yes, it's 'brainless Apple propaganda'. and no other OS will ever move forward, ever. thanks for the tech update!
You’re only proving my point, good job.
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.
32-bit programs in macOS 10.15
- Thread starter milleron
- Start date
-
- Tags
- macos 10.15 32-bit
- Sort by reaction score
You’re only proving my point, good job.
that's what i'm here for; so you can whine, and i can give you the support you need...
EDIT: seriously, i apologize; if i act juvenile, then i'm no better than the whiners. apple moves things forward, and we're not in on the discussion; that's just how it works. so... adapt, or don't.
these forums are so good for getting (& providing) help, and a great place to discuss. just wish there was a filter for the 'whiny, complaining' posts... or that people would complain less, discuss more.
Last edited:
Why aren't people actually complaining to the App developers who develop and app, get money for it, and then don't support it! You want the advantage of modern technology tools, the you have to live with any downsides for staying up with technology. There was a similar complaints before IOS dropped 32 bit support but almost no complaints afterwards.
It isn't a huge deal to upgrade and app to 64 bits but why aren't developers doing it? Maybe a significant number of developers don't really exist anymore.
It isn't a huge deal to upgrade and app to 64 bits but why aren't developers doing it? Maybe a significant number of developers don't really exist anymore.
I was wondering... we will still be able to run virtual machines with 32-bit OS inside them, right?
Like, I could live with a VM with High Sierra in it just for the 32 bit apps and call it a day.
Has anyone tried running Parallels with a 32 bit OS VM?
Like, I could live with a VM with High Sierra in it just for the 32 bit apps and call it a day.
Has anyone tried running Parallels with a 32 bit OS VM?
No software ever gets supported and updated forever. It’s the reality of computing. The operating system has a responsibility to maintain reasonable compatibility for software that was produced for earlier versions of it.
Scrapping 32-bit support as this point in time is not reasonable, when x86_64 CPUs still support 32-bit and other operating systems will continue to support it. Apple has no excuse like in the days of 68k to PPC, or PPC to x86. It's still the same architecture and requires no emulation, just having the 32-bit compiles of their libraries, which Apple can certainly afford to do with all their ridiculous profitability.
[doublepost=1561942356][/doublepost]
Yes but it’s going to be near worthless for things that need graphics acceleration though.
Last edited:
really? it's the responsibility of apple to maintain compatibility with the thousands of apps out there, not the responsibility of a developer to keep their app(s) working with one OS?
let's be realistic. it's always been this way, because it makes sense...
Yes, it is. Because in the real world, no software gets maintained forever, no matter how much Apple kool-aid you drink.
And the only reason Apple gets away with it is because of people like you who champion their anti-consumer practices that are considered unacceptable elsewhere.
We went through when we went from 16 to 32 the world didn't end
Apple responsibility should be a reliable way to check which software is 32bit, just to know if something is going to stop working. Mojave doesn’t give precise info.
As you pointed in another post, a LOT of users are going to have problems. They’ll be perhaps audio or video pros seeing broken plug-in’s. That’s where real whining will start...
Anyhow, Ubuntu quickly regretted and is keeping 32bit comp. after announcing same “advance” as Apple.
May we expect two versions of Catalina? Just adding a Catalina-legacy version to stop users downgrade again to make “that” little but so crucial component to work again.
AND it keeps being odd that Apple doesn’t announce this “minor” change with big, red typography.
ha, yes, i'm responsible for what apple does
[doublepost=1561981009][/doublepost]
regularly, when you open a 32bit-app on mojave, you get a warning. and, you can:
option-click on the apple; open 'System Information'. scroll down to "Applications'. click on "64bit" (you can click & reverse the order), and you'll see all your 32bit software listed.
I wish (my whining) "System Info." would "just work"... but it doesn't.
(...) "System Information has other shortcomings. Most significantly, it only lists apps, and not other executable code in bundles" (...)
https://eclecticlight.co/2019/05/22/how-to-find-all-your-32-bit-apps-a-non-buyers-guide/
In this clear & nicely written article, "5. What’s the problem?", at the end, gives you a good resume. And a good explanation about why this is not as simple as 32bit & 64bit apps...
Last edited:
apps that are 32bit won't work in catalina. support files (adobe, for example, has a lot of them) that are 32bit won't work; all of these are listed under system information. either way... what's your point exactly?
those apps won't work in the new OS. their support files won't work. i have a 64bit adobe app supported by 32bit files... it won't work.
this is how it is; accept it, move forward, or don't. up to you....
This might be a prelude to moving from x86 to ARM processors, especially if Apple is planning to put in some sort of Rosetta-like translation or emulation layer. Not supporting 32-bit x86 means one less translation layer to manage. I can imagine trying to translate 32-bit x86 binaries onto 64-bit ARM would be a nightmare (relatively speaking) compared to going from x86_64 to ARM64.
Even if there won’t be a translation layer, it makes migration and app recompiles easier from one codebase to the other if the two platforms are the same width and endianness. I wonder if “64-bit only” is also required (or strongly preferred) by the Catalyst development team.
Even if there won’t be a translation layer, it makes migration and app recompiles easier from one codebase to the other if the two platforms are the same width and endianness. I wonder if “64-bit only” is also required (or strongly preferred) by the Catalyst development team.
The point is: software considered 64bit by Mojave COULD not work in Catalina. 64bit apps could fail to work even after close user inspection. A way to prevent this, is to start Mojave in 64bit only mode, and test your apps.
I think is not going to be as seamless as told. That's all.
It's not a "personal" question... It's ok for me! I can stay and also move forward! Just two start-up discs... No problem at all: my most used app is Pages. I even suppose will leave external drive for Mojave (a few games for me & my children).
check under 'system information'. even tho my adobe app is 64bit, there are adobe files listed there that support it, that are 32bit. so it won't work.
who said it was going to be seamless? it's going to be a mess; people who move to catalina and THEN discover apps that no longer work. i've never said otherwise... am an apple fan, not a fanatic.
but... it is what is. so you find new apps, or not. or stay on a previous OS. and life goes on.
Required, but it is still not clear to me if a 64 bit app that has a couple pieces of code that are still in 32 bit, will the app still open and just jam up when you get to that 32 bit code updater or whatever? I'm guessing that if the OS sees the code, the whole app gets blocked.
Example: Ableton live 10.1 give a message in Mojave that it won't run with future osx versions. But I have heard it does open in Catalina, but stalls on using any VST plugins.So probably some 32 bit code involved there.
Last edited:
this is what i mentioned with the adobe app; the app is 64bit, but there are adobe support files (listed in 'system information') that won't run; hence, the 64bit app won't run. there is no (working) 32bit code in catalina...
yeah, but it does seem that parts of some of these apps will sort of run, to a point. I guess that is better than nothing till they get fully updated.
you have evidence of this? if catalina is fully 64bit, 32bit code can not run. (if i'm missing something here, someone smarter than me should chime in). but, as i understand it, it's impossible...
Apparently someone said Live ran but had some issues, but opened. The 32 bit part did not work to be clear. That is a case of some 32 bit code inside some extensions of the app I guess.
nothing 32bit will run, there's simply no architecture to support it.
Well... It seems APFS could make this transition easier: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208891
I understand Catalina could be installed on “native” drive beside Mojave. It’s a 20Gb spend, but makes possible to live in both worlds till every 32bit component is upgraded by developer or substituted by user...
I understand Catalina could be installed on “native” drive beside Mojave. It’s a 20Gb spend, but makes possible to live in both worlds till every 32bit component is upgraded by developer or substituted by user...
Dual boot in this case will be many many people’s last solution for 32-bit support, with a handful lucky enough to run High Sierra or older version for better compatibility.
Okay, I'll take a moment and do this. The 64 bit support in Catalina will be system wide - meaning That 32 bit support components in the OS are being replaced where possible, dropped where deprecated (and for the people bitching about it those deprivations have been on the record for almost 9 years to developers in most cases - example 1 being avfoundation was always meant to replace quicktime and it has been slowly decommissioned,removed or replaced stage by stage since then - this is NOT news)
System wide also means hardware level, with efi updates and mode changes to the hardware firmware itself. This has been something in the making since snow leopard/lion transition - anyone remember when the 64 bit efi support was an issue and the 1.1 Mac Pro could not run in that mode? Again, not news and not new and nothing developers have not had more than 7-9 years to prep for. Don't blame apple for not going the windows route and trying to keep dos alive in some weird bastard form for nearly 25 years after it's lifespan, that bandaid should have come off with Windows xp. Better point, they have had a 64 bit system for more than 25 years (custom private customer builds for Itanium systems) but chose to bastardize that too when they released Windows for 64..with yet another archive support system for Win32. It just didn't make sense and it never has.
Before anyone else whines. Does anyone remember when you bought software written in machine language for specific processors - circa early to middle 90's and do you remember how well it ran and how when it transitioned to other systems it lost it's overall edge in being purpose built? Yes, that's the thing going on here. Best example I can give you is to take a hard look at the recent logic update. The expansion and optimization of it is absolutely awe inspiring and a hard turn > right here/right now proof of concept that this strategy is the way forward.
At the end it's going to be a terrific thing. Full use of the hardware capabilities, code optimization like no previous generations before it and the push to get the third parties to make apps that make the most of the systems they run on with a security model that's will make everything but a few private UNIX implementations hang their heads in shame. It's the end of the Windows/Mac debate. No one argued about them in the way back machine because they were entirely different platforms with no real relation to one another. You chose them based on the work you wanted to do and what made sense, financially and tool wise.The same as you aren't going to find a lot of Windows Server vs Unix debates because you simply cannot compare the software/hardware platforms on a 1:1 basis. The only reason this happens now is because of Apple marketing of bootcamp and the tv ads from 15 years ago. Get over it and move on - I like John Hodgeman too but it's not even relevant anymore with the next generation devices that are coming. It's come back full circle to the difference in them, not how closely you can make one mimic the other.
Last edited: