver, a full-on emulator, for running old Mac OS versions (like Mac OS 9)

 

[coldsweat]

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.

I'm using Adobe Encore on a daily basis, that's 32bit & will NEVER be updated again - looks like I'm boned as there is absolutely no alternative.

edit: Well I'll be.......... just did a check & Encore is 64 bit, wow looks like there's life in the old girl yet!

 

[GadgetDon]

You didnt update CS for forever, but you have to click the "upgrade macOS" button? Just stay with High Sierra and you won't have any problem.

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.

 

[jeh72]

Guys, there's very little info about this online so far...the way all the articles read it could mean that *only* the app store itself will drop 32bit apps. It would be insane for Apple to drop all 32bit libraries from the entire OS with how many large 32bit apps are still out there.
If this truly is macOS losing 32bit support then I'm switching back to full-time Linux...

 

[briloronmacrumo]

32-bit apps means Carbon and Apple has told us for years that Carbon wouldn't be updated to 64-bit and don't count on bug fixes for it. If they aren't updating it, there is no Q/A, they simply copy the Carbon framework just as they do for the other frameworks.

The Apple Platform VP didn't provide any reasons other than equating it to the same change in iOS but it is completely different.

Has anyone heard Apple describe their technical reasons for this change? Unless there is some hardware limitation, it would seem fairly easy for Apple to simply leave Carbon in the distribution. I'm not blaming Apple, they've been warning developers since the move to Intel to dump Carbon and use Cocoa. There was never any doubt. Most developers moved to Cocoa simply because Carbon wasn't receiving Cocoa's new features. But for those willing to accept Carbon's limitations, Carbon's removal ( if that is what they are doing - not clear yet ) seems unnecessary. But it's likely Apple has their reasons and haven't shared them yet. If anyone has an authoritative citation, please post.

 

[M2M]

Significant ones that I use often include Pages 4.3, Keynote 5.3, iWeb, MS Office 2011.

Why don't you update pages and keynote ?

 

[dampfnudel]

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

No, but you just gave some of us a good laugh. Hopefully, this will light a fire under some of those developers who seem to exist in some bubble, blissfully unaware of the coming 32-bit app apocalypse.
[doublepost=1496816673][/doublepost]

Thin out the herd! At least the App Store won't be so crowded with outdated apps.

That's definitely a plus and for me personally, allowed me to discover replacement apps which in some cases are even better.

 

[sudo1996]

Thin out the herd! At least the App Store won't be so crowded with outdated apps.

Careful what you wish for. Maybe devs will forget about macOS, then it really won't be crowded. Though I'm only really worried about this happening to games (putting myself in others' shoes since I rarely play games personally).
[doublepost=1496816924][/doublepost]

Why don't you update pages and keynote ?

The new ones suck. I generally update my stuff, but really, those particular apps are a total downgrade, along with iMovie '08+.

 

[Winni]

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

By now everybody knows that App Store rules don't apply to the owner of the App Store...

 

[dampfnudel]

Guys, there's very little info about this online so far...the way all the articles read it could mean that *only* the app store itself will drop 32bit apps. It would be insane for Apple to drop all 32bit libraries from the entire OS with how many large 32bit apps are still out there.
If this truly is macOS losing 32bit support then I'm switching back to full-time Linux...

It looks like 32-bit support is going completely away and Apple has shown in the past that it won't shy away from using the guillotine.

 

[sudo1996]

Guys, there's very little info about this online so far...the way all the articles read it could mean that *only* the app store itself will drop 32bit apps. It would be insane for Apple to drop all 32bit libraries from the entire OS with how many large 32bit apps are still out there.
If this truly is macOS losing 32bit support then I'm switching back to full-time Linux...

High Sierra is the "last macOS release to support 32-bit apps without compromises," they said. This suggests they're either removing the libraries or doing something else bad to them.

 

[weckart]

You should have heard the screaming and gnashing of teeth when Rosetta was no longer supported. The streets ran red with blood that day, I'll tell you.

That was nothing, absolutely nothing compared with the unalloyed outpouring of grief when Apple unceremoniously dumped PPC shortly after launching some super spendy PowerMacs. The high dudgeon and drama in the forums here, particularly from one unconsolable poster, was truly off the scale and a most entertaining read for those relatively unaffected until the mods felt compelled to wield the ban hammer.

Yeah and loose security and other compatibility. Keeping VMs and dual booting is very annoying.

If the apps you choose to run have not been updated to 64 bits by now, the chances are that they are old enough to contain their own security gaps. Nothing's perfect.

Stick an SSD in your Mac and dual booting is a matter of seconds away. Hardly annoying in the grand scheme of things.

 

[christian_koehler]

Microsoft did not break 16 bit compatibility.
It is a hardware limitation.
When AMD designed the x86-64 instruction set they decided that a processor running in 'long mode' (64 bit mode) does not support the virtual8086 feature that had been used since the 386 to run 16 bit (even DOS) stuff in 32 bit Windiws versions. 64 Bit Linux can't run the old DosEmu for the same reason.

16 Bit virtual 8086 tasks can run on the same CPU in a 32 bit OS however. A 32 bit vm inside a 64 bit host doing this using hardware visualization is also possible. But note that hardware virtualization was introduced much later and it took years to be supported on consumer processors.

Windoze broke 16-bit app compatibility fairly recently. Breaking 32-bit compatibility is not even on the horizon for them.

 

[corebeliefs]

Not smart aleck at all. Sadly, it's the way things are here. What I care about is that situation. But I immediately lose respect for people and have no use for their views who find it necessary to sink to using hackneyed juvenile remarks.

Wanting changes like ceo doesn't make someone juvenile. Apple has begun to backtrack on recent decisions, if news articles here are to be believed.

 

[drumcat]

For all the "can't keep up with the hardware" posts, there's an equal amount of "where's my backwards compatibility" posts.

If you think software is eternal, you're going to eventually be disappointed. It has a shelf life in reality.

 

[MacHiavelli]

>>High Sierra will be the "last macOS release to support 32-bit apps without compromises."<<

It doesn't say that future OS updates won't support 32-bit apps at all, it says that that future OS updates won't support 32-bit apps without compromises. That implies they will continue to run, but not efficiently.

 

[jeremiah256]

Apple has, in the past, been the environment of "it just works".

Why do you want Apple to push into the territory of "if you're not running the latest version, with the latest hardware, it just won't work"?

Apple has always pushed its customers toward the latest OS version.

Since 2000, Apple has stopped supporting:
- System 7
- Mac OS 8
- Mac OS 9
- Mac OS 10.0
- Mac OS 10.1
- Mac OS 10.2
- Mac OS 10.3
- Mac OS 10.4
- Mac OS 10.5
- Mac OS 10.6
- Mac OS 10.7
- Mac OS 10.8
- Mac OS 10.9

Microsoft, as a contrast:
- windows 98
- Windows ME
- Windows XP
- Windows Vista
- Windows 7
- Windows 8

Backwards compatibility is a Microsoft strength, not Apple's.

When you're talking about a $30k medical practice management suite, it's not quite the same ballgame. And when you're talking about $150k+ industrial production machines, you're reinforcing the concept that buying Apple is not a good call.

And yes, in the last 5 years, I dealt with a Mac Plus that controlled a $500k CNC machine. As far as I know, it still does.

Buying Apple computers for industrial use is not a good call. That said, while I can understand consumers wanting to update to the latest and greatest OS, this is not something that is normally done with industrial equipment, or especially medical equipment, so this should be a non-issue.

 

[benji888]

First off, apple is only not accepting 32 bit apps as of Jan. 2018, that doesn't mean they won't still be available, and that doesn't mean they are cut off yet. macOS High Sierra will still run 32 bit apps, its macOS 10.14 that will change. They just want developers to stop submitting 32 bit, and giving them a deadline for updating to 64 bit.

My question is, Mac OS X went 64 bit at 10.7 Lion, the first to require a 64 bit CPU, who would still be making 32 bit apps anyway??

You know, 10.7 came out in 2011, so to stop accepting 32 bit apps in 2018, that's seven (7) years, plenty of time for developers to upgrade to 64 bit.

And, if you have hardware/software that won't work, simply don't upgrade to macOS 10.14 when the time comes.

 

[loby]

Yeah, Rosetta got dropped way too early and screwed a lot of people (including me) over. 32-bit got plenty of time to die this time.

Yes, had the same problem, especially with good functioning expensive audio equipment with 32-bit drivers. Apple at the time blamed the companies for not updating their drivers....Hard hit with great equipment that died almost overnight and landfills got larger...

This time at least Apple is giving plenty of warning, but not looking forward to some good equipment that though has 64-bit support, the drivers are written to support 32-bit and 64-bit and not a stand=alone 64-bit driver. Probably the driver software will not open since there is 32-bit coding also in it...not totally sure, but that is my guess..

 

[oldmacs]

If the apps you choose to run have not been updated to 64 bits by now, the chances are that they are old enough to contain their own security gaps. Nothing's perfect.

Stick an SSD in your Mac and dual booting is a matter of seconds away. Hardly annoying in the grand scheme of things.

I have an SSD and dual booting is freaking annoying. Its wasted space on an SSD and wasted time and energy. I really couldn't give a damn about supposed security updates for Applications that are not replaceable, and especially ones that do not communicate with the web.

And, if you have hardware/software that won't work, simply don't upgrade to macOS 10.14 when the time comes.

Not that easy.
[doublepost=1496819747][/doublepost]

Why don't you update pages and keynote ?

Because Apple ruined iWork for many by removing key features. iWork '2013' was a huge step back for many.