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

[casperes1996]

You must have turned it on at some point, because it wasn't on by default for me.

I may have such a long time ago that I just can't remember it then.

Do you mean in System Report? Could not find it there.

The app, System Information. Scroll down to Software, and select Applications (Or frameworks or whatever you want to inspect). Scroll to the right and there's "64-bit" with either Yes or No listed for each app.

I won't be at WWDC... not a developer.

You can always watch WWDC online developer or not. Both the main keynote that kicks off the show, and all the specific technical shows afterwards. Lots of fun really.

Yes, I know the current version of iWork is 64-bit. Sadly it was badly crippled (at least, Pages was) compared to the earlier version. Apple has never come close to reaching feature parity with the new version in the many years since it's been out, so I think it might be time to give up on the hope that it ever will.

Yeah.... That truly is sad. The old iWork was brillant, and I also miss it at times. The focus "Get out of my way, interface", fullscreen writing experience really was something special.

As for FileMaker, this is a single-mission app for me and it's expensive-ware so I don't upgrade unless compelled to do so. Every so often they put that gun to my head, making me choose between freezing my Mac system or paying. Looks like I will be doing it again for FileMaker.

Yeah, no, I get that. And that sucks too. But you don't need to update macOS. 2 releases back get security updates, so unless you need any of the newer features, there's nothing that compels you to upgrade as often.

Worth point out here that supposedly Apple is giving us these warnings such that the software developers will be motivated to update their apps. Here's two examples of where Apple products almost certainly won't be updated, so apparently this motivation doesn't apply to them.

No, but both FileMaker and iWork have indeed been updated to 64-bit. The newer releases of the software. So that argument kinda still works. Nobody ever said it'd be updates to a specific release of the software.
[doublepost=1516829288][/doublepost]

Example: The null page. In 32 bit applications, you can map the null page (address 0) in memory that for logical reasons, should be left entirely null in the event that something goes wrong with a pointer (ie. null pointer). Imagine that an application contains a null instruction pointer. If it is on a 64 bit app, that page can't be mapped with attack code, but a 32 bit application could. If that instruction pointer was in a security-context-elevated portion of the code (or utilizing a kernel API) it may grant the attacker extra privileges as well.

You're kidding? I wasn't aware that 32-bit apps could do this! Though I guess it makes sense in the way that they want to maximise compatibility with old software, since old software is exactly what is most likely going to be 32-bit. But insane nonetheless.

welcome to the internet..

I may be overly idealistic here, but
I have a dream. A dream that the internet can one day become an open and inviting place where we talk nicely to each other and respect other people's opinions. I have a dream that will never ever come true
I think I lost my idealism at the end....

 

[lostngone]

I am sticking with macOS Sierra and going no further.

Really? So in 20/30 years you are still going to be using Sierra? Make sure you get some spare parts for the Mac you are using.
[doublepost=1516829523][/doublepost]Also no one has mentioned the 2038 32-bit date problem yet in this thread?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem

 

[idunn]

It is not so much forsaking some apps I like and/or prefer to their more recent counterparts, but being faced with this decision when "upgrading" to the latest version of OS X is in many respects a downgrade. In my opinion—save some advancements—this has been the case since the last best OS: 10.8.5 Mountain Lion.

So, yes, one could remain in the past with Mountain Lion and all will continue to work as it has. If not exactly so as items such as browsers and mail are no longer fully functional. This aside from the lack of any new (sometimes questionable) security updates.

Yet every time I use Sierra or High Sierra on other Macs I am instantly reminded how much more I prefer Mountain Lion in comparison. The UI alone is far better and distinctly beautiful.

Then Apple's ongoing insistence to dumb down and oversimplify their software. In one example, I wasn't entirely sure about the advent of iMovie 9.0.8 in comparison to its predecessor iMovie 6.0.4, if in export function both these are leagues better than what the newest version iMovie 10.1.8 offers—or rather, doesn't. All else aside, where one could before, it is now impossible to export (or as they would have it: "share") any custom size. Granted these are not professional software, but Apple has nevertheless opted to remove useful functionality it once included for no good reason. This in video software which in many respects remains or could be near excellent in its class.

The list goes on. But for anyone who has a memory or refuses the latest and greatest when it isn't, at best it remains discouraging. There are good solid reasons to remain current with both OS and software. But if forcing the issue, Apple continues to offer many compelling reasons why this isn't always a good idea, to put it mildly.

I would welcome real improvement.

 

[casperes1996]

I was thinking about ASLR too, but it's really a hacky second line of defense in case there are memory protection vulnerabilities. Normally programs can't read each other's memory anyway, else you get "BAD_ACCESS" or something. So I wouldn't think it's a real security reason to ditch 32-bit memory addressing.

Agree entirely

Edit: I think it's also meant to protect against buffer overruns being exploited in someone's code (been a long time since I looked at this stuff), but eh, they shouldn't be there in the first place.

Again, also true

 

[JosephAW]

This is not as simple as iOS. There are a lot of library dependencies. And the other secret is that you will no longer be able to install 3rd party apps but only AppStore apps. Just like iOS is now.

 

[meme1255]

I fully support this step as it saves memory and the hassle of testing against two libraries. I suppose that it will be possible to virtualise 32 bit OS (VT-x instructions will be still supported)? If yes, I have no problem with going 64 bit-only on the host system.

 

[jayducharme]

Looks to me like they've already begun the phase-out. When I upgraded to High Sierra, a few of my games simply stopped loading. So I might pass on the next update, at least until I figure out what will work and what won't.

 

[daabido]

Like what ones?

Quinn, the greatest Tetris clone I've ever played and better than the official version. Once touted as a must buy for Apple to include in its OS, it was killed off by The Tetris Company when it threatened to sue Simon Hartel, its developer. Last updated in 2009, it still plays beautifully on High Sierra, with only a small glitch when starting a new game when a patch of red appears at the bottom of the game momentarily. It's still available, if you just search for it.

 

[Quu]

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.

It's for their eventual move from 32-bit to 64-bit home-grown ARM based CPU's. In their own A11 chip there is no 32-bit support, the saved silicon (of which we're talking probably 2-3%) can be used for other more useful things like increased overall performance.

Essentially Apple is getting ready to deliver their own ARM CPU in Macs and they want to get rid of all the 32-bit stuff now before that happens.

 

[Chuck Kostalnick]

About time. 32 bit apps are insecure, and are a relic from a time long-past.

This isn't encryption. As long as an application has been maintained by developers, its inherent security should be the same as a 64-bit application.

 

[janil]

Will there be a way to disable the messages-- or have them appear only a single time, so you don't have to see them each and every time a 32-bit app is launched?

I have a few 32-bit applications -- VinylStudio. VueScan (the newest may be 64-bit but that will be a $50 upgrade), Civilization 5, tax software for older years, and more.

Outside of games, I will try to run these in a vm. It will be a pain but it's better than completely losing access to the software.

I don't understand why some members cheer about losing software compatibility. The cost of checking 32-bit libraries is trivial to an organization like Apple, especially using automated testing -- it is a cost apple can easily absorb.

 

[SecuritySteve]

This isn't encryption. As long as an application has been maintained by developers, its inherent security should be the same as a 64-bit application.

See my post #74.

 

[casperes1996]

Looks to me like they've already begun the phase-out. When I upgraded to High Sierra, a few of my games simply stopped loading. So I might pass on the next update, at least until I figure out what will work and what won't.

There can be many reasons for this, but it doesn't have to do with them being 32-bit. Functions are deprecated and removed with each OS update.

Quinn, the greatest Tetris clone I've ever played and better than the official version. Once touted as a must buy for Apple to include in its OS, it was killed off by The Tetris Company when it threatened to sue Simon Hartel, its developer. Last updated in 2009, it still plays beautifully on High Sierra, with only a small glitch when starting a new game when a patch of red appears at the bottom of the game momentarily. It's still available, if you just search for it.

..... So..... The reason you want to keep 32-bit support is entirely based on a Tetris clone.... Right.

It's for their eventual move from 32-bit to 64-bit home-grown ARM based CPU's. In their own A11 chip there is no 32-bit support, the saved silicon (of which we're talking probably 2-3%) can be used for other more useful things like increased overall performance.

The instruction conversion could be done with a software layer that itself is only 64 bit and therefore works fine with the CPU no matter how it's made.

Will there be a way to disable the messages-- or have them appear only a single time, so you don't have to see them each and every time a 32-bit app is launched?

They do in fact appear only a single time by default

 

[meme1255]

Most of the 32 bit-only apps are old enough that they can be virtualised without any problem. (From what I have read, VT-x execution is fully independent on the host and Parallels are already 64 bit.) Actually, it is much better solution (you can easily transfer it and not have to worry with each major OS update). The only disadvantage is the overhead of second OS (hard drive space).

 

[iisdan]

Didn't they do this years ago?

 

[meme1255]

The instruction conversion could be done with a software layer that itself is only 64 bit and therefore works fine with the CPU no matter how it's made.

The issue is that the PPC -> Intel transition has brought significant performance improvement (and even though the performance penalty was huge). I do not see x86_64 to ARM64 transition happening unless ARM is at least by 30 % faster than Intel's CPU. Otherwise the performance penalty would be huge, much worse than in Rosetta times (I am that old already?).
[doublepost=1516832541][/doublepost]

Didn't they do this years ago?

They have made the kernel 64 bit only, not the user space (libraries and user apps).

 

[Quu]

The instruction conversion could be done with a software layer that itself is only 64 bit and therefore works fine with the CPU no matter how it's made.

You're not wrong but why hold on to the past? That is Apples motto. They dropped 32-bit on the iPhone for the ARM reason I described, logically it makes sense for them to do the same on Macs.

 

[SecuritySteve]

Didn't they do this years ago?

They did on iOS, not on macOS. It's been known to be coming for a while, the news here is that it is escalating.

 

[casperes1996]

The issue is that the PPC -> Intel transition has brought significant performance improvement (and even though the performance penalty was huge). I do not see x86_64 to ARM64 transition happening unless ARM is at least by 30 % faster than Intel's CPU. Otherwise the performance penalty would be huge, much worse than in Rosetta times (I am that old already?).

I feel like we're falling out of sync in this communication. I just meant that axing 32-bit support entirely wasn't a necessity for the ARM thing, as software would still have to be recompiled for the ARM chip, regardless of whether or not Intel Macs could run x86 and x86_64 apps.

I am of the apparently uncommon belief that we won't see a Mac with an ARM CPU the next long, long while. Maybe co-processors, sure, like the TouchBar management chip or something, but not the main processing unit.

 

[meme1255]

I feel like we're falling out of sync in this communication. I just meant that axing 32-bit support entirely wasn't a necessity for the ARM thing, as software would still have to be recompiled for the ARM chip, regardless of whether or not Intel Macs could run x86 and x86_64 apps.

I am of the apparently uncommon belief that we won't see a Mac with an ARM CPU the next long, long while. Maybe co-processors, sure, like the TouchBar management chip or something, but not the main processing unit.

I can imagine hybrid OS (unless required, everything would be running on the ARM. If some app needs more performance (the x86 CPU), the x86_64 processor is waken up. Kind of improved BIG.little concept).

I cannot imagine full transition soon, though.

 

[Winni]

Why are they more insecure than 64-bit apps?

They are not. That statement was pure FUD.

 

[rweed]

On the Mac side it is easier to deal with this 32-bit rapture than on the iOS side.

How do you figure that? On iOS, you just downloaded an app update or bitched at the developer because they didn't update it.

On macOS, I run all kinds of stuff that isn't from a Microsoft, Adobe, etc. where I can just download an update.

 

[NT1440]

They did on iOS, not on macOS. It's been known to be coming for a while, the news here is that it is escalating.

I could be wrong, but I'm 90% sure they mentioned it for macOS this year at last year's WWDC.

 

[dampfnudel]

I fully expect half my games library to stop working when 32-bit support ends. Heck, Steam is still 32-bit. Valve better not take Valve Time updating it. Sad times.

I’m surprised Steam would still be 32-bit for the Mac but then again I probably shouldn’t be given their support priority for Windows, their bread and butter platform.

 

[SecuritySteve]

I could be wrong, but I'm 90% sure they mentioned it for macOS this year at last year's WWDC.

As I said, it has been known to be coming for a while. Maybe I'm just young, but in the tech world that I live in, around half a year is a while.