Oh, really? So I won't be able to even compile and run my own applications? Sounds legit.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
;-) Ok, ok, yeah. I get it. 32-bit overhead, memory, libraries, etc. But, but, I can't live without Adobe Fireworks ;-)
I know, still nothing as good as Fireworks.
I was agreeing with you, and I might be younger than you are. Not everyone on the internet is trying to attack you, I was only trying to provide context to your remark (which is why I quoted it) to anyone else on the thread that might be interested.
This would require having everything compiled twice - once for ARM, once for x86. And the switching would be immensely tricky to pull off without killing the app entirely first. I do believe we'll see something similar, but not with on the fly switching between chips like that. It's sadly not as simple as graphics switching. (which isn't entirely simple either).
But apps could be written such that the developer chooses small tasks that are given to the ARM chip. Some apps that never get intense could run entirely on it, like System Preferences, Mail, Finder. There are possibilities still, but all of it requires a lot of extra work.
Like what? I'm curious
They said High Sierra would be the last macOS to support 32-bit apps "with no compromises". I do in fact believe they said that their next release would be when they'd start warning, but apparently they started a bit earlier than that.
Steam is mixed 32-bit and 64-bit. Not just on Mac, but on Windows and Linux too.
Absolutely not. Apple has done some major optimisations for their 64 bit code, and many things actually take less space with 64 bit code.
Well, the big need for change from 32 to 64 was RAM limitations of 32bit addresses. RAM on 32 bit is limited to 4GB, which is laughably small by today's standards, but were pretty hefty back when it was designed. If we assume that the need for change to 128-bit will be based of RAM limitations again, then the maximum theoretical supported ram for x86_64 is 256 TB of RAM. That's probably not going to happen any time soon, so 64 bits will likely be around for a long time.
Unless you're a MEGA power user running a data center with a super computer that utilizes that much RAM and you need more for a universe-ending simulation that you can't tell us about of course
10.13.4 appears to bring official eGPU support! This is much bigger news than warnings about 32-bit apps. New AMD GPUs are now correctly identified in About This Mac and System Information including:
-Radeon RX 580
-Radeon Pro WX 7100
-Radeon Pro WX 5100
-Radeon RX 570
-Radeon RX 480
-Radeon RX 470
-Radeon Pro WX 4100
-Radeon RX 460
-Radeon RX 560
-Radeon RX 550
-Radeon Pro WX 9100
-Radeon Vega Frontier Edition
-Radeon RX Vega 64
-Radeon RX Vega 56
Now if only we could find those cards in stock at a reasonable price.
-Radeon RX 580
-Radeon Pro WX 7100
-Radeon Pro WX 5100
-Radeon RX 570
-Radeon RX 480
-Radeon RX 470
-Radeon Pro WX 4100
-Radeon RX 460
-Radeon RX 560
-Radeon RX 550
-Radeon Pro WX 9100
-Radeon Vega Frontier Edition
-Radeon RX Vega 64
-Radeon RX Vega 56
Now if only we could find those cards in stock at a reasonable price.
Newegg has a sale on the Radeon Vega Frontier Edition (down to 900$). This card also happens to be in the iMac Pro in the form of the Vega 64 option. Just FYI.10.13.4 appears to bring official eGPU support! This is much bigger news than warnings about 32-bit apps. New AMD GPUs are now correctly identified in About This Mac and System Information including:
-Radeon RX 580
-Radeon Pro WX 7100
-Radeon Pro WX 5100
-Radeon RX 570
-Radeon RX 480
-Radeon RX 470
-Radeon Pro WX 4100
-Radeon RX 460
-Radeon RX 560
-Radeon RX 550
-Radeon Pro WX 9100
-Radeon Vega Frontier Edition
-Radeon RX Vega 64
-Radeon RX Vega 56
Now if only we could find those cards in stock at a reasonable price.
Agree with the rant 100%. It's not time for 32-bit to go. Win7-64 dropped Win16 support and that was just fine because it was time to go.
This is going to bite Apple, especially with developers and tinkerers. iOS dropping 32-bit was one thing but it is a closed environment.
In reading this thread, it's clear there is some confusion of 32-bit applications and 32-bit operating systems.
WRT Linux dropping "support" for 32-bit, 32-bit distros are being dropped which means the O/S will be 64-bit. 32-bit application support is still present (or can be installed, depending on the distro's installation defaults).
I know. They had it on sale for $699 a few weeks ago and the price has steadily risen back to MSRP and now down just a little. It's a very hot and power hungry card so it's not on the top of my wish list.
Some of the 32 bit applications that I have are hardware specific, and have no 64 bit offering; Drobo Dashboard and Fujitsu's ScanSnap for the S1500M scanner (and its several related applications.) I imagine Drobo will have an update, but Fujitsu hasn't updated the S1500M software in years, and the newer scanner's software doesn't work.
Of the other 32 bit software I use, BBEdit, SugarSync, and Reunion are likely to have updates over the next year. My by far favorite ever HTML editor PageSpinner won't, though. I have doubts about Delayed Launcher, which hasn't had an update in 7 years, and No-IP's Dynamic IP updater for 4 years.
I'm still on Sierra (Fusion Drive 2017 iMac bought late December) and in no rush to move on to newer OS yet.
Of the other 32 bit software I use, BBEdit, SugarSync, and Reunion are likely to have updates over the next year. My by far favorite ever HTML editor PageSpinner won't, though. I have doubts about Delayed Launcher, which hasn't had an update in 7 years, and No-IP's Dynamic IP updater for 4 years.
I'm still on Sierra (Fusion Drive 2017 iMac bought late December) and in no rush to move on to newer OS yet.
Thanks for that info, I now see clearly which apps will need to be replaced or updated. Pages and FileMaker are the two biggest on my hit parade. The former is basically not replaceable. The latter is just expensive. As one of the most enthusiastic early adopters of iWork it's been somewhat painful to be the one taking the devolution of these apps in the shorts. Looks like end of the road is in sight unless Apple decides to take mercy on us.
I've been slow to adopt updates to the Mac because of legacy software issues. The last several generations, I wanted to be sure some of my mission critical apps would make the transition, Pages 4.3 being the main one.
Unless you're a MEGA power user running a data center with a super computer that utilizes that much RAM and you need more for a universe-ending simulation that you can't tell us about of course
Eherm..... Uhmmm.... If I were to theoretically have such a system, Which I don't! I think I'd have the resources, which I also don't, to get tailor made hardware and software that was 128-bit... Also I think your calculation is wrong. A 64-bit machine with a sufficient memory controller should be able to handle just under 20 exabytes of memory.
And that mega computer that I definitely don't have that runs a 128-bit chip can theoretically have a trillion Yottabytes of memory. I don't know the names past yotta.... Not that I'd need to know it since I DEFINITELY DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH MEMORY...... Also, it's not for doing the calculations for my death ray, just so we're clear on that.
Didn't we already have official eGPU support?
I just googled for the answer. Completely possible the number is wrong, but my point stands, it's a lot of RAM.
I know. There isn't much need for 128-bit ALU widths either. And I think the theoretical max memory is around 16 exabytes or something ridiculous. I was just being funny. When I'm old everything will be in qubits anyway.Well, the big need for change from 32 to 64 was RAM limitations of 32bit addresses. RAM on 32 bit is limited to 4GB, which is laughably small by today's standards, but were pretty hefty back when it was designed. If we assume that the need for change to 128-bit will be based of RAM limitations again, then the maximum theoretical supported ram for x86_64 is 256 TB of RAM. That's probably not going to happen any time soon, so 64 bits will likely be around for a long time.
Unless you're a MEGA power user running a data center with a super computer that utilizes that much RAM and you need more for a universe-ending simulation that you can't tell us about of course
No, it was in beta testing for developers. Of course technically it's still in beta until the final release of 10.13.4, but most Polaris and Vega cards now have full native support and not just the single RX 580 that was included in the eGPU Dev Kit.
Here is what I am seeing
Attachments
If you jump along to 10.14 which will likely also support 32-bit apps, you will have official support for your OS from Apple the next 3-4 years going forward. After that I'm afraid you'll have to use virtualisation or something to access what you need. I hope there'll be good solutions for you by then.
I can sympathise. iWork was awesome and when we went to version 5 I think it was, it changed a lot for the worst. I personally bit the bullet and just started using the new version, since none of the features that went missing were severely important to me or anything. I kept the old version around though, and funnily enough when I got Word documents the new Pages couldn't handle, the old version actually could just fine. I sadly don't think you should hold your breath for the new iWork to get to par with the old anytime soon though. But I will say that if you don't need some of the features that've been axed from the old iWork, the new versions are fine once you get used to them.
[doublepost=1516836239][/doublepost]
Wasn't it advertised as a launch feature for High Sierra on Apple's website? The consumer facing website. And on the "What's new in High Sierra" when you've just updated from Sierra? - Again, a consumer facing message?
Yes, external GPU support is advertised on the MacOS webpage, but you'll notice there is a small number 3 next to it and if you scroll down 3 says "Planned for spring 2018." 10.13.4 is the spring release that includes that feature.
Yeah. And it scales like 2^x where x is the bit number. So a small increase leads to a massive jump.
The number you gave may be the maximum amount supported by any current memory controller.... That is publicly known about. Not that I wouldn't know anything else about any system I don't have.
Even more than that in fact. I said just under 20 before, but it's 18.44(something, something) Exabytes
[doublepost=1516836789][/doublepost]
I think it's pretty ****** then that they've already marketed it to consumers as if it's an existing feature. Leads to people unknowingly buying into a beta.