5 ms·
>What was wrong with being able to run both old and new software? There's wasn't much wrong with being able to run it but there's a hell of a lot of technical
by dkonofalski 7y ago
>What was wrong with being able to run both old and new software?
There's wasn't much wrong with being able to run it but there's a hell of a lot of technical debt that comes with being able to support and maintain it. Every binary that needed to run on 32 and 64 bit OSs had double the code in it, double the dependencies, and literally double of everything. Developers were all notified about the change more than 3 years ago and 2 OS versions ago. This was not a surprise.
>I would pick Linux instead.
And you have that option. Godspeed.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- pazimzadeh 7y agoNot really. 32-bit apps run on Mojave and below without needing 64-bit code. Unless an app needs to address more than 4 GB of RAM, there's no great need to make it 64-bit. On the other hand, going from 32 to 64 bit requires work up front.
- dkonofalski 7y agoYou're missing the point. The OS moved to 64-bit because that's where it has to go from here. While 32-bit "still works" right now, it will eventually not be enough. The work to make the move to 64-bit already happened so keeping both 32-bit and 64-bit binaries takes up additional space, additional upkeep, and separate development paths.