3 ms·

They probably did, but just because M1 gets released doesn't mean Intel Macs suddenly don't have 32-bit capable hardware. I get why it was easier to drop it in

They probably did, but just because M1 gets released doesn't mean Intel Macs suddenly don't have 32-bit capable hardware. I get why it was easier to drop it in the new OS regardless of hardware, only it throws a lot of software under the bus, and running software is kinda the OS's main job. And the hardware isn't a showstopper anyway. Apple did x86-64 on AS, Windows' WoW64 does x86-32 on ARM-32 or even IA-64, and I'll bet Windows will do x86-32 on x86-64 if Intel ever drops the 32 mode. Wine 32on64 will run x86-32 on AS already.

raw_anon_1111 1y ago
And Windows is also a bloated mess that they couldn’t use on mobile and their ARM initiatives have gone nowhere. If you don’t think Windows is a bloated mess, look up all of the different ways you have to represent a “string” depending on the API you are calling.
- morshu9001 1y ago
  Sure but those are unrelated. Microsoft doesn't make the chips, and Windows crapiness is its own thing. It not like macOS would turn to crap if they made Rosetta2 support x86-32, or in general stopped breaking all the 3P software.
  - raw_anon_1111 1y ago
    Windows crapiness is because they won’t deprecate anything ever. Read some of Raymond Chen’s posts about all of the special casing they did for apps that broke on newer versions of Windows because app developers were using unpublished APIs. Every bit of backwards compatibility increases the testing surface and the vulnerabilities. In fact, an early bug in Windows NT that you could encode DOS shell commands in the browser URL bar from a client and they wouod run with admin privileges if the server was running IIS. Should Apple have also kept 68K emulation around? PPC?
    - morshu9001 1y ago
      Apple went the other extreme. Even if you use public APIs exactly the way they want, your software will break frequently. This is without even getting into the whole OpenGL vs Metal drama. In Windows they took things a bit too far by not only supporting old stuff but also treating it as first-class. If software is too outdated, it's fair to stick it behind some compat layer that makes it slower, as long as it still runs. But that's not even the biggest problem with Windows, it's Microsoft turning it into adware, also not being Unixlike in the first place. To answer your last question, yes for PPC at least. 68K is too old to matter. Emulation layer doesn't need to hold back the entire system. If it means less dev resources to spend making glass effects and emojis, fine.
      - raw_anon_1111 1y ago
        It does hold back the entire system though. It increases the attack surface of vulnerabilities and it allows companies like Adobe and Microsoft to be lazy about updating their software.
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      > Should Apple have also kept 68K emulation around? PPC? Yes? What kind of mercurial clown world do you live in, where you pay for software and then cheer when it's yoinked off your computer in an OTA update? Even Windows users aren't whipped enough to lick their OEM's boot like that, Jesus. You'd hope Mac users would still have a spine; Apple doesn't maintain macOS as a charity, you're allowed to disagree with them.
      - raw_anon_1111 1y ago
        I don’t believe you are serious that you don’t see the issue with MacOS having - A 68K emulator - A PPC emulator - a 32 bit x86 emulator - a 32 bit ARM emulator (since ARM chips don’t have hardware to run 32 bit code) And to think that Windows is a shining example of good operating system design. Why not include a 65C02 emulator also so you can run AppleWorks 3.0 from 1986?

raw_anon_1111 1y ago

And Windows is also a bloated mess that they couldn’t use on mobile and their ARM initiatives have gone nowhere. If you don’t think Windows is a bloated mess, look up all of the different ways you have to represent a “string” depending on the API you are calling.

morshu9001 1y ago
Sure but those are unrelated. Microsoft doesn't make the chips, and Windows crapiness is its own thing. It not like macOS would turn to crap if they made Rosetta2 support x86-32, or in general stopped breaking all the 3P software.
- raw_anon_1111 1y ago
  Windows crapiness is because they won’t deprecate anything ever. Read some of Raymond Chen’s posts about all of the special casing they did for apps that broke on newer versions of Windows because app developers were using unpublished APIs. Every bit of backwards compatibility increases the testing surface and the vulnerabilities. In fact, an early bug in Windows NT that you could encode DOS shell commands in the browser URL bar from a client and they wouod run with admin privileges if the server was running IIS. Should Apple have also kept 68K emulation around? PPC?
  - morshu9001 1y ago
    Apple went the other extreme. Even if you use public APIs exactly the way they want, your software will break frequently. This is without even getting into the whole OpenGL vs Metal drama. In Windows they took things a bit too far by not only supporting old stuff but also treating it as first-class. If software is too outdated, it's fair to stick it behind some compat layer that makes it slower, as long as it still runs. But that's not even the biggest problem with Windows, it's Microsoft turning it into adware, also not being Unixlike in the first place. To answer your last question, yes for PPC at least. 68K is too old to matter. Emulation layer doesn't need to hold back the entire system. If it means less dev resources to spend making glass effects and emojis, fine.
    - raw_anon_1111 1y ago
      It does hold back the entire system though. It increases the attack surface of vulnerabilities and it allows companies like Adobe and Microsoft to be lazy about updating their software.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    > Should Apple have also kept 68K emulation around? PPC? Yes? What kind of mercurial clown world do you live in, where you pay for software and then cheer when it's yoinked off your computer in an OTA update? Even Windows users aren't whipped enough to lick their OEM's boot like that, Jesus. You'd hope Mac users would still have a spine; Apple doesn't maintain macOS as a charity, you're allowed to disagree with them.
    - raw_anon_1111 1y ago
      I don’t believe you are serious that you don’t see the issue with MacOS having - A 68K emulator - A PPC emulator - a 32 bit x86 emulator - a 32 bit ARM emulator (since ARM chips don’t have hardware to run 32 bit code) And to think that Windows is a shining example of good operating system design. Why not include a 65C02 emulator also so you can run AppleWorks 3.0 from 1986?