4 ms·

So Apple is dropping 32 bit computing? Hmm .... Gee, I'm building, configuring a server based on an Asus motherboard and the AMD FX-8350 processor, 8 cores, 6

So Apple is dropping 32 bit computing? Hmm .... Gee, I'm building, configuring a server based on an Asus motherboard and the AMD FX-8350 processor, 8 cores, 64 bit addressing. Surprise! I discovered that Windows XP 32 bit Professional SP2 (service pack 2) will install and run! It sees all 8 cores, and the version of Microsoft's TASKMGR plots the activity separately on each of all 8 cores. It also sees the full 16 GB of main memory and is willing to use 2 GB of it with 5 GB of paging space. And I discovered that the Western Digital (WD) Data Lifeguard Tools CD, IIRC version 11.1, boots and runs! This is amazing since what boots is old DOS! The DOS part will boot from a CD/DVD USB (universal serial bus) drive, but then the WD software doesn't run. But if boot from a SATA (serial advanced technology attachment) CD/DVD drive, then the WD software does run. If have the Windows version running and put the WD CD in the SATA drive, then the WD software appears to run as a Windows application! My most important application is 32 bit editor KEdit, and I've discovered that it runs fine on Windows 10 64 bit Home Edition on an HP laptop with a 64 bit Intel processor with two cores and 4 threads. So, lesson: With Windows, AMD, Intel, and ASUS, a lot of 32 bit computing still works! Sorry Apple! My first intention installing Windows XP was just to run some experiments on using the WD Tools to backup and restore a bootable partition, but I've since discovered that apparently my trusty old copy of Nero for CD/DVD reading/writing that I long used on XP appears to install on Windows 10 on the HP laptop but as far as I can tell won't read or write CDs or DVDs. So, for routine reading/writing CDs and DVDs, apparently I should keep a bootable partition with XP. Sorry, Apple, 32 bit computing won't go away soon: The reason is standard and old in computing -- there is a lot of old software people very much still want to run.

wtallis 9y ago
Do you have any examples of 32-bit only software you'd like to run that are actually relevant to Apple users? Listing Windows/DOS utilities providing functionality that is largely built-in to macOS or is specifically intended to work around limitations of Windows isn't a very compelling argument.
- graycat 9y ago
  I have no idea what you are asking about. I've never touched any computer with Linux, Unix, or whatever operating system Apple uses or any Apple device of any kind. My point was simple, really simple, dirt simple: The OP said that Apple was dropping support for 32 bit applications or some such. So, my point was that the AMD, Asus, Microsoft products I listed seem to be continuing 32 bit support, that is, will continue to run some now quite old software. Why make this point? Simple. Standard in computing: Being able to run old software remains important. That's why. I am drawing only from the OP. Again, yet again, over again, once again, one more time, I don't know anything about the 32 bit issue and Apple beyond the remark in the OP. So, in particular, I don't know any details about what emulation, machine instruction rewriting, old thunking, containers, virtual machines, etc. Apple might have for running 32 bit software. Again, I'm just saying that it appears that Apple is in some sense dropping support or some such for some old software and that being able to run old software is sometimes important and, curiously, seems to be possible to some extent on the products I mentioned.
  - nicky0 9y ago
    > Again, yet again, over again, once again, one more time, wow
  - chrisseaton 9y ago
    > curiously, seems to be possible to some extent on the products I mentioned It sounds like you think you've somehow caught Apple out by showing that other systems can 32 bit somehow. Apple know other systems can still run 32 bit. Nobody thinks it isn't possible any more. Apple's own systems can still run 32 bit at the moment. What Apple are doing are voluntarily dropping support for 32 bit, in order to simplify their code base. There's nothing 'curious' about showing that it's voluntary. They know it is. We know it is. > Again, I'm just saying that it appears that Apple is in some sense dropping support or some such for some old software It doesn't 'appear' 'in some sense' that this is what they're doing. You haven't caught them out here. They are dropping support. That's what they've announced. It's deliberate and public. > Standard in computing: Being able to run old software remains important. But there isn't really any old software in the Apple ecosystem. That isn't how Apple developers work and it isn't what Apple users expect. There may be some edge cases but in general people developing for and using Apple computers don't care about old software.
akhatri_aus 9y ago
They're likely doing it so they can support the current x64 apps easily on the ARM chips they're supposedly building in a Rosetta like fashion. You could use all sorts of ways, but if the underlying CPU changes it becomes emulation vs virtualisation. The performance hit is likely enough a cost for a large amount of people to move on despite the old ways never going away
gh02t 9y ago
Apple is a bit special though, since their hardware and software go together. They don't sell 32 bit Macs and have never emphasized backwards compatibility like Windows (or Linux) has and quite often they have emphasized the opposite. Supporting 32 bit is dead weight for them from a business perspective and has been for a while, this shouldn't be a shock for their users.
- LeoPanthera 9y ago
  > have never emphasized backwards compatibility This is mildly misleading. Apple emphasizes backwards compatibility, temporarily. 68k apps ran on PowerPC systems. Classic MacOS apps ran on OS X systems. PowerPC apps ran on Intel systems. Apple is a master of architecture shifts - they've had so many of them! But the compatibility is always temporary. Enough for customers to get their apps shifted over.
  - jammi 9y ago
    They also learned from their first architecture shifts, which didn't go all that well. Apple II to Apple III flopped early. Apple II to Lisa was nonexistent. Apple II to Mac could've been a 1984 to 1985 thing if executed well, but instead it took until 1993 for Apple II to be killed. Lisa to Mac was just recycling the old hardware for the new OS via MacWorks.
    - LeoPanthera 9y ago
      Don't forget that for a while you could buy an Apple-IIe-on-a-card that went inside your Mac and let you run Apple II software. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_IIe_Card https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_IIe_Card
  - gh02t 9y ago
    That's why I qualified it with "like Windows or Linux", but yes they haven't totally disregarded backwards compatibility. They definitely have a history of dropping support for many things a couple years after they stop selling hardware that supports it, but they don't do so without warning.

wtallis 9y ago

Do you have any examples of 32-bit only software you'd like to run that are actually relevant to Apple users? Listing Windows/DOS utilities providing functionality that is largely built-in to macOS or is specifically intended to work around limitations of Windows isn't a very compelling argument.

graycat 9y ago
I have no idea what you are asking about. I've never touched any computer with Linux, Unix, or whatever operating system Apple uses or any Apple device of any kind. My point was simple, really simple, dirt simple: The OP said that Apple was dropping support for 32 bit applications or some such. So, my point was that the AMD, Asus, Microsoft products I listed seem to be continuing 32 bit support, that is, will continue to run some now quite old software. Why make this point? Simple. Standard in computing: Being able to run old software remains important. That's why. I am drawing only from the OP. Again, yet again, over again, once again, one more time, I don't know anything about the 32 bit issue and Apple beyond the remark in the OP. So, in particular, I don't know any details about what emulation, machine instruction rewriting, old thunking, containers, virtual machines, etc. Apple might have for running 32 bit software. Again, I'm just saying that it appears that Apple is in some sense dropping support or some such for some old software and that being able to run old software is sometimes important and, curiously, seems to be possible to some extent on the products I mentioned.
- nicky0 9y ago
  > Again, yet again, over again, once again, one more time, wow
- chrisseaton 9y ago
  > curiously, seems to be possible to some extent on the products I mentioned It sounds like you think you've somehow caught Apple out by showing that other systems can 32 bit somehow. Apple know other systems can still run 32 bit. Nobody thinks it isn't possible any more. Apple's own systems can still run 32 bit at the moment. What Apple are doing are voluntarily dropping support for 32 bit, in order to simplify their code base. There's nothing 'curious' about showing that it's voluntary. They know it is. We know it is. > Again, I'm just saying that it appears that Apple is in some sense dropping support or some such for some old software It doesn't 'appear' 'in some sense' that this is what they're doing. You haven't caught them out here. They are dropping support. That's what they've announced. It's deliberate and public. > Standard in computing: Being able to run old software remains important. But there isn't really any old software in the Apple ecosystem. That isn't how Apple developers work and it isn't what Apple users expect. There may be some edge cases but in general people developing for and using Apple computers don't care about old software.

akhatri_aus 9y ago

They're likely doing it so they can support the current x64 apps easily on the ARM chips they're supposedly building in a Rosetta like fashion. You could use all sorts of ways, but if the underlying CPU changes it becomes emulation vs virtualisation. The performance hit is likely enough a cost for a large amount of people to move on despite the old ways never going away

gh02t 9y ago

Apple is a bit special though, since their hardware and software go together. They don't sell 32 bit Macs and have never emphasized backwards compatibility like Windows (or Linux) has and quite often they have emphasized the opposite. Supporting 32 bit is dead weight for them from a business perspective and has been for a while, this shouldn't be a shock for their users.

LeoPanthera 9y ago
> have never emphasized backwards compatibility This is mildly misleading. Apple emphasizes backwards compatibility, temporarily. 68k apps ran on PowerPC systems. Classic MacOS apps ran on OS X systems. PowerPC apps ran on Intel systems. Apple is a master of architecture shifts - they've had so many of them! But the compatibility is always temporary. Enough for customers to get their apps shifted over.
- jammi 9y ago
  They also learned from their first architecture shifts, which didn't go all that well. Apple II to Apple III flopped early. Apple II to Lisa was nonexistent. Apple II to Mac could've been a 1984 to 1985 thing if executed well, but instead it took until 1993 for Apple II to be killed. Lisa to Mac was just recycling the old hardware for the new OS via MacWorks.
  - LeoPanthera 9y ago
    Don't forget that for a while you could buy an Apple-IIe-on-a-card that went inside your Mac and let you run Apple II software. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_IIe_Card https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_IIe_Card
- gh02t 9y ago
  That's why I qualified it with "like Windows or Linux", but yes they haven't totally disregarded backwards compatibility. They definitely have a history of dropping support for many things a couple years after they stop selling hardware that supports it, but they don't do so without warning.