And yet windows 10 boots faster and performs better than Mac OS and can run on far lower specced systems than MacOS can.
Apple loves screwing over anyone who is a user beyond using the built in apps to check Facebook.
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
And yet windows 10 boots faster and performs better than Mac OS and can run on far lower specced systems than MacOS can.
Apple loves screwing over anyone who is a user beyond using the built in apps to check Facebook.
With respect to Linux, my points wasn't that Linux was dropping support for 32-bit apps. My point was that the distribution maintainers chose to abandon the 32-bit distribution packaging because it was too much of a hassle relative to the reward, to maintain and test for.
Meh. Windows XP boots much faster and performs better than Windows 10 and can run on far lower specced systems.
How big is this performance hit? Can someone do a side to side comparison? I see a lot of people bringing this point up, but if the slowdown is imperceptible.. I would really want to know
That's very machine dependant and task dependant so there's no definitive answer.
[doublepost=1516837356][/doublepost]
It doesn't perform better than macOS though. Run something like Premiere on both and you'll see pretty much identical results with the same hardware.
So well said I have nothing more to add (a few people just breathed a sigh of relief). Well, just a little (sharp intake of breath).
Supporting legacy stuff always comes at a cost, and the longer it is done, the greater that cost becomes. Microsoft would be about a fifth the size if they didn't have to support an old code base, and even they have strict limits on what they will support, and for how long.
Sean
Thanks my friend
. That post is also bombing me with so many likes I get a notification every minute, haha
Cause some stuff doesn't get updated ever, especially games. I play games rarely and almost never buy new ones (else I'd use Windows lol), and it really sucks updating my OS and finding that my favorite game no longer works. Many games have no replacement, like Rome Total War (RTW 2 sucks). So I'm afraid to update, and I'm sure many are in the same boat, but I'm also aware of the security risks of staying outdated while others are not.
From my selfish perspective, the update isn't worth it if my software breaks. I agree it sets a bad precedent to provide kernel-level backwards compatibility that far, but I'd really appreciate an emulator running in userspace.
[doublepost=1516838307][/doublepost]
Yeah, good luck. RX580 was like $270 before Christmas, and I didn't buy it. Huge mistake. Now all these ******s are mining ethereum with it, so it's at least $500.10.13.4 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.
Last edited:
Well, first off, Apple supports the two prior releases with security updates, so waiting a bit won't make you outdated. Second you can always keep an old OS on an external hard drive, and just use that for your legacy games.
And third, regarding security, there's still an aspect of herd immunity. If 99% of people update and become immune, a malware-maker might not bother producing the malware to attack the remaining 1%
This is so wrong. Apple should not be destroying our access to our tools. There are a lot of older apps that educational users need, that small businesses need, that large business need and that individuals need which are not getting updated. Imagine if the works of Mozart or Shakespeare were lost because of this sort of rubbish?!
Apple should work to create backward compatibility, legacy support, for ALL software all the way back to the Lisa and Apple I. If it ran on Apple hardware before it should still run. While they're at it they could support DOS, CPM, Windoze, etc. Apple has the resources to do this. They should not be destroying access to our old tools and data. They should preserve that access.
Apple should work to create backward compatibility, legacy support, for ALL software all the way back to the Lisa and Apple I. If it ran on Apple hardware before it should still run. While they're at it they could support DOS, CPM, Windoze, etc. Apple has the resources to do this. They should not be destroying access to our old tools and data. They should preserve that access.
iMovie masquerading as a 64bit app, but running a 32bit "Codec32BitTool_sb" process for video processing in the background… I wonder if Apple will finally update the very slow antique codec, or if they'll hypocritically allow a special exemption for themselves…
I think that the first release of macOS that cuts 32-bit support will only cut 32-bit support for the main app executable, not any child processes. But the release after that will finish the job
I disagree. This is what software developers get paid for. If you want your software to run on the new system, get your developer to recompile / rewrite it for your architecture.
Besides, if you ABSOLUTELY must have access to older tools, thats what virtual machines are for. This solution is a far more elegant, and far more secure than having a bloated kernel or OS for tools that 99.9% of users will never use.
You're not alone. Users that knew any better LOVED the fact that SL was really a "tock" cycle, where they essentially just took Leopard and made it better, faster, and awesomer.
Apple should do that again.
Apple says that's what Mountain Lion, Mavericks, El Capitan and High Sierra have been
or get a windows computer for games.. you know.. since windows cares about aaa games hahaha
It does perform better in terms of app opening speed and boot time. Mac OS on mechcial HDDs is attroticous, windows 10 is tolerable.
And wha happens after those two versions?
Perhaps if Apple didn’t screw people over then they’d be more willing to update.
In reality, so many programs and games will never be updated. There is nothing elegant about virtual machines, the 32bit games I have I know for a fact won’t run on virtual machines.
The consumer looses out from this. I’ve lost so much software over the years and having to maintain working systems just to run software is the antithesis of the ‘it just works’ apple mantra.
Re "Apple supports the two prior releases": I don't think this is true anymore. They used to support 1 behind for sure, but idk if that's still the case, and there are definitely security patches that HS got that El Capitan didn't.
Separate hard drive for OS: It's a pain. I have a separate HDD for Windows if I really want to play games, but then of course I have to sync up all my other stuff like messaging on that. Sucks cause I (and other people) want to chill sometimes playing games while still having everything in the background if needed. I'd use a VM if it weren't so problematic for games in particular.
I use the "herd immunity" as one of many arguments for browsing using Safari instead of Chrome since theoretically it's just as secure but less widely used, but I wouldn't rely on it for outdated OSs. Some of these vulnerabilities can be exploited with fully automated things like network scans that make it worthwhile, and then you're really toast. The Bash bug was a big one if you were running a webserver, NTP bug if you're a user with auto-time-set enabled.
Thanks for posting that. It looks similar to the first iOS warning messages, IIRC. Those messages got more insistent in the next major version of iOS, and then support was finally dropped in the major version after that. If Apple follows a similar path, then 10.14 will support 32-bit apps with scary/insistent messages, and 10.15 will drop support completely.
Alternatively, the "compromises" of running 32-bit apps in 10.14 might be more severe than simply a stern warning message. At the more extreme end of consequences, I could see something like needing to reboot into a "32-bit compatibility mode" in order to run 32-bit user-space apps, or perhaps a built-in emulation or virtualization layer that imposes a significant memory and performance penalty every time a 32-bit app is launched.
The benefit of the latter approach is that Apple could continue providing support for those useful legacy 32-bit apps for several more years a la Rosetta and PowerPC software.
They very recently sent security updates out for El Capitan.
And yeah, it's not exactly the best experience, but it's one I use myself. I prefer to also just have it all in one and play my games in macOS, but you know, working with what you have.
I'm not saying I'd think that way for a production machine either, but for a system that's just playing games, I wouldn't worry too much