5 ms·

It will be interesting to see how long Rosetta-2 will be supported. macOS 10.15 took away 32bit apps, which was a sizeable chunk so clearly Apple is willing to

by Tepix 6y ago

It will be interesting to see how long Rosetta-2 will be supported. macOS 10.15 took away 32bit apps, which was a sizeable chunk so clearly Apple is willing to alienate some of its users in the name of progress and slimlining.

Bud 6y ago
Is that even a serious criticism? Users had about ten years of warning before 32-bit went away. The real impact of that on real users is minimal.
- _ph_ 6y ago
  Yes, there were warnings, but what can I as a user do about it? I am impacted by 32 bit going away and I cannot do anything about it. That is why I am running Mojava instead of Catalina. On the bright side, whenever I am going to buy a new Mac, the ARM processor effectively doesn't cause any additional troubles on the compatibility side, and that was probably the reason for Apple to kill 32 bit with Catalina.
  - Bud 6y ago
    But there is something you can do about it. You're already doing it. You can run Mojave. You want the platform to be weighed down with cruft forever because of a 0.01% use case? Do you want 8-bit support in there too, for the 68000?
    - sgerenser 6y ago
      68000 Mac apps were never 8 bit, the CPU had a 24-bit address space!
      - Bud 6y ago
        I'm sorry. Thank you for the correction.
- Doctor_Fegg 6y ago
  There are some non-trivial apps used by real users that are 32-bit only, in particular the pre-subscription versions of Adobe Creative Suite.
  - Someone 6y ago
    And those aren’t the worst examples, as alternatives exist (subscription only and/or more expensive, possibly, but they do exist) Especially in companies, there may be that ‘essential’ app somebody wrote in two decades ago that nobody has the source code to or, if they have, uses a language dialect no modern compiler supports, requires third party libraries of companies long out of business, etc. Also, hardware support may be an issue. Expensive hardware can have long lifetimes, and hardware companies tend to be bad at upgrading drivers order hardware they don’t sell anymore.
    - valuearb 6y ago
      Those companies should pay the developers of those “essential” apps for the update. I’m tired of companies cheeping out and blaming everyone else when they don’t want to pay devs.
  - jfk13 6y ago
    And real users can keep running that old software on real similarly-old computers. I don't think the number of still-functional old Macs is so small that they're going to be impossible to find any time soon. I can understand being unhappy that Adobe doesn't offer an upgrade path from an obsolete version of CS to similar licensing terms for a modern version that runs on modern computers. But I think that complaint should be directed at Adobe, not Apple.
  - intpx 6y ago
    So end-of-life releases that have been replaced with newer builds? Any application that doesn't survive the progression of technology doesn't deserve to-- software requires maintenance. We expect hardware to get bigger/faster/stronger but are unwilling to hold software to the same standard? I am wracking my brain but cannot think of a single application that I ran on previous epochs of hardware (whether it be 32bit, PowerPC, Itanium, or anything else) that I am now missing out on.FOSS has really mitigated this a ton too because if there was a good idea from a defunct codebase, inevitably a project would spring up to fill that void. Professionally, legacy software is the bane of my existence because I am expected to move heaven and earth to make crappy, long outdated and inherently insecure proprietary enterprise apps work on modern networks with modern operating systems and modern security requirements. Let it all burn.
- terramex 6y ago
  > Users had about ten years of warning before 32-bit went away. Citation needed. I remember 32 bit being deprecated just 12 months before its support removal and there were no signs earlier. I just had to recompile my apps to x64, but some 3rd party tools I use never got an update and my 2013 Macbook will stay on Mojave forever.
  - Bud 6y ago
    64-bit apps debuted something like 12 years ago on the Mac. The writing has thus been on the wall for circa a decade, as I said. You figured 32-bit would be supported for what, 20 years? 30?
    - terramex 6y ago
      > The writing has thus been on the wall for circa a decade, as I said. So do you say that there is writing on the wall for removing 32-bit support in Windows and Linux too? I certainly don't. If Apple deprecated 32-bit while introducing x64 then the writing would be on the wall but they kept supporting and updating 32-bit. > You figured 32-bit would be supported for what, 20 years? 30? At least one hardware generation lifetime from moment of deprecation (5 years would be bad, 10 would be great). There were 32-bit AU plugins still being sold in 2018 and some of them never got an update. KORG never updated some of their synth control apps for synthesisers that are still on sale - they just updated docs and wrote that macOS is not supported anymore.
      - lsiebert 6y ago
        I saw someone post on a non work slack about their steam library, where they had a bunch of games that previously ran on mac, being decimated, and they meant decimated literally by catalina. 90% of their games were 32 bit.
        chongli 6y ago
        The good news for steam users is that you don’t have to purchase the game separately for each platform. The decimated users can build their own Windows gaming PC and easily regain access to all of their old games. I doubt they had any Mac-exclusive games that also happened to be 32-bit only. Do such games even exist? Maybe.
fredoralive 6y ago
A quick look at previous transitions shows... Classic Mac OS support (both 68k and PPC): OS X 10.0 was released March 2001, dropped with 10.5 released October 2007. So about 6 years, 8 months. PowerPC Mac OS X app support: First Intel Mac January 2006, support dropped with 10.7 in July 2011, so 5 years 5 months. 32 bit iOS app support: iPhone 5S with 64 bit CPU released October 2013, 32 bit app support removed in iOS 11, September 2017, so 3 years 11 months. 32 bit Intel app support (and Carbon framework): Mac OS 10.5 was first to allow 64 bit GUI apps[1], in October 2007, 32 bit support dropped in 10.15, released October 2019, so 12 years. I'd probably count this nearer to the first three than the kinda drawn out 32 bit to 64 bit Intel transition, so perhaps about 4 years? [1] There was limited 64 bit support before in 10.4.
- hehetrthrthrjn 6y ago
  Keep in mind that there is a much larger installed base of Intel machines than any of those other transitions. Apple is unlikely to want to alienate so many people. It will take several years for the percentage of Intel Mac users to fall under 50%. I see Intel support continuing for closer to 10 years.
  - Tepix 6y ago
    I thought the same at first, but the fact that Apple dropped x86 32bit support means a lot of old unmaintained Intel binaries are already out of the equation.
  - tmccrary55 6y ago
    While I don't disagree, Apple users also seem to be the fastest to upgrade to new versions of Apple OSes and tech. They're already like 90%+ upgraded to the new macOS, etc.
  - matwood 6y ago
    > Keep in mind that there is a much larger installed base of Intel machines than any of those other transitions. The OP asked about Rosetta2 though. How many Intel macs are out there doesn't mean much when fat binaries can support both. This is all about software moving.
akmarinov 6y ago
At WWDC they said they're starting a transition period that'll last 2 years. So I expect them to drop support in 1.5 years
- Tepix 6y ago
  No way. Rosetta-2 was introduced as part of the transition, why would Apple sunset it so quickly?
- jb1991 6y ago
  This is an in accurate reading of the word “transition“.
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  Transition of their hardware, so in two years all their devices will be Mac silicon. Probably. I think the Mac Pro may not migrate, given that it uses server grade hardware and Mac's silicon is not there yet (I think / assume / I'm probably wrong)

by Tepix 6y ago

Bud 6y ago

Is that even a serious criticism? Users had about ten years of warning before 32-bit went away. The real impact of that on real users is minimal.

_ph_ 6y ago
Yes, there were warnings, but what can I as a user do about it? I am impacted by 32 bit going away and I cannot do anything about it. That is why I am running Mojava instead of Catalina. On the bright side, whenever I am going to buy a new Mac, the ARM processor effectively doesn't cause any additional troubles on the compatibility side, and that was probably the reason for Apple to kill 32 bit with Catalina.
- Bud 6y ago
  But there is something you can do about it. You're already doing it. You can run Mojave. You want the platform to be weighed down with cruft forever because of a 0.01% use case? Do you want 8-bit support in there too, for the 68000?
  - sgerenser 6y ago
    68000 Mac apps were never 8 bit, the CPU had a 24-bit address space!
    - Bud 6y ago
      I'm sorry. Thank you for the correction.
Doctor_Fegg 6y ago
There are some non-trivial apps used by real users that are 32-bit only, in particular the pre-subscription versions of Adobe Creative Suite.
- Someone 6y ago
  And those aren’t the worst examples, as alternatives exist (subscription only and/or more expensive, possibly, but they do exist) Especially in companies, there may be that ‘essential’ app somebody wrote in two decades ago that nobody has the source code to or, if they have, uses a language dialect no modern compiler supports, requires third party libraries of companies long out of business, etc. Also, hardware support may be an issue. Expensive hardware can have long lifetimes, and hardware companies tend to be bad at upgrading drivers order hardware they don’t sell anymore.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    Those companies should pay the developers of those “essential” apps for the update. I’m tired of companies cheeping out and blaming everyone else when they don’t want to pay devs.
- jfk13 6y ago
  And real users can keep running that old software on real similarly-old computers. I don't think the number of still-functional old Macs is so small that they're going to be impossible to find any time soon. I can understand being unhappy that Adobe doesn't offer an upgrade path from an obsolete version of CS to similar licensing terms for a modern version that runs on modern computers. But I think that complaint should be directed at Adobe, not Apple.
- intpx 6y ago
  So end-of-life releases that have been replaced with newer builds? Any application that doesn't survive the progression of technology doesn't deserve to-- software requires maintenance. We expect hardware to get bigger/faster/stronger but are unwilling to hold software to the same standard? I am wracking my brain but cannot think of a single application that I ran on previous epochs of hardware (whether it be 32bit, PowerPC, Itanium, or anything else) that I am now missing out on.FOSS has really mitigated this a ton too because if there was a good idea from a defunct codebase, inevitably a project would spring up to fill that void. Professionally, legacy software is the bane of my existence because I am expected to move heaven and earth to make crappy, long outdated and inherently insecure proprietary enterprise apps work on modern networks with modern operating systems and modern security requirements. Let it all burn.
terramex 6y ago
> Users had about ten years of warning before 32-bit went away. Citation needed. I remember 32 bit being deprecated just 12 months before its support removal and there were no signs earlier. I just had to recompile my apps to x64, but some 3rd party tools I use never got an update and my 2013 Macbook will stay on Mojave forever.
- Bud 6y ago
  64-bit apps debuted something like 12 years ago on the Mac. The writing has thus been on the wall for circa a decade, as I said. You figured 32-bit would be supported for what, 20 years? 30?
  - terramex 6y ago
    > The writing has thus been on the wall for circa a decade, as I said. So do you say that there is writing on the wall for removing 32-bit support in Windows and Linux too? I certainly don't. If Apple deprecated 32-bit while introducing x64 then the writing would be on the wall but they kept supporting and updating 32-bit. > You figured 32-bit would be supported for what, 20 years? 30? At least one hardware generation lifetime from moment of deprecation (5 years would be bad, 10 would be great). There were 32-bit AU plugins still being sold in 2018 and some of them never got an update. KORG never updated some of their synth control apps for synthesisers that are still on sale - they just updated docs and wrote that macOS is not supported anymore.
    - lsiebert 6y ago
      I saw someone post on a non work slack about their steam library, where they had a bunch of games that previously ran on mac, being decimated, and they meant decimated literally by catalina. 90% of their games were 32 bit.
      - chongli 6y ago
        The good news for steam users is that you don’t have to purchase the game separately for each platform. The decimated users can build their own Windows gaming PC and easily regain access to all of their old games. I doubt they had any Mac-exclusive games that also happened to be 32-bit only. Do such games even exist? Maybe.

fredoralive 6y ago

A quick look at previous transitions shows... Classic Mac OS support (both 68k and PPC): OS X 10.0 was released March 2001, dropped with 10.5 released October 2007. So about 6 years, 8 months. PowerPC Mac OS X app support: First Intel Mac January 2006, support dropped with 10.7 in July 2011, so 5 years 5 months. 32 bit iOS app support: iPhone 5S with 64 bit CPU released October 2013, 32 bit app support removed in iOS 11, September 2017, so 3 years 11 months. 32 bit Intel app support (and Carbon framework): Mac OS 10.5 was first to allow 64 bit GUI apps[1], in October 2007, 32 bit support dropped in 10.15, released October 2019, so 12 years. I'd probably count this nearer to the first three than the kinda drawn out 32 bit to 64 bit Intel transition, so perhaps about 4 years? [1] There was limited 64 bit support before in 10.4.

hehetrthrthrjn 6y ago
Keep in mind that there is a much larger installed base of Intel machines than any of those other transitions. Apple is unlikely to want to alienate so many people. It will take several years for the percentage of Intel Mac users to fall under 50%. I see Intel support continuing for closer to 10 years.
- Tepix 6y ago
  I thought the same at first, but the fact that Apple dropped x86 32bit support means a lot of old unmaintained Intel binaries are already out of the equation.
- tmccrary55 6y ago
  While I don't disagree, Apple users also seem to be the fastest to upgrade to new versions of Apple OSes and tech. They're already like 90%+ upgraded to the new macOS, etc.
- matwood 6y ago
  > Keep in mind that there is a much larger installed base of Intel machines than any of those other transitions. The OP asked about Rosetta2 though. How many Intel macs are out there doesn't mean much when fat binaries can support both. This is all about software moving.

akmarinov 6y ago

At WWDC they said they're starting a transition period that'll last 2 years. So I expect them to drop support in 1.5 years

Tepix 6y ago
No way. Rosetta-2 was introduced as part of the transition, why would Apple sunset it so quickly?
jb1991 6y ago
This is an in accurate reading of the word “transition“.
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
Transition of their hardware, so in two years all their devices will be Mac silicon. Probably. I think the Mac Pro may not migrate, given that it uses server grade hardware and Mac's silicon is not there yet (I think / assume / I'm probably wrong)