Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Made A Huge Mistake, Removed 32-bit Feature For No Good Reason

K

Krogoth

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Dec 11, 2019
1
0
Okay, seriously... why?!

I can't run old Windows XP era apps on macOS anymore because Apple has put a mechanism on the kernel level that prevents users from running 32-bit executables...

So wine is now broken for me. Not because functionality was removed from macOS that allowed users to run 32-bit assembly language, but rather, an artificial barrier was put in place that blocks 32-bit execution. WHY?!

Like, I can understand why Apple would add something radical like SIP which sort of de-jailbreaks your desktop OS for the sake of security, but blocking certain apps from running because... reasons..?

POSSIBLE SOLUTION
Hopefully this trick will fix Catalina, there is a macOS boot argument that removes the artificial barrier:

no32exec=0

But I'll need to compile wine manually on my system to target 10.15.2

I'll let everyone know how this goes.
 
Steve121178

Steve121178

macrumors 603
Apr 13, 2010
6,463
7,170
Bedfordshire, UK
Krogoth said:
Okay, seriously... why?!

I can't run old Windows XP era apps on macOS anymore because Apple has put a mechanism on the kernel level that prevents users from running 32-bit executables...

So wine is now broken for me. Not because functionality was removed from macOS that allowed users to run 32-bit assembly language, but rather, an artificial barrier was put in place that blocks 32-bit execution. WHY?!

Like, I can understand why Apple would add something radical like SIP which sort of de-jailbreaks your desktop OS for the sake of security, but blocking certain apps from running because... reasons..?

POSSIBLE SOLUTION
Hopefully this trick will fix Catalina, there is a macOS boot argument that removes the artificial barrier:

no32exec=0

But I'll need to compile wine manually on my system to target 10.15.2

I'll let everyone know how this goes.
Click to expand...

What on earth are you still trying to run from the XP era?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 26139
QuarterSwede

QuarterSwede

macrumors G3
Oct 1, 2005
9,886
2,157
Colorado Springs, CO
You don't understand why Apple removed (not just hid) support for 32-bit apps. Yes, the hardware is still capable or running 32-bit apps (install Linux, Windows, etc) but that software support is truly gone in macOS. They began the 64-bit transition a DECADE ago.

This long article by Martin Pilkington is the best explanation I've yet read as to why. It truly tells you why from a hardware and developer perspective (how Apple thinks). The reasons are good for users in terms of speed, storage, and more importantly, RAM space. It also allows them to fix more bugs in the 64-bit code as they don't have to deal with the 32-bit code at all. And finally, this should allow them to transition to ARM even quicker as they would obviously go 64-bit only as all A-series chips have been 64-bit for years.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Vlad Soare, jbachandouris, archer75 and 4 others
MSastre

MSastre

macrumors 6502a
Aug 18, 2014
614
278
Krogoth said:
Okay, seriously... why?!

I can't run old Windows XP era apps on macOS anymore because Apple has put a mechanism on the kernel level that prevents users from running 32-bit executables...

So wine is now broken for me. Not because functionality was removed from macOS that allowed users to run 32-bit assembly language, but rather, an artificial barrier was put in place that blocks 32-bit execution. WHY?!

Like, I can understand why Apple would add something radical like SIP which sort of de-jailbreaks your desktop OS for the sake of security, but blocking certain apps from running because... reasons..?

POSSIBLE SOLUTION
Hopefully this trick will fix Catalina, there is a macOS boot argument that removes the artificial barrier:

no32exec=0

But I'll need to compile wine manually on my system to target 10.15.2

I'll let everyone know how this goes.
Click to expand...

You can always run your 32-bit apps from the clone of your system drive. You surely made one before upgrading, didn't you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jdogg836 and aristobrat
C

CTHarrryH

macrumors 68030
Jul 4, 2012
2,967
1,482
Any developer who hasn't updated their apps in a long while is going to be a problem eventually. Something else in a os could change and cause problems. Forcing people to move forward is good. XP really - shouldn't run that on windows machines anymore
 
fisherking

fisherking

macrumors G4
Jul 16, 2010
11,252
5,563
ny somewhere
even for people who are terrified of moving forward (just scroll thru this forum, sigh)... who still runs mac os 9? or 10.3? eventually, we do upgrade, and life goes on.

if you don't want to be out in front with the advances in the OS, don't upgrade until you're ready. which you will be... when you're ready (or you have to).
 
blake2

blake2

macrumors member
Jan 15, 2013
61
40
Pittsburgh PA
Two of the programs I'll miss are Basilisk GUI and Boxer, to run old Dos and Mac 7.x games for the sentimental value. But I heard Basilisk is working on a 64-bit update and hopefully there will be another emulator for the dos too soon.
 
G

Glenny2lappies

macrumors 6502a
Sep 29, 2006
578
420
Brighton, UK
Steve121178 said:
What on earth are you still trying to run from the XP era?
Click to expand...

Like having to finally ditch that Adobe CS4 suite I bought about 10 years ago. Happy to use Fireworks occasionally; like an old pair of shoes, it worked well. I'm absolutely not happy to pay a single cent extra to that arch-gouger Adobe just for some additional features I don't want nor need.

What about all the little utilities that just keep working.

There's loads of stuff that I've had to delete when being forced to use Catalina. Admittedly some applications were past their sell-by date, but many weren't.
 
fuchsdh

fuchsdh

macrumors 68020
Jun 19, 2014
2,028
1,831
Glenny2lappies said:
Like having to finally ditch that Adobe CS4 suite I bought about 10 years ago. Happy to use Fireworks occasionally; like an old pair of shoes, it worked well. I'm absolutely not happy to pay a single cent extra to that arch-gouger Adobe just for some additional features I don't want nor need.

What about all the little utilities that just keep working.

There's loads of stuff that I've had to delete when being forced to use Catalina. Admittedly some applications were past their sell-by date, but many weren't.
Click to expand...

You can always downgrade or keep a legacy machine for these purposes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QuarterSwede
IowaLynn

IowaLynn

macrumors 68020
Feb 22, 2015
2,145
589
I don't think any computer connected to the net should be outside the deadline for receiving security updates.

And why can't old systems run in a VM if you must and bite that bullet. Buy an older Mac mini or something dedicated to that.
 
Anonymous Freak

Anonymous Freak

macrumors 603
Dec 12, 2002
5,604
1,388
Cascadia
The removal was good. Before Apple mandated the switch, many developers were stalling moving to 64-bit.

On PowerPC, that wasn't a big deal. 32-bit and 64-bit were both part of the initial PowerPC spec, and unless you're directly dealing with 64-bit data, or needing >4GB of RAM in a single process, 32-bit is just as fast as 64-bit on PowerPC.

But on Intel? Whole different story. For a workload that doesn't need to use 64-bit data, and doesn't need >4 GB of RAM for a single process, simply compiling and running in 64-bit mode gives a ~10% speed increase! Because the 64-bit extensions did away with much of the original 8086/80386 cruft of the original Intel instruction set, adds more registers, and many other improvements.

If Apple had stayed with PowerPC, there wouldn't have been any real necessary reason to mandate the switch. But because they moved to Intel, there is major benefit. (Plus 32-bit x86 has all sorts of oddball edge cases that have to be taken in to account when designing an OS that can be ignored in 64-bit.)

I understand the need/desire to run old software. But keep a dedicated "vintage" machine for that, or use newer emulation software. (DOSbox, Basilisk II, SheepShaver all have 64-bit builds available. No, the pretty GUIs aren't ready yet, but they will be.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: QuarterSwede
G

Glenny2lappies

macrumors 6502a
Sep 29, 2006
578
420
Brighton, UK
As it happens I'm still trying to get VMWare Fusion to build a Mojave VM. Unfortunately I can't get the MBP 16 to download it from the Apple application store - says it can't be installed.

I know I'm going to have to use one of my older machines to download it... Just would have been nice to use my shiny new one which has all the SSD space and RAM.
 
E

Eliott69

macrumors regular
Mar 16, 2019
112
116
Glenny2lappies said:
As it happens I'm still trying to get VMWare Fusion to build a Mojave VM. Unfortunately I can't get the MBP 16 to download it from the Apple application store - says it can't be installed.

I know I'm going to have to use one of my older machines to download it... Just would have been nice to use my shiny new one which has all the SSD space and RAM.
Click to expand...
I did that yesterday. You should be able to download Mojave with the macOS Mojave Patcher Tool from Collin's dosdude1 page.

I now run Apple Mail with it for the foreseeable future (because of the Mail-column-debacle Apple created with Catalina).
 
  • Like
Reactions: KALLT and Glenny2lappies
W

weckart

macrumors 603
Nov 7, 2004
5,976
3,697
Fortunately, storage is cheap these days so it is trivial to add a Mojave or earlier volume, unless you have a post-2015 MBP, in which case you might need external storage.
 
K

KALLT

macrumors 603
Sep 23, 2008
5,380
3,415
While the decision to remove 32-bit support from system libraries is disappointing, the decision is nevertheless understandable. No product lasts forever. These libraries only served backwards compatibility at this point, as the kernel itself has been running in 64-bit mode for over a decade. This means that Apple has to spend development resources just to assure that this software can run. In some cases, such as the Carbon API, 32-bit support was the only reason for its continued existence.

Software that still needs these 32-bit libraries is either unmaintained (thus likely never updated) or is based on old technology (neglect by the developer). Apple should not stay beholden to such software forever. There never would be the “right time” anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QuarterSwede, Vlad Soare and fisherking
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom