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

macOS High Sierra 10.13.4 Displays Warnings When Opening 32-Bit Apps as Part of Apple's Phase Out Plan

Agustin Cauchy said:
How big is this performance hit?
Click to expand...
It is minor for most folks. The Carbon framework consumes a few hundred KB. There is a tiny, almost imperceptible on most machines, speed hit when the first 32-bit app runs and 32-bit Carbon has to be loaded, but subsequent 32-bit app launches have no performance hit. As others have mentioned, eliminating all the Q/A, Q/C testing of the 32-bit frameworks for every macOS release is probably an Apple goal. Large public corporations are about making money and that includes reducing expenses where possible. A similar philosophy is probably present in Apple's push to converge iOS and macOS.
 
IJ Reilly said:
Yup. That was my sad discovery. So do you think Apple will take pity on us Pages 4 users?

Naaahh.
Click to expand...
I checked, now I'm sad.

*sigh* I had transitioned to the new Pages for all but my most complex projects. I haven't tried to push the new version to its limits yet, I know it regained some features a while back.

Sad, Pages 4.3 was an amazing application with incredible potential.
 
Traverse said:
I checked, now I'm sad.

*sigh* I had transitioned to the new Pages for all but my most complex projects. I haven't tried to push the new version to its limits yet, I know it regained some features a while back.

Sad, Pages 4.3 was an amazing application with incredible potential.
Click to expand...

Running both side-by-side is maddening. Documents created in 4.x open in 6.x if 6.x is running, and the formatting gets fouled up. Documents created in 6.x try to open 4.x if it's open, and you get that annoying xml error. Sigh, is right...
 
zorinlynx said:
I wonder why Apple has such a fetish for phasing out 32-bit code.

The CPU has NO PROBLEM executing 32-bit code, and there isn't even a performance hit in doing so. There's no real solid reason to discontinue 32-bit support. This is going to keep people who requires certain older apps from upgrading to the latest version of MacOS, and expose them to security vulnerabilities for no good reason at all.
Click to expand...
For me it will mean replacing a scanner that cost me over NZ$300 (Canon 8400F) and will almost certainly cost at least as much to replace. I am able to use it now only because I purchased VueScan (professional version). VueScan has a 64-bit version, and I wouldn't have to pay again to use it, but I'd need a 64-bit scanner. This will be the second time I've had to ditch a perfectly good scanner.The other time was when Apple stopped supporting SCSI. I'm not blaming Apple. Like all similar manufacturers, Apple is under pressure to keep bringing out newer, better, faster products. I wonder if the hi-fi industry is the same these days? It's a long time since Peter Walker's famous statement that, unlike Japanese manufacturers, he didn't have to bring out a new product every year; he got it right the first time.
 
Gotta love that "can't open software because it's from an untrusted developer" warning too. Somehow, it keeps getting reset (the setting to use anything) periodically without my permission. I go to the Preference Pane and there's a button there "open anyway" which I click and then it tries again and says the same darn thing. Can't open it because it's from an untrusted developer. WTF is "open anyway" there for if it isn't meant to be an OVERRIDE without having to enter your password and change the setting AGAIN???? I gather on the newer OS versions you won't even have an option to run "anything" any longer without using a shell prompt. Apple is DESTROYING free and open software. They want a piece of the pie no matter what. Frack Apple.

I maybe be forced to go to Windows, spyware and forced updates and all at some point because the inability to run whatever software I want to run is more important than even that concern. 3rd party developers won't even bother to make Mac versions of various utilities (e.g. MakeMKV) if they know 99.9% of Mac users wont' know how to get it to run (i.e. having to use a shell script to override Apple).
 
MagnusVonMagnum said:
Gotta love that "can't open software because it's from an untrusted developer" warning too. Somehow, it keeps getting reset (the setting to use anything) periodically without my permission. I go to the Preference Pane and there's a button there "open anyway" which I click and then it tries again and says the same darn thing. Can't open it because it's from an untrusted developer. WTF is "open anyway" there for if it isn't meant to be an OVERRIDE without having to enter your password and change the setting AGAIN???? I gather on the newer OS versions you won't even have an option to run "anything" any longer without using a shell prompt. Apple is DESTROYING free and open software. They want a piece of the pie no matter what. Frack Apple.

I maybe be forced to go to Windows, spyware and forced updates and all at some point because the inability to run whatever software I want to run is more important than even that concern. 3rd party developers won't even bother to make Mac versions of various utilities (e.g. MakeMKV) if they know 99.9% of Mac users wont' know how to get it to run (i.e. having to use a shell script to override Apple).
Click to expand...
Or you can just embrace the open source and install Linux. Security and Stability(sometimes?) vs Open source. You choose.
 
SecuritySteve said:
Or you can just embrace the open source and install Linux. Security and Stability(sometimes?) vs Open source. You choose.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but I don't really think you'd be sacrificing much in the way of security by going open source. I mean, a bit if you use Xorg and an X-server, but if you use Wayland that concern goes away too.
And with respect to stability, well that depends a lot. If you go with Debian stable you'll certainly not lose stability.
 
MagnusVonMagnum said:
Gotta love that "can't open software because it's from an untrusted developer" warning too. Somehow, it keeps getting reset (the setting to use anything) periodically without my permission. I go to the Preference Pane and there's a button there "open anyway" which I click and then it tries again and says the same darn thing. Can't open it because it's from an untrusted developer. WTF is "open anyway" there for if it isn't meant to be an OVERRIDE without having to enter your password and change the setting AGAIN????
Click to expand...
Right-click and select "open". (You only have to do that once, per app.)

--Eric
 
casperes1996 said:
Excuse me, but I don't really think you'd be sacrificing much in the way of security by going open source. I mean, a bit if you use Xorg and an X-server, but if you use Wayland that concern goes away too.
And with respect to stability, well that depends a lot. If you go with Debian stable you'll certainly not lose stability.
Click to expand...
The entire point of preventing unsigned applications from running is to prevent malicious applications from running, which would not be signed. Thus, to avoid that problem, you are sacrificing a layer of security. From experience, no one application is more secure than another.
 
Eric5h5 said:
Right-click and select "open". (You only have to do that once, per app.)

--Eric
Click to expand...

Hey, that does work. :) I'm surprised given the one in the preference pane does not work. But will that work on macOS that doesn't have an "anything" option or will we need a shell script to override? I'm concerned some developers simply won't bother with freeware Mac versions if they have to PAY Apple every year for the privilege. Most of the stuff that isn't signed is media based (e.g. MakeMKV), possibly Handbrake, Subler, etc. (haven't tried new versions of some in awhile since Handbrake self-updates, etc. so I'm not certain of its status, but most of these open type programs aren't Apple certified developers. That doesn't make them malware either. It means we're lucky there even is a Mac version available.

Meanwhile, Apple would never allow things like arcade emulators, etc. to be "certified" to be in the App Store, etc. I don't need the Mac to become a Mickey Mouse platform like iOS or its value diminishes). Hell, I'm already running Chrome now (which I know is Google ad spyware) because Firefox Quantum has suddenly become slow as hell again (mostly for starting up) for no obvious reason whereas Chrome is always fast here. I despise Safari and it's not cross-platform since they ditched the Windows version so to hell with it. They also stop updating it for older OS releases and that's useless if you don't want your entire OS (or can't in the case of older computers) updated.
 
That's how you open any app in Sierra, which only has "App Store" and "App Store and identified developers" options. Although it doesn't really have anything to do with the App Store; any developer can be an "identified developer" and release emulators etc. as they wish, without having anything on the store.

--Eric
 
MagnusVonMagnum said:
Gotta love that "can't open software because it's from an untrusted developer" warning too. Somehow, it keeps getting reset (the setting to use anything) periodically without my permission. I go to the Preference Pane and there's a button there "open anyway" which I click and then it tries again and says the same darn thing. Can't open it because it's from an untrusted developer. WTF is "open anyway" there for if it isn't meant to be an OVERRIDE without having to enter your password and change the setting AGAIN???? I gather on the newer OS versions you won't even have an option to run "anything" any longer without using a shell prompt. Apple is DESTROYING free and open software. They want a piece of the pie no matter what. Frack Apple.

I maybe be forced to go to Windows, spyware and forced updates and all at some point because the inability to run whatever software I want to run is more important than even that concern. 3rd party developers won't even bother to make Mac versions of various utilities (e.g. MakeMKV) if they know 99.9% of Mac users wont' know how to get it to run (i.e. having to use a shell script to override Apple).
Click to expand...
I believe you have to disable something in terminal to stop that message. SIP I think?
 
SecuritySteve said:
The entire point of preventing unsigned applications from running is to prevent malicious applications from running, which would not be signed. Thus, to avoid that problem, you are sacrificing a layer of security. From experience, no one application is more secure than another.
Click to expand...

You say that as if software signing is exclusive to macOS though. If you run Ubuntu let's say, packages from Ubuntu's repositories are GPG-signed thusly.
 
casperes1996 said:
Ubuntu is open source. Just because something is open source doesn't mean you can't do security verification via checksums and GPG signing by a trusted authority.
Click to expand...
Yes. But that is not what the conversation was about. He had an issue with an open source application that was not code signed. The fact that it was open source does not impact the conversation at all, it was simply the subject of his specific example.
 
The problem is Apple charges what? $99 a year or more to be a registered "developer" so what possible incentive is there for open source and/or free software developers to pay Apple for the privilege of GIVING AWAY software for their platform? Apple has enough money. They should be providing registration for free, both to further software development for their platform and to increase security. I see that you can get a free developer account, but it's not clear at all that you can sign your programs for distribution outside the App Store on any kind of ongoing basis (I read something about one week at a time and then reregister (for testing?)). But regardless, even if they had it for free/open, there's the risk of Apple playing Momma. In other words, this almost inevitably leads to other abuses regardless, like Apple using the requirement to BAN SOFTWARE they don't like (say anything competitive to their products or which they feel is subversive, politically incorrect or "adult" in nature. One can argue it's their platform and they have a right to decide what's allowed to go on it and what's not, but the Mac has always been an open software platform and suddenly crushing that for their own monetary gain and control doesn't sit well with me AT ALL. There should be some kind of law that states once open, always open so a company can't just suddenly one day pull the rug out from under their users.
 
SecuritySteve said:
Yes. But that is not what the conversation was about. He had an issue with an open source application that was not code signed. The fact that it was open source does not impact the conversation at all, it was simply the subject of his specific example.
Click to expand...


Well, sorry. In that case I missed the beat of the conversation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back