Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 3rd Feb 2018 14:15 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Mac OS X

When users attempt to launch a 32-bit app in 10.13.4, it will still launch, but it will do so with a warning message notifying the user that the app will eventually not be compatible with the operating system unless it is updated. This follows the same approach that Apple took with iOS, which completed its sunset of 32-bit app support with iOS 11 last fall.

This is good. I would prefer other companies, too, take a more aggressive approach towards deprecating outdated technology in consumer technology.

Thread beginning with comment 653464
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Not a good thing
by Auzy on Sat 3rd Feb 2018 18:46 UTC
Auzy
Member since:
2008-01-20

For a lot of applications, 32 bit only has small benefits.

Users have very little to gain from this. All it will do is needlessly break apps, and save Apple a bit of money. In the meantime, some programs you'll never get an update for. Only Apple has something to gain.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Not a good thing
by Drumhellar on Sat 3rd Feb 2018 20:23 in reply to "Not a good thing"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

If you want eternal compatibility (Well, near eternal), stick with Windows.

Based on Apple's history, this is actually on schedule for a platform transition, even if partial.

The first mac came out in '84. The first PowerPC Mac came out in '95. The first Intel mac came out in '06. Now it's 2018 - just about time to excise the previous architecture. It's not like the writing hasn't been on the wall for years.

Users gain, also. Less work spent maintaining old API and kernel interfaces means more work can be spent on maintaining and improving 64-bit interfaces.

Also Several threat mitigation techniques are improved with 64-bits, meaning better security for users.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Not a good thing
by bert64 on Sun 4th Feb 2018 06:04 in reply to "RE: Not a good thing"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

The first x86 mac came out in 2006, but x86_64 was already available then... It was Apple who chose to go with the 32bit core duo series for their first x86 laptops and imacs... The first mac pro was 64bit right from the start, as was the second generation of macbook.
The G5 was also 64bit, the 32bit macbook was actually a step backwards...

They could quite easily have gone direct to 64bit x86, and never had to worry about 32bit compatibility at all, but it's all because intel's only competitive laptop chip at the time was 32bit... They would have had to go with a power hungry p4 chip, or used an AMD processor in their laptops.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Not a good thing
by ahferroin7 on Mon 5th Feb 2018 12:39 in reply to "Not a good thing"
ahferroin7 Member since:
2015-10-30

Outside of x86, yes, there's really not much benefit unless you are handling very large amounts of data or need to deal with large numbers (though TBH, there are a lot more things that need to handle 64-bit integers than you probably realize, especially since files larger than 4GB are not all that uncommon).

On x86 though, the 8 extra general-purpose registers can actually have a pretty serious impact on performance of an application because the base register set is absolute shit (4 registers that all have odd restrictions on how they can be used as a result of the original hardware implementation).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Not a good thing
by Kochise on Mon 5th Feb 2018 20:04 in reply to "RE: Not a good thing"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Then tell me why 80% of x64 laptops sold are with just 4GB of RAM ? What's the point ?

Reply Parent Score: 1