Apple To Phase Out 32-Bit Mac Apps Starting In January 2018 (macrumors.com) 249
Apple will be phasing out 32-bit apps with iOS 11, and soon the company will make the same changes on its macOS operating system. During its Platform State of the Union keynote at the Worldwide Developers Conference, Apple told developers that macOS High Sierra will be the "last macOS release to support 32-bit apps without compromises." MacRumors reports: Starting in January of 2018, all new apps submitted to the Mac App Store must be 64-bit, and all apps and app updates submitted must be 64-bit by June 2018. With the next version of macOS after High Sierra, Apple will begin "aggressively" warning users about 32-bit apps before eventually phasing them out all together. In iOS 11, 32-bit apps cannot be installed or launched. Attempting to open a non-supported 32-bit app gives a message notifying users that the app needs to be updated before it can run on iOS 11. Prior to phasing out 32-bit apps on iOS 11, Apple gave both end users and developers several warnings, and the company says it will follow the same path for the macOS operating system.
OMG, now i have to lift a finger (Score:2, Funny)
and write some code
Evil Apple making me type
Die in a Fire
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh dear god really? you are pissing and moaning about having to not upgrade a 8 year old computer?
Sorry but you seem to be completely clueless and probably never even OWNED a mac.
Re:Tired of the upgrade carousel (Score:5, Interesting)
Since I have switched to Android phones 6 years ago, they've never let me down. My micro-USB stations have been compatible with all the phone and tablets I've had (and even all those I've not had, except Apple ones). Oh and my 10 years old, 32bit Core Duo PC can run all 32bit Linux distros around with pretty good performance. Well maintained PCs can run for 10-15 years without a glitch and do their deeds...
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck when your Android devices all switch to USB-C.
https://www.amazon.com/Anker-A... [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, that same argument also applies to guy higher in the thread complaining about lightning connectors too [amazon.com].
That said, I'm finding USB-C stuff to be a whole lot more reliable than anything involving Lightning connectors for some reason. I've yet to have a USB-C connector fail, where I've had literally dozens of Lightning cables and adapters fail. So while the Android future is probably USB-C ... that strikes me as a lot better than the Apple Lightning present.
Yes, I've owned a Mac before (Score:2)
iBook G3 [1999] - in orange
Power Mac G3 Blue & White [1999]
iBook SE (FireWire) [2000]
12 iBook G3 (Mid 2002)
12" iBook G4 (Late 2004)
Mac mini G4 (Early 2005)
13" MacBook Core Duo (May 2006) 1.83 Ghz - yes 32-bit only x86, my first x86 laptop mac
Mac mini (Mid 2007) - my first x86 desktop Mac
MacBook White (Late 2008) - earlier MacBook died, was expensive enough to repair that I bought a new(refurb) one instead
Mac Pro "Quad Core" 2.8 [2008] - this venerable MacPro3,1 is still alive as a Win7 gaming machine. (
Re: (Score:2)
So if x86-64 Core 2 Duo MacBooks came out in 2007 (I think?), I didn't buy one until around 2009-ish.
A MacBook of that vintage would probably run Windows 10 fairly acceptably.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh dear god really? you are pissing and moaning about having to not upgrade a 8 year old computer?
Well, as a Mac user since the 80's, I can say that I'd complain about having to upgrade my 8 year old Mac when the best I can buy for a desktop is a 4 year old Mac. I've been in the market for a new Mac for a couple of years now, but am still waiting for a new model to show up and MacRumors Buyer's Guide to change to "Buy Now" rather than "Do Not Buy, New Models Soon".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't? A C2D won't run Sierra or later anyway.
If it continues to meet his needs with the software he already has installed, great, but nobody was going to target new applications to it anyway, regardless of Apple removing 32 bit support.
Say, Horatio... (Score:2)
Wrong. I do. I build my SDR app - which is a very complex thing - for 10.6.8 and up, and XP and up, is tested on all subsequent releases of both OSX and Windows, and (among other CPUs) on core 2 duo machines prior to release level issuance. It takes awhile, but mostly its rote testing using only slightly updated test suites, since I am long past requiring new OS calls.
Unless you actually need something from
Re: (Score:2)
On iOS, it makes a lot more sense than on OS X. Maintaining the 32-bit slice essentially doubles the size of every library and framework binary and requires keeping around the 32-bit system call support at the kernel level as well (to the extent that it differs). On iOS, that two or three gigabytes of additional storage matters to some users.
On OS X, the only real reason to drop it is the maintenance cost of keeping all of those bits of code running, which if you're not adding anything to them, should be
Re: (Score:2)
My only 'Mac' app is a Win32 app that I run on Mac's via Wineskins (a nice utility that bundles your app with WINE into a single 'executable'). I assume that requires 32 bit support, and in any case since the 32 bit Windows app in question works on all Windows versions - and Macs and Linux via WINE, it'd be a pain to have to start putting out a 64 bit version just for Macs - and have to ensure that the correct version gets released for a target system.
If nothing else, targeting Win32 has made my life prett
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
There are plenty of other OS's you can use. If you really don't want to move forward after all this time then I guess you are stuck in Groundhog day.
Re: (Score:2)
Not chasing the latest hardware and OS makes it hard when new software won't run on older OSX releases. Even Firefox and Chrome have cut people off. Luckily those are open source and there is the potential for someone to build versions from source that target older systems. (I found Firefox to be really difficult to build and gave up after a few hours. And I build kernels and BSPs for a living)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Theres a big diffrence. All iPhone apps are more or less Cocoa apps. On macs however many 32bit apps used the carbon API which was an api that let developers compile pre OSX apps for OSX as well
Re: (Score:2)
Theres a lot of coders that'll need to scramble to get their stuff off carbon and onto cocoa
Really? I just had a look, and I do have one 32-bit apps installed: Diablo II (which Blizzard released an update for a few years back to let it run on recent Mac versions, and which was originally a Mac Classic PowerPC app with post-release OS X and x86 support updates). Everything else is 64-bit and has been for ages. Carbon was basically killed around 10.6, when Apple announced that it was no longer supported for new applications and started killing off the Carbon templates in XCode. When they announc
Re: (Score:2)
Theres a lot of coders that'll need to scramble to get their stuff off carbon and onto cocoa
Yes, they will need to scramble to upgrade from that API that was just now deprecated five years ago [wikipedia.org].
If an app is still using Carbon in 2017, it's effectively been dead for ages.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, in terms of time, at first glance, it might seem backwards. OS X got 32-bit Intel apps in 2005 and 64-bit app support in 2007. iOS got then in 2007 and got 64-bit app support in 2013. But that's not the complete story. On OS X, some software has seen minor updates to keep it running on newer CPUs without completely rewriting it. The oldest of that software, potentially written as far back as 1984, is based on the Carbon API. As others have already mentioned, the UI portion of that API has no 64-
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a bit why, after using macs and OSX for 15 years that I have walked away from them. I can't keep up with the pace that Apple has set for consumers.
I walked away from Apple in 2000 over a similar kind of thing.
The elimination of SCSI, ADB and traditional serial ports meant that if I wanted a new Mac, I was going to have to replace all of my peripherals and that was just a bridge too far.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
I walked away from Apple in 2000 over a similar kind of thing.
The elimination of SCSI, ADB and traditional serial ports meant that if I wanted a new Mac, I was going to have to replace all of my peripherals and that was just a bridge too far.
LK
Must have sucked to switch to Intel only to have them get rid of parallel ports and old serial buses also. Not to mention all those new ISA boards you bought that won't fit into your next Intel motherboard. I mean really, when you have specialty gear that is still doing its job, you just have to freeze the hardware and wait till it makes sense to get new specialty gear and get a new set. It's like this at all the places I've worked for both platforms and it's like this at my house too. I practically have a
Then just wait until next year... (Score:2)
Just wait until next year, when Apple rolls out their new 65-bit OS and accompanying product line...
Re: (Score:2)
The compromise is that High Sierra + 1 will give a warning every time you launch a 32-bit app saying that your app won't run in High Sierra + n (for some unknown value of n).
Not Phasing (Score:2)
You know what this really is? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The dropping of 32-bit for Linux is what actually made me angry.
What? When do you imagine that happened? Linux still has fine 32 bit support. What it doesn't do any more IIRC is support very old 32 bit processors. This is of no concern to anyone who isn't using embedded hardware, and those people can use the older fork.
I can still run 32 bit binaries on my 64 bit Ubuntu system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's a good thing I don't actually care. The only x86-32 machines I have left are an eee 701 (guess when the last time I used that was) and an acer aspire D250 with the old atom (don't use that either). I do have some 32 bit ARM in my network, though :p
Canonical To Phase Out 32-Bit Apps In Oct 2018 (Score:2)
The dropping of 32-bit for Linux is what actually made me angry.
What? When do you imagine that happened?
A year ago, Canonical announced plans to drop 32-bit Ubuntu [itsfoss.com]. 18.04 will ship no 32-bit kernel, and 18.10 will ship no 32-bit system libraries.
I can still run 32 bit binaries on my 64 bit Ubuntu system.
This is true in 18.04 and earlier, but in 18.10 and later, you will have to run 32-bit Linux in a virtual machine on 64-bit Linux. Running two kernels and a VMM requires more RAM than multiarch, which means more thrashing swap on machines with swap or more OOM kills on machines without swap. And many devices running 64-bit GNU/Linux still max out at 2 GB, unable to re
Re: (Score:2)
So is Valve going to finally kick out a 64 bit Steam? Or am I going to finally stop using Ubuntu?
Re: (Score:2)
cd firefox
sudo apt-get source firefox
sudo apt-get build-dep firefox
linux32 dpkg-buildpackage -ai386 -rfakeroot -uc -b
And when that stops working, you edit the makefile to add -m32 to the CFLAGS and LDFLAGS and replace the last line above with:
make firefox
sudo make firefix install
If you really need it, you already know how to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
If there's no 32-bit libc, how will your compiled program link and run?
Re: (Score:2)
That fetches the build dependencies for Firefox, which will include the libc source. You're literally compiling your own 32-bit libc in that case and yes, gcc and clang will both happily compile 64-bit assembly to a 32-bit binary, emulating 64-bit instructions as they go.
It's the same for any other package, mind you.
Come on, man, I thought you knew this stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
I have tried to tell both Linux and Window$ communities either here or on Reddit a while back about how 64-bit was nothing more than a tactic to get people to buy new hardware.
I think most people have bought new hardware at least once or twice wince 64-bit CPUs came out, and I don't think it's because their OS of choice stopped supporting their 32-bit CPU. Most people would have already been through an upgrade cycle or two before anybody began requiring a 64-bit CPU.
The dropping of 32-bit for Linux is what actually made me angry.
Huh... I can still get 32-bit binaries for everything on all of my systems.
Please tell me this post is a joke and I just missed it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right now you can get 32-bit binaries, but I was referring to the Linux distros themselves no longer making 32-bit builds.
And, of course, you can't compile them yourself because the source isn't available.
I don't know if anyone still bothers to code for fat or universal binaries anymore.
You're right, you don't know, so let me explain.
Unless you're writing assembly, you don't write 32- or 64-bit code; and even then, a smart compiler can replace 64-bit assembly instructions with 32-bit routines that emulate them in order to provide a 32-bit binary from assembly code that uses 64-bit instructions. I'm fairly certain GCC can do this natively.
You write code, then compile it as either a 32- or 64-bit (or fat/u
Re:You know what this really is? (Score:4, Insightful)
AMD64 was introduced back in 2000.
You know, long before Moore's law became bow-legged from the heavy burden of asterisks. (Yes, like always before, we do indeed have more transistors, but just try to use them all at the same time and see what happens ...)
So that's seventeen years ago. Subtract another seventeen years, and we're back to 1983.
Back in 2000, your karmic twin would have been moaning about the loss of 8-bit software compatibility.
Subtract another seventeen years, and we're back to 1965.
Back in 1983, your karmic triplet would have been moaning about the loss of slide rules.
Lament for the Slide Rule [ieee.org] — August 1985
Unfortunately, that's paywalled, so we're stuck with this belated cuckoo:
When Slide Rules Ruled [uvm.edu] — Cliff Stoll (2006)
Check out this giant pull-quote:
Nice. That saves me from craning my neck to look through my window for plummeting petunias. You just never know anything with absolute certainty.
Re: (Score:2)
A 64-bit operating system, an archetype that is known widely by developers and IT to support both 32 and 64-bit, is now going to purposely block 32-bit when we all know it will work?
Not true. A 64-bit operating system running 32-bit binaries requires a compat version of the system call layer that handles the calling convention and pointer size differences (or some equivalent userspace shims). This is fairly easy to support for most system calls, but is impossible to automate for arbitrary ioctls and so they all end up needing special handling.
I have tried to tell both Linux and Window$ communities either here or on Reddit a while back about how 64-bit was nothing more than a tactic to get people to buy new hardware
And apparently you didn't listen to any of the answers. Here are some of the advantages that 64-bit binaries have on x86, for example:
Breakage as a feature (Score:3)
The ideal is an operating system that runs every app ever created for any notable platform. For security reasons, the opposite should be default, with only the most recent runtime installed and running. But convenient one step process should be provided to install other runtimes. There is a galore of open source emulation/virtualization solutions and sandboxing to mitigate security risks, so maintenance overhead is insignificant for the likes of Apple and Microsoft. Why would anyone not want an option to run apps they paid for?
Developer side taken care of... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The only 32-bit apps in the Mac store are by developers who are going the extra mile to support the older versions of Mac OS X.
That and out-of-Store apps that have been unmaintained since Xcode went 64-bit in 2014.
Legacy support matters (Score:2)
What apple should do is automatically cross recompile the old apps to work on the new hardware. There are a lot of old apps that are excellent but will never get updated, a great many for small business, games and a huge inventory of educational applications. Nobody else will bother to write a replacement but cause the original creator was inspired and it is a small market in many cases. Yet, they are still great apps. Apple is doing this again on both iOS and MacOS. This same problem has happened before wh
Re: (Score:2)
What apple should do is automatically cross recompile the old apps to work on the new hardware.
Apple used to do that, but maintaining the Rosetta dynarec was too much of a cost.
They could easily put forth the effort to bring the old apps, all the way back to the Lisa, onto the modern operating systems with recompiling.
Can you prove that it would produce a greater return on investment for Apple Inc. shareholders than not doing so?
they must continue to offer legacy support for a minimum of 50 years
Even car companies aren't held to that standard.
32-bit ios, the lost platform (Score:5, Insightful)
32-bit ios actually stands to be the first "lost platform" in computing history. EVER!
Hyperbole? Hear me out:
Unlike almost every other platform, there's no reliable and good way to run ios software (or ios itself) outside of the hardware. The only things that look like emulators are open source, and you can't even choose to install older versions of the OS on hardware past a cut-off date. Apple has fully DRMed their platform, fully closed it off. But up until now, if you have played by their rules, there's always been a way to run any given application: the expectation that your app can't be emulated well on Linux or whatever isn't something universal, so the computing consumer world has been pretty accepting of this.
This fully closed and cryptographically sealed system is something reasonably new in computing, and Apple's smashing success with it has encouraged others to duplicate it to some lesser degree- Windows 10S tries to take their model and offer a greater degree of freedom with an opt-out for cash (instead of no opt-out), Android has taken parts of their system, etc. But so far, everything has eventually (once it is no longer a primary economic driver) been emulated, been archived, been available for the future. Perhaps the loss of 32-bit ARM code compiled for ios is no great eternal loss to the world, but the precedent is now set for the expiry of code in a way that has never been done before.
Re: (Score:2)
Thinking... no, still hyperbole (Score:2)
Unlike almost every other platform, there's no reliable and good way to run ios software (or ios itself) outside of the hardware.
After some thought, I do not agree - because you can always buy newer devices to run the same software, all app data is migrated. It's not outside the platform but it's not like you cannot move forward.
you can't even choose to install older versions of the OS on hardware past a cut-off date.
You can if you jailbreak it which you absolutely can for any 32-bit IOS device.
But why doe
Lots of 32bit-only Virtual Instruments/Audio Units (Score:2)
Could lose a lot of music production-related stuff this way.
Re: (Score:2)
Then purchase the 64-bit version of Sylenth 18 months from now once Lennar Digital finishes it. I thought Mac users were used to re-buying software periodically after architecture transitions, that is, those from 68K-24 [lowendmac.com] to 68K-32 to PowerPC to PowerPC (OS X) to x86 to x86-64.
Time To Evolve (Score:2)
"Can you prove that it would produce a greater return on investment for Apple Inc. shareholders than not doing so?"
That isn't necessary. Apple does a lot of things that aren't proven to produce a return for shareholders. That is part of what makes Apple great. Basic research.
But you're missing the point. Jobs promised users they would continue to have access to their digital lives into the future. To do that requires legacy support.
It is entirely possible you're to young to remember.
"Even car companies aren
Re: (Score:3)
And why is that crazy? If the software runs on a standalone computer, not connected to the internet, why does it matter? As long as it runs and does what it has to do, what's the problem?
New does not automatically equals better. Compatibility with existing hardware, training employees about the new so
Re:Nice that they can do this (Score:5, Interesting)
And why is that crazy? If the software runs on a standalone computer, not connected to the internet, why does it matter? As long as it runs and does what it has to do, what's the problem?
Then why do you have to update at all? You don't.
Somewhere around the intertoobz, there was recently a story regarding a garage that had a tire balancing computer. It was a Commodore 64. I read another story yesterday about a Amiga 1200 running a modern RF communication system.
I think the upgrade/update virus has infected most of us. Me too at times.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why do you have to update at all? You don't.
Somewhere around the intertoobz, there was recently a story regarding a garage that had a tire balancing computer. It was a Commodore 64.
If you're not interconnecting at all, or if you're using very simple interfaces which also happen to be based on very common and open standards, then you don't. Who cares? If you are interconnecting through vulnerable interfaces, however, you absolutely have to update. That's becoming more and more the case, now. For example, you need two different computer systems in California to perform emissions tests, and both of them phone home by modem currently. One system is used for vehicles from MY2000 and later,
Re: (Score:3)
Somewhere around the intertoobz, there was recently a story regarding a garage that had a tire balancing computer. It was a Commodore 64. I read another story yesterday about a Amiga 1200 running a modern RF communication system.
I think the upgrade/update virus has infected most of us. Me too at times.
And what happens when that C64 or Amiga dies? Right now, you could probably buy another one off of eBay, but do you think that one will last another 35 years?
I have a client who had been running a DOS app from 1981 that managed some industrial hardware. The computer was ancient, and finally gave up the ghost. Found out that while the software would run just fine in DOSbox on a modern pc, it wouldn't interact properly with the hardware it was supposed to be controlling. (something about weird signaling over
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nice that they can do this (Score:4, Insightful)
And why is that crazy? If the software runs on a standalone computer, not connected to the internet, why does it matter? As long as it runs and does what it has to do, what's the problem?
Well in my opinion, the AC you're responding to made a bad comparison. What he's complaining about is not really like a business building a physical plant or factory and expecting it to run for 50 years. It's more like a business building a refinery, and expecting it to run for 50 years without any maintenance, upgrades, or cleaning, meanwhile firing everyone who understands how the refinery works or knows why it was built the way it was.
To answer your question more directly, there are a few different problems with expecting to run a legacy piece of software on a standalone computer, not connected to the Internet, for decades on end. First, if the system needs to interact with other systems, then you can't really isolate it from the Internet. It might not be directly on the Internet, but it could still be compromised from another computer that is connected to the Internet. Second, what if the hardware the software runs on breaks? Are you going to be able to get replacement parts in 20 years?
There's also another problem that's a little bit more nebulous and therefore harder to argue for, but: You don't know what you're going to need in 10 years. I've had to deal with companies that have some old unmaintained business-critical application running on a server somewhere. Since they began using this application, they've upgraded all their computers 3 times, and started using a couple other applications. They'd like to have their various applications talk to each other instead of doing manual entry to keep the apps in sync, but they can't, because the old app wasn't designed to do that.
They want to be able to access the old database from an iPad, but they can't, since it requires a Windows client-side app. It might be that they've been continuing to buy Windows 7 machines for the past several years because the client-side app doesn't run on newer versions of Windows, and they don't have a way to update it. Once Microsoft started trying to force everyone to use Windows 10, this has become a problem. Maybe they'll have to run a Windows 7 VM if they ever want to update their desktops again.
Then they go to update their networking equipment, and they want to change their IP scheme and move their servers to a new VLAN. They can't do that. Whoever wrote the application seems to have hard-coded an IP address somewhere, and changing the IP address of the server breaks everything.
The server they're running the application on developed a problem where it crashes occasionally. The IT team realizes that the hardware might be failing, so they want to spin up a VM on a new server and install the app from scratch. They can't. Nobody at the company knows how to install the application anymore. They instead P2V the existing server, but the problem still occurs. Oh well, I guess they'll have to live with occasional crashes.
I'm kind of cobbling together different examples of problems that I've run into over the years, but the point is, this crap always seems to turn into a mess. If your business relies on a piece of software, you should have some support contract with a developer capable of supporting and (if needed) updating the application, installing it from scratch on a new computer with a brand new OS.
steam windows is only 32 bit and there are lot's o (Score:2)
steam windows is only 32 bit and there are lot's of apps that don't need 64 bit.
Also office 32 bit is still big due to add-ins / plug-ins.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is exactly the kind of problem Apple is trying to avoid by pushing hard for 64-bit.
The last 32 bit plugin will cease to have relevance approximately on the day when the 128 bit architectures start rolling out. This is not a problem you can avoid by pushing hard for 64 bit now. This has happened before, and it will all happen again.
Re: (Score:2)
Each doubling of bits is an exponential increase in memory, not just a doubling, of course. I'm thinking you aren't really cognizant of just how large an address space 64-bit allows you. It's a big difficult to imagine any consumer-facing applications such that 16 million terabytes of RAM isn't enough. Even the current CPUs on the market that "only" support 48-bit addressing can theoretically access 256 terabytes of RAM, which is still a staggering amount.
It's not me just being unimaginative, I think (i.
Re: (Score:2)
If we do move to 128-bit, it will probably be for reasons other than practical limitations.
Yep. And I think it will happen, just to be stupid. We can already handle 128 bit data types on some processors.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you don't have much experience with Macs or you would realize that there is no big push to constantly upgrade to the latest major version of the OS. I only went from 10.6 to 10.9 about two years ago when I realized that the graphics subsystem could be hosed by software. (Minecraft 1.6 to be specific.)
As for Windows and 64-bit, I have a USB-based EPROM programmer which only has 32-bit drivers (the company got bought out right before 64-bit became a thing). What. The. Fuck. Seriously, how do you make
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you don't have much experience with Macs or you would realize that there is no big push to constantly upgrade to the latest major version of the OS.
What? Of course there is. Software commonly does not run on an OSX version only one or two minor versions behind.
As for Windows and 64-bit, I have a USB-based EPROM programmer which only has 32-bit drivers (the company got bought out right before 64-bit became a thing). What. The. Fuck. Seriously, how do you make something which needs kernel drivers to talk over USB?
It'll blow your mind when you find out over 99.99% of USB hardware depends on a kernel driver on Linux. The real problem is, you were dumb enough to buy something with only Windows support. If it had Linux support, you'd have had some kind of upgrade path. Next time, don't buy something which only supports Windows.
USB support has always been crap in Windows, move something to a different port and it has to re-install drivers?
Some hardware doesn't have a unique ID that can be used to determine whether it's b
Re: (Score:2)
What? Of course there is. Software commonly does not run on an OSX version only one or two minor versions behind.
Examples? I'm running one version back on my laptop and two versions back on my desktop and I have not run into any software compatibility issues.
Re: Nice that they can do this (Score:2)
It's probably using FTDI FIFO-bridge chips in 'bitbang' mode to emulate a legacy parallel port. The (e)eprom programmer itself is probably a parallel-port design hardwired to a USB FIFO bridge(*). Bitbang-mode is hard to pull off with USB (especially at higher speeds) because it needs deterministic servicing by the OS (ie, it needs the host OS to read or write small chunks of data with lockstep regularity).
(*) believe it or not, most "USB" scanners are REALLY SCSI-1 scanners, internally chained through a SC
No more complex than a USB sound card (Score:2)
you can build a parallel-port based 8-bit logic analyzer capable of sampling at around 100,000 samples/second, using only a db25 connector and wires. Doing it with USB requires moving all the sampling logic to the other end of the USB cable, and usually storing the data in a large SRAM buffer for subsequent "chunky" transfer to the host PC.
It's no harder than, say, building a sound card. In fact, a 16 bit 48 kHz stereo audio input device has to buffer and push 48,000 32-bit frames of data per second, which is twice the data rate of the 8 channel 96 kHz logic analyzer you describe. There are USB sound cards on Walmart.com for $6 [walmart.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I don't understand why that's crazy. When I have something that works perfectly and does everything I need it to do, why is it forced into obsolescence and why am I forced to spend a bunch of money to 'upgrade' something that didn't need it?
If it works perfectly, You don't have to upgrade at all.
Re: (Score:2)
No but you do need security and bug fixes. Oh wait you think there is flawless software? Now that there is funny
Re: (Score:2)
What system works perfectly to run an application that requires the old OS alongside an application that requires the new OS?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't interact well with the modern tools employees want to use.
Depends on the industry you are in. In the software biz, it may be that companies have to cater to a bunch of spoiled children that will have a tantrum if they can't run their precious new apps. But many businesses define their tools as a part of their processes. And they don't go changing them on a whim if they still work. Sometimes it's even an issue of having to re-accredit or re-certify the development/production processes every time a tool is changed.
Re: (Score:2)
compatibility of your systems with your employees devices brings productivity benefits.
Well, in the commercial aviation manufacturing business, use something other than certified tools and processes and you lose your manufacturing certificate.
On the military side of that business, you even show up with an "employee device" and you'll get frog-marched out of the facility.
Re: (Score:2)
What a lot of people don't realize if that much of the perceived insecurity of Windows is found in code that remains in the system to provide support for legacy crap. I really do hope that Microsoft releases Windows 10 Legacy (or whatever they might call it) with all of that crap still in it, then strips it out of future releases.
Win 10 Legacy would have to see security updates, still, but likely no feature updates. It would be great, as it would make people who c
You should have said 8 years (Score:2)
Mac Mini released in August 2007 and sold until it was replaced in March 2009.
You should have said 2 years (Score:2)
The iPhone 5c is 32-bit and was only discontinued in September of 2015. iOS 11 will not work on it, and presumably there will be no security updates for the 5c as of the iOS 11 release date.
https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Still, the value and longevity of iPhones are amazing. I fully expected the iPhone 5 to be unsupported at the last major iOS upgrade. It wasn't. Five years after release it's still offi
Re: (Score:2)
That would be like having an Android phone that came with Android Jelly Bean, that could be upgraded all up to Android Nougat, and all that with firmware/upgrades pushed by Samsung itself.
The last part of that is the key. My phone came with Jelly Bean and now happily runs Nougat, but the Marshmallow and Nougat upgrades were third party (and required unlocking the bootloader and reflashing). Of course, the flip side of this is that my Android phone still gets OS updates after the original vendor decided to stop...
Re: (Score:2)
For first party support, yes. For third-party support, no. I have a first-generation Moto G (yes, I am a cheapskate). It was released in 2013 and I bought it in March 2014. Google spun off the bit of Motorola that they owned shortly after that and it got OS updates to Android 5.1.1 (released November 2014, available for the Moto G some time in early 2015) and then (horribly late) security updates for another year. The last security update for it was early 2016 and fixing a couple of high-profile vulner
Re: (Score:2)
The Mac Mini released in August 2007 and sold until March 2009 was a Core 2 Duo, a 64-bit processor. It was officially supported by several x86-only releases of Mac OS.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, x64-only.
Re: (Score:2)
It appears that my confusion comes from 10.7, which supported running 64-bit apps on 32-bit EFI machines. It would appear that they shipped a 32-bit kernel with a 64-bit user space, but dropped the 32-bit kernel by 10.8. In any event, this does mean that there is a version of OS X that can be used on a 2007 mac mini that will allow 64-bit applications to be run.
There is also the option of using a third-party EFI bootloader to install up to El Capitan on 32-bit EFI Core 2 Duo machines.
Re: Good. (Score:2, Informative)
It stops them having to ship 32 bit libraries that need constant maintainable, and take up space on the userâ(TM)s machine for no good reason.
Re: (Score:2)
"It stops them having to ship 32 bit libraries that need constant maintainable"
I thought the whole purpose of Apple programs was that everything was contained inside a disk image, thus negating the need to have libraries on the OS that need constant maintenance (and can't be easily exploited because they don't exist anywhere but inside the program code and not as a separate file on disk.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the reason to rip out support for 32-bit?
Testing.
Stability.
Memory Footprint.
There's 3 GOOD reasons for removing nearly-obsolete support.
Increased cache misses and OOM kills (Score:2)
Does "the whole ecosystem" make up for the increased data cache misses and OOM kills [linux-mm.org] that an existing device with 2 GB of RAM running software with 64-bit pointers would suffer compared to the same device running software with 32-bit pointers?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How horrible Apple is for offering all those free updates (including the OS) as long as the hardware supports them. Rebooting after the update is so much trouble. Remind me which company you work for please, so I don't ever get a job there having to support that 10-20 year old hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
But why not allow 32 bit apps? If an app does not need a 64bit memory space or ints why not allow them to keep running? What about older games and software that you still find useful?
Re: (Score:2)
Supporting 10-20 year old hardware isn't tough.
It is if you're doing it right. So you're paying people to manually tend hardware that you probably can't buy replacement parts for, and which is orders of magnitude more power hungry (therefore hot therefore likely to break) per unit of work done than a modern system. That's OK, mind you, if you're talking about one machine that has an EISA card that you simply have to support to keep the business running - and if you have a stack of warehoused replacements you can drop it into. It's also probably OK if it
Re: (Score:2)
Pentium? Try the Pentium II, which was released in 1997, and had speeds of up to 450MHz.
Re: (Score:2)
The company I work for uses modern systems, a mix of Windows 7 and 10, however there is still some legacy software running in VMs. But besides all that, 20 year old hardware? Let me tell ya something. We have a whole fleet of HP LaserJet 2100 printers from the late '90s. We also have several newer printers. Guess which ones have weekly or even daily support tickets, vs which ones we only ever hear about when the paper runs out? That whole thing about "it just works" is absolutely true with older hardware st
Re: (Score:2)
In enterprise, for desktop computers, a 10 year old upgrade cycle is not "absurdly short", it's the opposite. Most companies have support contracts, and will replace hardware when it reaches the end of that period, typically something like 5-6 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what happens to people with Macs more than a few years old? Are they SOL for new software?
Just look at what happened to PPC macs for your answer: yes.
Re: (Score:2)
We decommissioned our last PowerPC Mac last year (2016). It was running one piece of legacy software that had a $10k upgrade price for an Intel edition. We switched software, so we didn't need the PC any more.
The PowerPC transition is actually notable for how smoothly it went. Universal binaries made it easy for developers to distribute Intel and PowerPC binaries at the same time. Previously, OS 9 "classic" compatibility was included for several revisions of OS X (we shut down our last classic-using-OSX mac
Re: (Score:2)
Have you got a specific example? They haven't sold a computer without x64 support since 2009. And El Capitan still runs on Core 2 Duo, so that's at least seven fucking years. What's the oldest computer you still use?
And unlike Windows, most Mac software doesn't need the latest OS. I am currently running 10.9 on my "daily driver" and have had no need to upgrade any farther. I have other computers with 10.10 and 10.11, but that's the way I got them. In fact, I have more need to keep a computer or two running
Re: (Score:2)
> Apple switched to 64 bit in 2006 except for the mac mini, which switched in 2009.
The 2007 model had a 64-bit processor, and was supported up until El Capitan, which was years after OS X went 64-bit only.
Re: (Score:2)
Can somebody explain why it's news now that they stop providing software for something, which more or less failed to get newest software for 6 years already?
This isn't about stopping shipping software for 32-bit processors, it's stopping shipping the 32-bit compatibility layer for 64-bit operating systems on 64-bit processors.
Re: (Score:2)
I have NetBSD on an old iMac which works OK if you don't need graphics acceleration. :(
Apple made a lot of computers without discrete GPUs once Intel started including half-decent ones, so that may be less of a problem than you think. They didn't even make a mac mini with a discrete GPU after i5/i7, and they made a few MacBook Pro models sans GPU. (And the ones they made with GPUs had problems. NVidia made some crappy chips in 2010-2012, you basically have to replace it with a newer chip by hot-air rework)
Re: (Score:2)
If we could pump enough Reality Distortion Field gas into the Apple boardroom to convince them to switch the Mac to ARM we could cause them to scuttle the whole Mac line.
Oh, there would be true believers who would stick with Apple through it all. There are almost certainly people still running OS/2 if you look hard enough.
Re: (Score:2)
It *should* be far less painful to simply keep support around for it? It's not like keeping i686 support on an x86_64 distro is particularly hard, and with all the platform transition stuff that is in Apple's history, this is probably the easiest.
Hell, you could run pre-System 7 68k apps on PPC OS X systems 20 years later as a result of the Rosetta and Blue Box compatibility layers.
I really see this forced migration as a bit more of Apple's gradual decline. At one point, keeping all of these layers up and w