How to See Which Mac Apps Will Stop Working After macOS Golden Gate

[IvyKing]

End of Crossover unless they create an ARM native app.

That's going to be an interesting issue for me as I upgraded LTspice from version 17 to 26. Version 17 was an older version being maintained for MacOS, and 26 was a change to Mac's running the same version as Windows. Funny thing was that I had to install Rosetta 2 to run version 26 - once that was done it seems to be working well. This prompted a look at the .app files - the top level executable was a native arm64, but digging around the app contents showed "Crossover_OEM".

 

[kanselmo]

I have a great name for it. Windows

Someday someone will create an OS that builds upon itself instead of abandoning itself.

 

[Makosuke]

Apple discontinued Rosetta 1 for PPC 5 years after the Intel transition, and macOS 28 dropping Rosetta 2 Intel support would work out to about 7 years after the AS transition, so this is a longer overlap period than the last time we went through this, and comparing the PPC development frameworks of the era to the major dev tools of today it should if anything be substantially easier on developers than the PPC-Intel transition.

So on one hand, I feel like this is entirely expected, more generous than the last time we did this, and 7 years is a long time to offer support for backwards compatibility for apps that aren't updating. There are plenty of crusty apps that won't run on a 7-year-newer OS even if they do support the same architecture.

On the other hand, there are a LOT more Intel chips out there than there ever were PPC chips, and I kinda feel like if you have a backend system that works as spectacularly well as Rosetta 2 (seriously, you would not know an app was Intel if the OS didn't tell you), it seems like kind of a shame not to spend the engineering effort to keep it alive.

I guess if you look at it as an API issue it's simpler, and not much different than depreciating and eventually eliminating old APIs--if it wasn't built for the AS-only APIs available starting 7 years ago, it won't work

The contrast being Windows, which has maintained numerous layers of crusty backwards-compatibility backend stuff so that old apps will (sometimes) keep running, even if they haven't been updated in a decade or longer.

I know a lot of those are invisible to the user (and if I remember correctly in some cases custom-built by Microsoft so that specific ancient business software will keep working), but you can also open up that "Run in compatibility mode" option in Win11 and select OSes going all the way back to Windows 95--31 years ago. I know from experience that even with that option a lot of stuff that old just won't run, but some apps will.

Of course, the down side to building an OS that will still run 30-year-old executables is that you need to have systems in place to expose or emulate archaic APIs and insecure backend features that have no business running in the modern era, and even then a lot of stuff doesn't work--it's hit or miss. So that's a lot of cruft and baggage to provide support that's still spotty.

I overall prefer Apple's strategy, but that doesn't stop me from wishing I could run Spaceward Ho! without a PPC Mac emulator or using the iPad version.

 

[macintologist]

What about docker containers?

 

[IvyKing]

WINE might have a similar fate...

Since WINE is Crossover minus some items, their fate is heavily intertwined. CharlesJ42 stated Crossover will be 64 bit ARM in the future, it looks like there still is a future.

 

[dlachausse]

End of Crossover unless they create an ARM native app.

Windows 11 runs really well inside of UTM. It can even run x86 Windows apps on Apple Silicon. The only issue is performance intensive games, but that was always hit or miss with Crossover and Wine anyway. I have a Windows 11 handheld gaming PC and an Xbox, so I just use those for games.

 

[tjminter]

Hopefully Brother will update their printer software for MacOS 27

 

[lepetitnicolas]

”Rosetta is going to stop working for most apps in macOS 28, and when that happens, apps that use it will stop working.”

And then, it will all stop working

And when the apps will stop working you'll know you are on MacOS 28 because apps using Rosetta are not working anymore because they just stopped working which means they will not be working, especially if you try to make them work you'll end up in a situation where they won't be working, commonly called "not working state" and in such a state you'll feel like things are just not working which could lead to everything not working, even Rosetta and that's why they'll call MacOS 28 "Broken Stone".

"MacOS Broken Stone, where Rosetta met its end !"

 

[Black_Mage]

I don't know why VLC is on that list. I remember being able to run it since I had an M1 Mac Mini in 2022.

 

[Black_Mage]

Come on, man! You don't have a native version for Mac yet? I just tested it a minute ago.

 

[visualseed]

Apple discontinued Rosetta 1 for PPC 5 years after the Intel transition, and macOS 28 dropping Rosetta 2 Intel support would work out to about 7 years after the AS transition, so this is a longer overlap period than the last time we went through this, and comparing the PPC development frameworks of the era to the major dev tools of today it should if anything be substantially easier on developers than the PPC-Intel transition.

So on one hand, I feel like this is entirely expected, more generous than the last time we did this, and 7 years is a long time to offer support for backwards compatibility for apps that aren't updating. There are plenty of crusty apps that won't run on a 7-year-newer OS even if they do support the same architecture.

On the other hand, there are a LOT more Intel chips out there than there ever were PPC chips, and I kinda feel like if you have a backend system that works as spectacularly well as Rosetta 2 (seriously, you would not know an app was Intel if the OS didn't tell you), it seems like kind of a shame not to spend the engineering effort to keep it alive.

I guess if you look at it as an API issue it's simpler, and not much different than depreciating and eventually eliminating old APIs--if it wasn't built for the AS-only APIs available starting 7 years ago, it won't work

The contrast being Windows, which has maintained numerous layers of crusty backwards-compatibility backend stuff so that old apps will (sometimes) keep running, even if they haven't been updated in a decade or longer.

I know a lot of those are invisible to the user (and if I remember correctly in some cases custom-built by Microsoft so that specific ancient business software will keep working), but you can also open up that "Run in compatibility mode" option in Win11 and select OSes going all the way back to Windows 95--31 years ago. I know from experience that even with that option a lot of stuff that old just won't run, but some apps will.

Of course, the down side to building an OS that will still run 30-year-old executables is that you need to have systems in place to expose or emulate archaic APIs and insecure backend features that have no business running in the modern era, and even then a lot of stuff doesn't work--it's hit or miss. So that's a lot of cruft and baggage to provide support that's still spotty.

I overall prefer Apple's strategy, but that doesn't stop me from wishing I could run Spaceward Ho! without a PPC Mac emulator or using the iPad version.

I have always argued that Rosetta 2 should be maintained long-term, rather than being sunsetted like Rosetta 1. The two situations are fundamentally different. When Apple dropped Rosetta 1, PowerPC was already dead in the broader consumer market. Once the Mac transition was complete, there was no longer a commercial incentive for PPC development outside of isolated embedded systems, which had absolutely no overlap with desktop users anyway. Killing Rosetta 1 was simply cleaning house.

Rosetta 2 bridges a completely different reality. The x86/64 architecture continues to dominate the commercial computing space. Millions of Intel and AMD systems are still designed, built, and shipped every year. Because this massive, active market exists, there is a constant stream of new x86 software being developed globally. This is especially true in enterprise environments, specialized professional tools, and the entire PC gaming ecosystem.

There is an enormous library of code out there that could still be leveraged on the Mac. By setting a hard expiration date on Rosetta 2, Apple is choosing to burn a highly functional bridge to the largest active software pool in the world. While forcing developers to adopt ARM natively makes sense for Apple's hardware philosophy, abandoning the ongoing reality of x86 feels like an unnecessary limitation that ultimately hurts the end user.

If Apple no longer wants to bear the engineering and security burdens of maintaining the translation layer natively in future macOS releases, there is a clear opportunity for a commercial alternative. I would be more than happy to pay for an annual license for Rosetta 2 directly from Apple or a blessed third-party developer to continue this support. Monetizing it as an optional, premium add-on would justify the upkeep costs while preserving access to critical x86 software for the users who truly need it.

 

[Astuces iOS]

Well, the good news here is that ...

wait a minute..

There IS no good news here.

This is going to suck for a lot of people.

Nah this is a good thing, it will force dev to make native apps so they will be faster… Btw apple annouced this at wwdc25 one year ago so apple gave devs 2 years to switch which I feel is enough !

 

[Gloomy]

I don't know why VLC is on that list. I remember being able to run it since I had an M1 Mac Mini in 2022.

When you go to the VLC website, clicking "Download VLC" will always pull the Intel64 version of VLC even on an Apple Silicon Mac. If you want the ARM64 version you have to click the dropdown menu and manually select it. So I imagine a lot of people accidentally get the Intel (Rosetta 2) version this way. 🫤

 

[DavidarkX1Z]

As described I went to Generl/About and found nothing that they say is there, i.e Intel based apps. I wonder of someone may create an app to track/list al affected software as it seems the fruit won't help.

I found nothing under Settings > General > About > "Intel-Based apps"

Instead: Settings > General > About > System Report > Software > Rosetta Software

 

[mrr]

Some of my favorite utility apps like Jview and DropJPG are going bye bye.

 

[holmesf]

as an Apple user I have gone through so many breaking transitions. From Mac OS 9 to OSX, PowerPC to Intel, dropping 32 bit support, and now dropping Intel support. Apple seems to think it’s no big deal … users will update and so what? But it ignores the fact that many cherished apps, especially games, simply will never update, and it ignores the deeply personal relationship people have with their tools and workflows. It’s a problem that Apple mostly chooses to deal with this way. Windows, for example can run software going all the way back to the XP era. SteamOS can do the same with games. Apple simply doesn’t have the will, and would prefer to let old software die. But it has consequences. Users no longer trust Apple to keep their software running.

 

[mrhick01]

Hopefully Brother will update their printer software for MacOS 27

Hopefully.

Otherwise my MFC-9560CDW becomes a door stop.

 

[chars1ub0w]

Don't like Apple's strategy. They have the resources to maintain Rosetta 2. In some cases, useful programs never get updated and we don't have the source code around. Maybe the developer passed away or went out of business. And there is nobody else supplying the same functionality. Then I have to dedicate an un-updated Mac to the task.

 

[JosephAW]

Working in the publishing industry we went through this when the Apple dropped powerPC Support, we had legacy hardware, film scanners and large flatbed scanners and film printers that never received any type of updates and in the long run we maintained old hardware for many years until forced to buy new devices that were less capable.
Also remember working with a brick and stone company and their automated grinding sorting system only worked with SCSI computers with programs running PowerPC code. We had to locate old drives and computers and replace them from time to time.

Unfortunately this is gonna happen again where specialized companies with unique hardware will be left behind for many years until some other solution could be worked out.

With some companies we had to re-purchase all new software when apple dropped 32 bit support, Apple did not provide any long-term solution for software compatibility while other companies dropped Apple completely and went to Windows to repurchase software so they can maintain legacy software in the insurance industry.

 

[visualseed]

as an Apple user I have gone through so many breaking transitions. From Mac OS 9 to OSX, PowerPC to Intel, dropping 32 bit support, and now dropping Intel support. Apple seems to think it’s no big deal … users will update and so what? But it ignores the fact that many cherished apps, especially games, simply will never update, and it ignores the deeply personal relationship people have with their tools and workflows. It’s a problem that Apple mostly chooses to deal with this way. Windows, for example can run software going all the way back to the XP era. SteamOS can do the same with games. Apple simply doesn’t have the will, and would prefer to let old software die. But it has consequences. Users no longer trust Apple to keep their software running.

One problem I have is with old hardware accessories that are long out of production, and some of the companies that made them have been out of business for years. They work perfectly under Rosetta but will never get software updates for Apple Silicon. As I mentioned earlier, I’d gladly pay for a license or subscription to Rosetta in the future to maintain this compatibility.

 

[aidler]

Wouldn’t it be better to have the list of Intel Apps under Tahoe before Golden Gate is released, where they will stop working? What use is the list under Golden Gate to me when it’s already too late?

 

[jayducharme]

Is there a technical reason Apple has to do this? Everything is already 64-bit. I could see it would be a problem if future OS versions were 128-bit. But current apps are working just fine. Why not just keep Rosetta as a feature of MacOS?

 

[bpb]

So this is where Apple forces me to buy a Windoze machine because I can't carry on using the Mac version of Garmin Basecamp.

Just install a virtual machine or dual boot.

 

[bpb]

Im an app developer and I’m basically unable to upload new update for my app to app store connect after new macos 27 update. It doesnt accept app binary from xcode 27 beta and if I use xcode 26 to compile, it still doesnt allow because my os version natively blocks xcode 26. I run it from terminal to compile but app store connect still somehow understands that im on incompatible os version. Only option seems to be xcode cloud which i dont want to share my code on github even if its private repo. So what to do? Am i supposed to wait until september to distribute new version of my app? Lol apple.

You're supposed to not install a beta on your machine and expect it to work for full production. Revert to macos26 and everything will be fine.

 

[bpb]

Wouldn’t it be better to have the list of Intel Apps under Tahoe before Golden Gate is released, where they will stop working? What use is the list under Golden Gate to me when it’s already too late?

You're mistaken. Intel Apps will continue to work in macOS 27/Golden Gate. They will stop working in macOS 28