4 ms·

To be fair, microsoft's userbase requires backwards compatibility a lot more than apple's does, since Macs are largely consumer systems rather than enterprise o

by mishac 10y ago

To be fair, microsoft's userbase requires backwards compatibility a lot more than apple's does, since Macs are largely consumer systems rather than enterprise ones. Microsoft got flack for dropping 16bit app support in 64bit OSes (since 64 bit windows doesn't have NTVDM). They'd be flayed alive if they dropped 32bit support.

mikeash 10y ago
Apple still supports 32-bit apps. Aside from memory usage and possibly performance, the difference is not noticeable to the user.
wtallis 10y ago
32 vs 64-bit app support is quite separate from 32 vs 64-bit kernel-space drivers. 32-bit operating systems need 32-bit drivers and 64-bit operating systems need 64-bit drivers. 64-bit operating systems can run 64-bit apps and 32-bit apps. Crucially, however, 32-bit Mac OS X 10.5 could run 64-bit apps just fine. That, combined with OS X's universal binary support, made it easy to start deploying 64-bit application code far earlier than most Windows apps began transitioning. Most of Apple's computer models were only available with 32-bit x86 for less than a year, so the installed base that needed their applications to still be 32-bit was minuscule compared to the installed base of 32-bit Windows editions that couldn't run 64-bit apps even if the CPU was 64-bit capable. Most Windows application developers faced bigger challenges in deploying 64-bit code than Mac app developers, and the Windows devs' work would benefit a much smaller fraction of their userbase. Windows app developers don't switch to 64-bit unless they absolutely have to. (e.g. this year's 64-bit re-release of Skyrim, to accommodate the address space requirements of heavy modding. Skyrim was originally released in late 2011 as a 32-bit only game despite listing CPU requirements that couldn't be satisfied by any 32-bit CPU.)

4 ms·

To be fair, microsoft's userbase requires backwards compatibility a lot more than apple's does, since Macs are largely consumer systems rather than enterprise o

by mishac 10y ago

mikeash 10y ago
Apple still supports 32-bit apps. Aside from memory usage and possibly performance, the difference is not noticeable to the user.
wtallis 10y ago
32 vs 64-bit app support is quite separate from 32 vs 64-bit kernel-space drivers. 32-bit operating systems need 32-bit drivers and 64-bit operating systems need 64-bit drivers. 64-bit operating systems can run 64-bit apps and 32-bit apps. Crucially, however, 32-bit Mac OS X 10.5 could run 64-bit apps just fine. That, combined with OS X's universal binary support, made it easy to start deploying 64-bit application code far earlier than most Windows apps began transitioning. Most of Apple's computer models were only available with 32-bit x86 for less than a year, so the installed base that needed their applications to still be 32-bit was minuscule compared to the installed base of 32-bit Windows editions that couldn't run 64-bit apps even if the CPU was 64-bit capable. Most Windows application developers faced bigger challenges in deploying 64-bit code than Mac app developers, and the Windows devs' work would benefit a much smaller fraction of their userbase. Windows app developers don't switch to 64-bit unless they absolutely have to. (e.g. this year's 64-bit re-release of Skyrim, to accommodate the address space requirements of heavy modding. Skyrim was originally released in late 2011 as a 32-bit only game despite listing CPU requirements that couldn't be satisfied by any 32-bit CPU.)