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
Or just download VirtualBox and install High Sierra on it.
I did an inventory and the only 32-bit apps that I might need are old versions of TurboTax (2010 and 2011) for tax years still within the SOL plus Bento until I finally export my wine inventory to Excel. Bento was EOLed years ago so I knew I’d eventually have to export the file.
[doublepost=1516856394][/doublepost]
Apple doesn’t target the enterprise with macOS. That ship sailed decades ago.
Microsoft is pushing the subscription model with Office, and has made it affordable for the casual user. $69/year to use on your PC/Mac, iPad/Tablet and phone is pretty reasonable. $99/yr and you get 5 PCs/Macs plus unlimited phones and tablets.
Why would any app developer still keep a 32bit version?
its either updated to 64bit or the software is too old to use. If you have relic software then you can keep using it on relic hardware on relic OS. It will still work. Only games will face this problem as games don't get updated.. at least not the retro ones.
its either updated to 64bit or the software is too old to use. If you have relic software then you can keep using it on relic hardware on relic OS. It will still work. Only games will face this problem as games don't get updated.. at least not the retro ones.
Planned obsolescence and cost cutting is imagine. When was the last time you heard someone say their 2018 Mac was slow because it still runs 32 bit?
Computers are meant to be legacy devices offering full support and backwards comparibiootu IMO because of older programmes.
I guess these people will have to go to Windows if true or is an alternative in there or hope their programs are updated?
So we can suppose they won't support 32 bit apps in 2020, if not fall 2019.
I think they had good reasons to ditch 32 bit support in iOS (less RAM and resources available, keeping in memory 32 and 64 bit libraries was expensive), but it will take longer on the Mac since you can install stuff without the App store and there are tons of legacy app you may need. I bet some folks will stay on High Sierra or on the next version as long as possible to continue using their apps
I think they had good reasons to ditch 32 bit support in iOS (less RAM and resources available, keeping in memory 32 and 64 bit libraries was expensive), but it will take longer on the Mac since you can install stuff without the App store and there are tons of legacy app you may need. I bet some folks will stay on High Sierra or on the next version as long as possible to continue using their apps
No microsoft legacy support is essential and one of the main feature historically, that is critical for many users to be able to run old apps - that is the reason why windows 10 32 bit edition exists
in 64 bit editions of win you have at least windows xpmode (if you are lazy or not able to run virtualized older versions of win) so you can run ms-dos apps from 1985 ...
Snow Leopard was the final pure OS X release before the iOS integration began in Lion.
Snow Leopard was 100% about productivity without this modern day emoji nonsense.
Snow Leopard offers Rosetta for those wishing to run PPC applications.
If you can live with running older software Snow Leopard remains the ultimate OS X release.
It’s ok on iOS with overall a very active developer community, but I feel like macs are too software poor (App Store wise) and the cross platform programs available not via the App Store aren’t necessarily going to want to put in a lot of effort creating/ testing/ maintaining a 64 bit Mac version.
VM's are the way to go, then you can run it on any Mac. If you have external bootable hard disks for older OS then you cannot use it on a newer Mac than the OS was for.
This isn't about app developers' new stuff. If you buy a piece of software for your business that costs $10k, you're likely not going to want to pay an extra $10k to get it upgraded very often. If you're a small businesses that's a hell of a lot of money. And what if it's $100k. Not all corners of software works like the App Store, where you just get the free update and go on your merry way. And for developers, they might not be able to upgrade their app to 64-bit, because they're relying on a library someone else made that's only available as 32-bit. Now if it's a single library you may be able to just go and find an alternative, but if it's 5 libraries and the app is fairly old, you might not bother. But it may still be valuable and important software to people.
I am fairly certain the next release will run 32-bit apps as well, so you can go one more.
I love SL as much as anyone, but without security updates, it's sadly not a very good idea to use it on a production machine.
Definitely. 64-bit started rolling out to Macs in Tiger I think.
You can check in System Information -> Applications. Then there's a column that says "64-bit" and each entry then says yes or no. You can sort by this column.
You can also check running apps in Activity Monitor much in the same way
New apps in AppStore this month, every app in AppStore later this year, non-AppStore probably late 2019.
More details: https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=01242018c
Intel owns a lot of the x86 patents and they don't like to share.
Assuming that Apple plans on going to ARM, and still support 32 bit apps, they would need to emulate the x86 function calls, which would slow everything down, or get Intel to license their IP, which will never happen. Furthermore, putting an ARM to x86 emulator into a PC requires special hardware - at least that's the road MS took.
And I suspect, adding a shim to translate from x86-64 to ARM 64 isn't as involved.
Edit: It could also be a loss of confidence in Intel's ability to secure the x86 instruction set.
[doublepost=1516902451][/doublepost]
I'm not actually sure that's accurate -- especially if you're considering XP SP2, which made it unusable on anything below 256mb of RAM. Meanwhile Windows 10 will happily run on something with a 1.2 GHz processor, 1GB of RAM, and 8GB of storage.
Why would Apple go to ARM on desktop computers? ARM doesn't offer anywhere near the performance as x86 chips even natively. If you have to emulate it'll be like running Java on a 386.
You’re happy they’re killing something that negatively affects others.... because it will have zero impact on you.
That’s one of the most self centred comments I’ve read on this forum in a while... and that’s saying a lot.
[doublepost=1516903723][/doublepost]
Yeah, but tell that to many of the posters on this site who think Apple going Ax for their computers would be the best thing since sliced bread.
Probably not; it's usually not as easy as just recompiling. If it were, 32-bit would have disappeared ages ago.
--Eric
They said 10.13 would be the last OS that would run 32-bit "without compromise," whatever that means. So they should run in 10.14 in some fashion, but that'll be it.
And you just explained why companies like shorter lifecycle support with a hard end in line for usability.
I bought Office 2011 for basic word use at home. today it still does everything perfectly the way I need it to. It doersn't NEED to be 64 bit. there's really no benefit for most basic word usage to go 64bit (though of course not unwelcome when tehy do).
But to create a hard cutoff forcing an upgrade via OS support is a means to generate new revenues. if this were Microsoft dropping 32bit support, they would be lampooned. But yet, when Apple does it. it's "FUTURE PROOFING!" and "OMG BEST EVER!"d despite having absolutely ZERO BENEFIT TO THE USER!
the OS is not running32bit. you're not losing performance for all your programs because there's 32bit compatibility in the OS. there's literally ZERO reason for Apple to drop 32bit support except for development costs.
and you're talking about the richest consumer tech company in the world with billions in assets and revenues, complaining about a couple million in developer costs. we're probably talking about a small team of a dozen people at most to keep 32bit support going.
we're losing 32bit support in OSx purely so that the balance sheet says 38.9% profit margin instead of 38.5%
For creative professionals, 64 bit holds huge benefits, especially when it comes to RAM limitations(4gb vs 17 billion gb).
Logic pro and final cut dropped 32 bit plugins over a year ago. Pro Tools went full 64 bit in v12 IIRC.
There are still a good amount of people that use Mac only because of their careers. For those, 64 bit is a huge improvement. There are plenty of freeware and cheap word processors out there.
Any end of life cycle hurts some users temporarily but in the long term, it aids in progress.