end of the 32-bit era..?

[SoCalReviews]

If you only want to run 32-bit apps, why even buy a new machine that will never be tuned correctly to run legacy apps? 32 bit apps will never be able to take advantage of new gen quad or six multi threaded cores or higher end Nvida graphics cards or larger amounts of ram. Why not get a vintage Mac, like a 2010-2012 iMac fully tricked out with max ram and an SSD. It I’ll run all your 32-bit apps at peak efficiency and probably faster than you could on a new machine, at a fraction of the price and you will never have to worry about any comparability issues.

Seems like a total waste of money to buy a machine you will never fully take advantage of especially at Apple’s premium prices.

Instead of being stuck with using Mojave 10.14.x for 32 bit app compatibility... in the future for 10.15 and beyond he could purchase a new high speed multi-core Mac (4,6,8) with a lot of RAM and run your older OS's (OSX, MacOS 10.14 or earlier, Windows, Linux etc..) that support 32 bit apps using Virtual Machines.

Make sure the VM software you choose supports the older OSX/MacOS you want to run. I use Parallels but I would take a serious look at VMware since Parallels seems to have been moving toward a subscription model lately. However, as mentioned already going this route it will cost a lot more for the newer Mac.

 

[kohlson]

Here's a source for you: https://www.applegazette.com/mac/end-of-32-bit-app-support-means-macos/

Also in the article:
"But more frankly, there’s little reason for 32-bit apps to still be supported on macOS. The computing world as a whole has moved on to 64-bit apps. Developers should have begun to catch up a while ago. Now is just the final deadline for developers that either don’t care about updating their app or put the upgrade off as long as possible."

What this means for all of us is "this is where things are happening." Not every computer owner needs recent technology, but many do. For me, couldn't imagine doing 4K video (which I use to produce HD content) without this.

Of course, 64-bit computing enables more memory. 32-bit environments are limited to 4GB (practically speaking, a little over 3GB because the OS uses some of this address space). Not only more memory, but CPUs that can process larger chunks of work more quickly. For apps like video editing, photo editing, and more, this is huge.

A friend and I both have CS6. Next Mac OS I'll discard it for something else -- it was a good run. But other apps - Office, FCPX, Compressor, Motion, Resolve to name a few - have provided good value and reasonably current technological benefits.
[doublepost=1550859296][/doublepost]

that support 32 bit apps using Virtual Machines.

I created a VM of Mac OSX 10.10, to see if I could keep iDVD around. Performance was abysmal. Perhaps due to lack of graphics hardware support?

 

[BigBoy2018]

Does CS6 run noticeably slo

A friend and I both have CS6. Next Mac OS I'll discard it for something else -- it was a good run. But other apps - Office, FCPX, Compressor, Motion, Resolve to name a few - have provided good value and reasonably current technological benefits.

I created a VM of Mac OSX 10.10, to see if I could keep iDVD around. Performance was abysmal. Perhaps due to lack of graphics hardware support?

I tried the same thing with iDVD. Simply does not work in virtualization for some reason.

But to challenge you a bit, is there really any noticeable performance hit in CS6 because it's 32-bit compared to the first Adobe suite that was 64-bit? Even compared to the latest and greatest Adobe versions of photoshop, premiere. etc. (I've got them all - Cs6 through CC2019), I see no discernible speed issue with Cs6 compared to the others. So again, I ask, if it really doesn't have much of an impact on real world performance to keep a 32-bit app around, why not let it?

 

[kohlson]

why not let it?

My days as a software product manager are a bit behind me, but if what I knew then is worth knowing know, the answer is easy enough: separate build trees, and a resulting separate SKU for 32- and 64-bit offers. The extra code base (such as separate optimizations for 32/64) and complexity would make the argument that it's not economically practical. Remember that if it's a product, it's tested and supported. That's a lot of extra overhead for a shrinking/legacy market. There may be other reasons - industry (or Apple) IDEs and tools may no longer support 32-bit. These developers may have also come to the conclusion that it's a 64-bit world.

To me, it's impressive that CS6 runs on Mojave. Certainly Adobe hasn't tested this, and they offer no support. But it's hard to see any benefit for them in "re-certifying" CS6 (which does have many 64-bit apps) for 10.15 or later. Anyone who understood that code base at Adobe has long since moved on. Same with Apple and FCP7 - they have no economic interest in getting it to work on 10.15. I would imagine that the engineering/test orgs howling at the decisions to make 32-bit apps last as long as it has. And as a FCPX owner, I want them to put resources into their current product (tracking please!).

I'm a newb with After Effects, and the class assignments are pretty rudimentary. Still, I see from Activity Monitor that a 60-second composition with 35 layers corrals 25GB of memory. In my experience, developers (employees and companies) love memory. It may work with less. But these MR boards are filled with AE jockeys who are trying to get as much memory as they can into their systems.

A friend who has embraced CS6 far more than I have, and uses primarily PPro, so has to fire up FCPX and/or Compressor, as his iPhone X records video in a format incomprehensible to PPro and/or Media Encoder.

 

[Tech198]

what apple apps are still 32bit? (outside of quicktime 7)? nothing here like that, and, either, way, they will update everything apple to 64bit with the next OS; that's the whole point.

If your only talking Apple apps specially, then none. but there is no point focusing on apps only if the process that uses them are still 32-bits..

I'm talking about "quicklookd32" witch is probably responsible for Quicklook and "InkServer"

Look under About this Mac >> System Report, "applications"

 

[Ritsuka]

quicklookd32 is required because 10.14 still supports 32bit and so it still needs to run 32bbit quicklook plug-ins. InkServer is deprecated and will be removed in 10.15.