Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

machenryr

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 25, 2016
731
97
Completely stupid and novice question. Is it possible someone can or will design a 32 bit bridge for apps that are dead in the water for Catalina? I’m on nMP 7,1 so i can’t boot a Mojave OS.

I just bought an expensive hardware item that is stuck at 32 bit. I can live with it if I HAVE to as the software is added convenience I didn’t even know about when i bought it. Now that I can’t use it I have to have it. lol. It’s a high end reverb unit for the recording studio. Lexicon PCM92.
 
Last edited:

throAU

macrumors G3
Feb 13, 2012
8,724
6,877
Perth, Western Australia
Completely stupid and novice question. Is it possible someone can or will design a 32 bit bridge for apps that are dead in the water for Catalina? I’m on nMP 7,1 so i can’t boot a Mojave OS.

I just bought an expensive hardware item that is stuck at 32 bit. I can live with it if I HAVE to as the software is added convenience I didn’t even know about when i bought it. Now that I can’t use it I have to have it. lol. It’s a high end reverb unit for the recording studio. Lexicon PCM92.

Not a stupid question at all - its a real concern of a lot of people.

If you really need to run 32 bit applications, install either
  • virtualbox
  • vmware fusion
  • parallels
And use that to install a 32 bit compatible copy of macOS (would suggest high sierra as it is the last that supports 32 bit) in a "virtual machine" for those applications.

You should be able to pass hardware through to the virtual machine (i.e., when you plug it in and the virtual machine is running, fusion will offer to connect it to your mac, or the virtual one), and it *should* work as if it was running on a "real" mac.


I'd suggest Fusion (i have no experience with parallels) - they have a 30-60 day evaluation period.

This will allow you to run the hardware in a compatible environment until the vendor updates their driver or you get rid of the hardware.
 

machenryr

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 25, 2016
731
97
Thank you. I saw something about parallels. My only concern is will the MP 7,1 boot in anything but Catalina? I suppose it must since they can boot windows?

Thank you. Lexicon kind of indicated they were not updating this.
 

machenryr

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 25, 2016
731
97
So my next question is does fusion, parallels and what’sit allow me to launch without having to logout and boot into Mojave or windows? I think parallels does, if I’m not mistaken. This would be convenient. Only being able to boot into one at a time isn’t very workable.

Thanks!
 

chscag

macrumors 601
Feb 17, 2008
4,622
1,945
Fort Worth, Texas
So my next question is does fusion, parallels and what’sit allow me to launch without having to logout and boot into Mojave or windows? I think parallels does, if I’m not mistaken. This would be convenient. Only being able to boot into one at a time isn’t very workable.

Thanks!

Yes, both Fusion and Parallels will stay alive in the background and startup again as soon as you click on the icon. That's the nature of a virtual machine. No reboot required. BTW, don't overlook VirtualBox from Oracle. It's not as sophisticated as Fusion or Parallels but it's free and may be all you need. They do have a version for Catalina.
 
  • Like
Reactions: machenryr

throAU

macrumors G3
Feb 13, 2012
8,724
6,877
Perth, Western Australia
Thank you. I saw something about parallels. My only concern is will the MP 7,1 boot in anything but Catalina? I suppose it must since they can boot windows?

Thank you. Lexicon kind of indicated they were not updating this.

The way VMs work, the virtual hardware emulated should boot older releases, it is decoupled from your physical mac hardware.
[automerge]1584845489[/automerge]
BTW, don't overlook VirtualBox from Oracle. It's not as sophisticated as Fusion or Parallels but it's free and may be all you need.

True but it is quite clunky and a fair bit more confusing to use.

BY all means give it a go, but i refrained from recommending it due to the fact the OP is running a new Mac Pro and an "Expensive piece of hardware". I.e., in terms of the total solution cost, the hundred bucks or so for Fusion is a drop in the ocean.

In that context, Fusion or Parallels (which WILL give a much better user experience) are fairly cheap and do work a lot more reliably with things like USB pass-through, have commercial support (someone you can call for help), etc.


Any of the virtual machine platforms will allow you to run windows (or any prior version of macOS back to Lion due to license restrictions) on your mac, in a window as well as a side benefit :)

You can run a number of different operating systems at the same tiem, limited only by CPU and RAM available on your Mac.
 
Last edited:

machenryr

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 25, 2016
731
97
The funny thing is I almost bought parallels last month because I wanted to boot windows. But really it was because I was bored. I’ve never run a windows machine in my life. It was just because I COULD. Now it looks like it’s in my future.
 

chscag

macrumors 601
Feb 17, 2008
4,622
1,945
Fort Worth, Texas
The OP didn't say he wants to run Windows. He will use the virtual software to run a version of macOS that's compatible with 32 bit apps.

I have the latest version of CrossOver installed (19.01) which has the ability to run a 32 bit Windows program within Catalina. It's a great app but not something the OP needs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jeyf

jeyf

macrumors 68020
Jan 20, 2009
2,173
1,044
-a virtual environment likely may have issues running graphics applications.
-kinda cool, a VN will have the concept of routing for its internal hosts. 4example supporting hardware has a lan side address of 192.168.1.11, its virtual machines could be made to address 192.168.1.12 and or .13 useful if you host a local web page or something.
 

Fishrrman

macrumors Penryn
Feb 20, 2009
28,108
12,262
OP:

You original post is not clear.
What Mac do you have?
MacBook Pro?
or
Mac Pro?

What YEAR was it made?
What version of the OS is ON IT NOW?
 

machenryr

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 25, 2016
731
97
I’m pretty sure I said it. New Mac Pro. 7,1 16 core 2019. Catalina. I’m sorry, I thought nMP 7,1 was clear. I can see it wasn’t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: throAU

Fishrrman

macrumors Penryn
Feb 20, 2009
28,108
12,262
If it's a new (2019) Mac Pro, the only way you're going to run 32 bit software on it is by running a virtual machine and then something like Mojave (or earlier) within the virtual machine.

IF the Lexicon has software for Windows, it -might- be able to run it using "CrossOver" (as mentioned above), which can run Windows apps WITHOUT having to install Windows itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: throAU

machenryr

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 25, 2016
731
97
If it's a new (2019) Mac Pro, the only way you're going to run 32 bit software on it is by running a virtual machine and then something like Mojave (or earlier) within the virtual machine.

IF the Lexicon has software for Windows, it -might- be able to run it using "CrossOver" (as mentioned above), which can run Windows apps WITHOUT having to install Windows itself.

Thank you. That’s what I said. New Mac Pro 2019.

I bought and installed parallels - windows. But I have yet to install Mojave on it.
 

chscag

macrumors 601
Feb 17, 2008
4,622
1,945
Fort Worth, Texas
I bought and installed parallels - windows. But I have yet to install Mojave on it.

One fellow in another Mac forum stated that a Mojave VM did not work with Parallels and instead installed High Sierra. Remember that Mojave will want to format (even within a VM) the virtual drive to APFS. If possible, you might want to have a High Sierra installer handy just in case Mojave does not work.
 

machenryr

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 25, 2016
731
97
Thanks. I believe I still have them all. I didn’t want to install Mojave or Catalina. That’s just how the cookie crumbled.
 

Schismz

macrumors 6502
Sep 4, 2010
343
393
From my experience Parallels tends to be faster and more optimized, VMware is far more stable and reliable. I too am on 7,1 with no way to downgrade, but I'm still running NeXTSTEP, OpenStep, Rhapsody (the precursors to OS/X -> macOS) and Snow Leopard in VMs, with no problem.

I'm sure it's entirely possible to find a dev version of Mojave somewhere that'll run the 7,1 or superglue one together, but the word "stability" doesn't come to mind. Release of 7,1 first shipped with 10.15.2. There is no official support/drivers for new classic Mac Pro predating this.

Catalina has a lot of annoying minor bugs, but haven't found anything show stopping that makes me long wistfully for how wonderful Mojave was. It's... kinda all the same crap with Sidecar added because that'll change the world + 32bit apps removed, which is probably quite annoying if you need one of them working.

Since hardware constraints are likely to continue, it'd be spectacular if Apple could possibly focus on making macOS 10.16 the -> stability release.
 

throAU

macrumors G3
Feb 13, 2012
8,724
6,877
Perth, Western Australia
From my experience Parallels tends to be faster and more optimized, VMware is far more stable and reliable. I too am on 7,1 with no way to downgrade, but I'm still running NeXTSTEP, OpenStep, Rhapsody (the precursors to OS/X -> macOS) and Snow Leopard in VMs, with no problem.

This seems to be the general consensus. Parallels is faster, but they also sometimes break things. They move faster than VMware (which is understandable, as VMware's bread and butter is enterprise, and Fusion/Workstation are the pilot product for changes that end up later in vSphere - their datacentre product).

My general recommendation would be :

* trying to run graphical apps with high performance (e.g., maybe games, etc.) - go for parallels
* if you're more concerned about stability and reliability - go for Fusion

But if its just an occasional fire up of a VM to connect to a device with no 64 bit macOS support... either will likely be fine. And it's not like either solution is bad performance or unstable. We're splitting hairs here as far as desktop end user stuff goes.

Again as above Virtualbox may even do it but if you have the cash to spend, both Fusion and Parallels are much nicer to actually use. I'm a datacentre virtualisation admin and even i find Virtualbox annoyingly clunky to administer. Performance in some situations with Virtualbox is pretty bad too.

But if you DON'T have the funds to throw at it (not the OP who already said be went with Parallels - but others maybe referring to this in future), virtualbox is worth trying in a pinch.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: machenryr

machenryr

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 25, 2016
731
97
So it's kind of nuts. I've been trying to get this thing going with Parallels. I abandoned the idea of installing MacOS. Their Mac program was just - I don't know. I might have to go back to that. I decided to install Lexicon's proprietary "System Architect" which overseas all of their product line. This seems to be the best route. It took me a minute but I finally got it installed. BUT THE SOFTWARE SYSTEM ARCHITECT AND THE PCM92 DEVICE can't see each other. The connection is ethernet. The Lexicon support guy has been trying to help, bt he doesn't know Mac or parallels. It cant see the ethernet ports on the Mac.

Is there any problem with parallels blocking ethernet ports. I don't even see how I can manually do it.

I know this is very specialized. Lexicon has shut their forum doors so I don't really have a place ot go to complain or get help.
 

machenryr

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 25, 2016
731
97
It seems that parallels isn't detecting the ethernet signal. There must nbe some setting.
 

Stephen.R

Suspended
Nov 2, 2018
4,356
4,746
Thailand
By default parallels will use a nat for networked VMs.

in the top right of the vm window look for an icon like a spider web and click it, pick “bridged” - this will let the vm connect directly to your lan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: throAU

machenryr

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 25, 2016
731
97
By default parallels will use a nat for networked VMs.

in the top right of the vm window look for an icon like a spider web and click it, pick “bridged” - this will let the vm connect directly to your lan.
Thank you! I think this worked. Cautiously optimistic!
 
  • Like
Reactions: throAU
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.