News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by gfiorav on Saturday June 22, 2019 @02:23PM (#20250953)
Can someone summarise why we should care about 32 bit sw other than old things that might not be ported?
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by concatime on Saturday June 22, 2019 @02:59PM (#20251123)
Games. Seriously. You have a lot of old (even new) games that depend on 32-bit binaries/libraries. And that’s why the recent “clash” between Canonical’s Ubuntu and Valve’s Steam[1].

[1] https://twitter.com/Plagman2/status/1142262103106973698

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by pier25 on Saturday June 22, 2019 @06:51PM (#20252131)
Apple doesn't care much about games on macOS.

Each and every version of macOS for the past 10 years has shipped with 4+ years old versions of OpenGL.

For example El Capitan (the last version without Metal) was released in 2015 and shipped with OpenGL 4.1 which was released in 2010.

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by dpezet on Saturday June 22, 2019 @07:23PM (#20252290)
Apple flagged OpenGL as deprecated in 10.14 so they have plans to drop it altogether.
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by bangonkeyboard on Saturday June 22, 2019 @07:34PM (#20252331)
In the process of deprecation they broke it, for old time's sake: https://twitter.com/icculus/status/1054634481812992000
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by SomeOldThrow on Saturday June 22, 2019 @03:53PM (#20251398)
That’s what windows is for—they’ve made the choice to emphasize legacy support over deprecation.
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by hrktb on Saturday June 22, 2019 @03:04PM (#20251145)
can’t old games just be emulated or containerized ?
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by ori_b on Saturday June 22, 2019 @06:15PM (#20251997)
Not if the OS doesn't support 32 bit processes. Containers are fancy chroots, not simple VMs.
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by duskwuff on Saturday June 22, 2019 @06:15PM (#20251996)
Containerizing / emulating OpenGL libraries (especially proprietary vendor drivers, like nVidia's) is difficult.
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by pvg on Saturday June 22, 2019 @03:08PM (#20251159)
A lot of these games aren't that old.
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by masklinn on Saturday June 22, 2019 @03:33PM (#20251288)
Yup, for instance The Cave can't be run on iOS anymore, because it was developed as a 32b application. It's just one of a thousand.
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by olliej on Saturday June 22, 2019 @04:15PM (#20251509)
It’s not just “iOS”: the modern (the last few years I think) A-series chips do not have any support for 32bit arm, they are 64bit only.
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by saagarjha on Saturday June 22, 2019 @04:41PM (#20251627)
Surely only the A11 and above?
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by olliej on Saturday June 22, 2019 @08:22PM (#20252498)
Honestly I can’t recall which gen dropped it, but presumably the moment they reached their EoL for the last non-64 bit device they had no reason to maintain the development cost of having a 32bit OS, maintaining support for communication between 32 and 64bit apps, nor the cost to users (doubling the size of the resident system memory, confusion of some apps running on some device but not others, etc).

And then knowing that if you drop 32bit then you can gain space on your silicon.

What irks me is that devs saw the first 64bit devices come out, and didn’t go “I should recompile my code”. Honestly the fact there are so many new apps made for pc that aren’t 64bit is mind blowing to me.

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by duskwuff on Sunday June 23, 2019 @03:23PM (#20258094)
> Honestly the fact there are so many new apps made for pc that aren’t 64bit is mind blowing to me.

Assuming you mean Windows, there are still a nontrivial number of PCs in the wild that are running a 32-bit OS. It's not huge -- about 1.5% of gaming PCs according to the Steam survey, probably a bit higher for home and office computers -- but either way it's enough that building applications as 64-bit-only is problematic.

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by olliej on Sunday June 23, 2019 @08:15PM (#20259567)
Are they 32bit cpus or 32bit windows? I recall windows inexplicably treated(treats?) 32bit and 64bit as being separate purchases for some reason (I assume money, given they limit supported core count according to which type of windows you buy).

But more seriously: why ship 32-bit only software. 64bit has been supported by all cpus intel and amd have shipped for more than a decade now. I had a consumer 64bit Athlon in 2005/6 that I could afford on a student budget. Given the perpetually increasing cpu demands of modern games, that you'd throw away something in the order of 15-20% perf by not support 64bit just seems insane.

Seriously: make 64bit your primary target, and if that hurts 32bit perf, that's those user's problem: they chose not to buy a high perf system.

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by duskwuff on Sunday June 23, 2019 @09:40PM (#20259895)
32-bit Windows. Most of them are probably running on a 64-bit capable CPU, but one that can't be used without replacing the OS.
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by olliej on Monday June 24, 2019 @01:38AM (#20260803)
If only MS never charged more for the 64bit versions :-/
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by dmix on Saturday June 22, 2019 @04:40PM (#20251620)
> because it was developed as a 32b application

But why? The Cave was released in 2013. We're almost two decades into the 64bit transition.

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by ori_b on Saturday June 22, 2019 @06:20PM (#20252024)
Why did the game need to pay the performance penalty for going 64 bit if it wasn't going to address more than 2G of memory?
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by megablast on Saturday June 22, 2019 @04:59PM (#20251707)
Why would windows 64 bit transition matter to an iOS app?
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by cameldrv on Saturday June 22, 2019 @05:00PM (#20251710)
The iPhone 5S was the first to support 64 bit in late 2013.
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by Wowfunhappy on Saturday June 22, 2019 @07:10PM (#20252215)
Also, games that work with Wine!
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by mikhailt on Saturday June 22, 2019 @02:47PM (#20251068)
The other reason I can think of is archival/history, we shouldn't disregard everything we've made in the past just because it doesn't run on latest hardware; they're still a good part of our history that we should learn from.

I just wish Apple would include a free downloadable 32-bit image of macOS Mojave or a specific version that we can always run on top of Apple's Hypervisor framework that'll be maintained forever for use of these 32-bit software in the event we don't find a proper 64-bit version and we don't "violate their EULA" if we buy a new Mac that didn't come with Mojave.

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by gumby on Saturday June 22, 2019 @03:35PM (#20251303)
I am not going to argue with the legitimate claims of inconvenience (or worse) thanks to deprecating old APIs.

But we have a natural experiment of the opposite: Microsoft has bent over backwards to maintain back compatibility. And those old APIs have been the major sources of vulnerabilities, fragility, and maintenance cost. They do occasionally bite the bullet (e.g. old versions of Word are no longer readable) but they go out of their way not to.

I really don't like Windows for my own technical reasons but I have tremendous respect for the amount of effort MS has put in over the years on this front and I sympathize with the consequences.

Apple has a much smaller "surface" (both vulnerability attack surface as well as surface ear of their own code base) which makes many technical decisions much easier.

So either way means a choice; you can't say one is absolutely superior to the other.

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by pvg on Saturday June 22, 2019 @04:29PM (#20251564)
I'm not sure this is all that accurate a description of the current state or priorities of either Windows or Mac OS. Microsoft actually did exactly what the other poster is suggesting - use virtualization to provide support for a previous OS (XP mode in Win 7). And that was 10 years ago.
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by bdcravens on Saturday June 22, 2019 @02:57PM (#20251111)
Except Apple already took the same approach with PowerPC applications.
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by mikhailt on Saturday June 22, 2019 @03:31PM (#20251273)
IIRC, you could still run these apps on Snow Leopard in VirtualBox by using Rosetta. It's PITA but I would still say they should offer Snow Leopard image for the purpose of having Rosetta support.

I'm not saying Apple will do anything like this but it would be nice of them to do it.

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by msbarnett on Saturday June 22, 2019 @04:29PM (#20251563)
Rosetta relied on a binary recompilation technology they licensed from Transitive. IBM bought it up and changed the licensing such that it was no longer economical for Apple to ship it, which is why it dropped really suddenly.

Free copies of Snow Leopard would likely cost them a lot in fees to IBM

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by bdcravens on Saturday June 22, 2019 @03:36PM (#20251310)
Maybe a point in time image wouldn't be a bad thing, but what do you mean by "that'll be maintained forever"? That it'll be downloadable, or that Apple should be responsible for security updates, etc, on those legacy OSes?
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by saagarjha on Saturday June 22, 2019 @04:43PM (#20251633)
Apple makes previous versions of macOS available to download, and you should be able to cover those into something your virtualization software can boot.
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by rock_artist on Saturday June 22, 2019 @02:33PM (#20251002)
If you have no use for 32-bit than you shouldn't care... For modern software or many fields, 32bit isn't critical.

However, Some fields still have some 32-bit based products (or frameworks) which would break on Catalina.

Why would someone use 32bit? There are closed-sourced products that never released as 64bit. for software developers that's quite rate but still for some fields there are no real alternatives for those products. so they should keep older versions or run VM.

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by reaperducer on Saturday June 22, 2019 @03:12PM (#20251179)
There are closed-sourced products that never released as 64bit

Yep. I have a number of 32-bit programs that were never and will never be ported to 64 bits because the author has died, the company is out of business, or other reasons.

Now I will have to buy replacements for these programs just so I can run an OS that gets the latest security updates.

It can also affect hardware.

For example, I have two Apple AirMac routers that can only be configured with a version of Airport Utility that runs on old hardware. I'm lucky to have an old iLamp around that I can use when this is necessary, but when that dies, I have to throw away two perfectly good routers just because Apple chooses not to support them in the current version of Airport Utility.

[dead]
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by ken on Saturday June 22, 2019 @04:14PM (#20251508)
AirMac is Apple’s actual name for their wireless routers and cards, in some markets.
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by reaperducer on Saturday June 22, 2019 @05:01PM (#20251713)
Is it really so hard to use actual names of things so people know what the fuck you’re talking about?

AirMac is their actual names. Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

As for iLamp, that was a fairly common name for that computer when it was popular. If you don't know it, you should turn in your nerd card.

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by scarface74 on Saturday June 22, 2019 @06:05PM (#20251961)
In all fairness. How many non Mac folks or even Mac folks that don’t listen to ATP would know colloquial terms like the “MacBook One” and the “MacBook Escape”?

The G4 iMac was discontinued in 2004 - over 15 years ago. I’m very much an Apple nerd but I haven’t heard it call that before today.

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by DonHopkins on Saturday June 22, 2019 @08:27PM (#20252514)
I too have been using Apple computers since the Apple ][, and I never heard of iLamp, either.

iVory, definitely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolics#Ivory_and_Open_Gener...

iRack, of course: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw2nkoGLhrE

iBrator, naturally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EExgxtJjRS8

iSmell, unfortunately: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISmell

But iLamp? Nope.

Where can I turn in my nerd card?

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by rangibaby on Saturday June 22, 2019 @08:50PM (#20252591)
It’s the iMac that looks like a lamp. I think G4?
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by macintux on Saturday June 22, 2019 @07:55PM (#20252408)
I used my first Apple computer about 40 years ago. I’ve been conversant with, or a fan of, the company for decades. I don’t happen to recall “iLamp”.
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by scarface74 on Saturday June 22, 2019 @04:20PM (#20251531)
Just from Googling...

https://support.apple.com/ja-jp/airmac

It does look like that’s the actual name in some markets - at least the AirMac.

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by simongr3dal on Saturday June 22, 2019 @02:49PM (#20251074)
If the hardware, the operating systems, and the software ecosystem around these products kept on supporting 32-bit the products never had any critical incetive to transition.

Perhpas now they will have that, or other pieces of software will come and fill the void.

I'm still pretty bummed about what this will mean for WINE though, it will mean a lot more work for those devs – or a serious reduction in the amount of software that will work with it.

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by bangonkeyboard on Saturday June 22, 2019 @03:25PM (#20251237)
This idea that vendors should seek to actively break working software simply because it's "old" is repellent to me. I use several 32-bit apps and components regularly because they continue to function better than the alternatives. Many are unlikely to ever be rewritten or replaced because the developers, ecosystems, and business models that made them possible are today either gone or moribund.
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by Bahamut on Saturday June 22, 2019 @03:54PM (#20251409)
And this is how we end up with long lifetimes for software like Internet Explorer, which ends up holding back most people's experience with the web, especially mobile, because a lot of extra scripts/code has to be shipped to maintain compatibility (polyfills, newer features can't be used and thus must be compiled around, etc.), which directly impacts the value being able to be delivered to end users costing more or having less time being able to be allocated to doing so.

More people have to suffer usually if software ends up long lived without being pushed to upgrade when there are newer technologies that improve the experience - it's a heavy price of others you're asking for a lot of times when choices have to be made between compatibility and improvements that often get discounted unreasonably.

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by bangonkeyboard on Saturday June 22, 2019 @04:14PM (#20251507)
> More people have to suffer usually if software ends up long lived without being pushed to upgrade when there are newer technologies that improve the experience - it's a heavy price of others you're asking for a lot of times when choices have to be made between compatibility and improvements that often get discounted unreasonably.

I look at all of the Mac software I've lost and will lose to upgrades over the years, including the offline-only parts of my workflow that held back only myself, and weigh them against this bright new future of low-effort blown-up tablet apps on my desktop that they were sacrificed for. A heavy price certainly has been paid here.

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by alacombe on Saturday June 22, 2019 @07:25PM (#20252298)
Just think of all the software infrastructure you rely on is probably running COBOL or very, very old tech, you really don't want those to be re-written today. Also, the industry (think CNC controllers) relies on tried and true interfaces that are just unavailable today (USB is utter rubbish in high electrical noise environment) and there is barely replacement either. Not to mention the cost of training blue-collars operators...

Real world is not the web cocoon, even there, switching front-end every 2 years is not acceptable.

disclamer: I know that for a fact as I'm in the process of replacing a CNC control system with modern parts, trust me it's HARD.

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by erik_seaberg on Saturday June 22, 2019 @09:45PM (#20252777)
If only IE can render a web page, that's not a problem only because IE got old, it was always a problem with bad work on that page, and people were rightly complaining back when it happened.

It's crazy that we can't run old software on vastly more powerful hardware. Imagine if we suddenly couldn't read old books.

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by simongr3dal on Sunday June 23, 2019 @08:14AM (#20254977)
I don't believe that people are actively breaking software. It is simply a side-effect of how progress happens in this industry.

Computers are made up of many small parts the same with software, every component comes from different vendors and they are all working asynchrously to each other and adjusting to the changes around them every time they update or make a new component.

Each new change looks like a tiny leap-frogging, but if you don't update or rearchitechture for a long while it becomes an insurmountable to task to update because the whole world has moved away from under you. Not by monumental breaking changes but by thousands small changes that has added up.

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by rock_artist on Saturday June 22, 2019 @03:15PM (#20251192)
> I'm still pretty bummed about what this will mean for WINE though

why? all Intel chips currently supports 32bit ISA. You can still have VMs to run 32bit. also IIRC, Wine is X-Window? so you can even attach through SSH-X to it with simple Docker container.

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by qwerty456127 on Saturday June 22, 2019 @03:57PM (#20251425)
> Wine is X-Window? so you can even attach through SSH-X to it

Absolutely true. I once had to set a client-server Windows-based CRM in a small company. The server had a native Linux version, the client app was windows-only. Client machines ran Windows. Users also wanted to work from home. For some reason (some kind of connection glitches or whatever, I can't remember already) I've chosen to install Xfree on the Ubuntu server (one of command-line-managed VirtualBox VMs on another Ubuntu server actually), set-up the app for direct client-server connection, let users connect to the Linux box over OpenVPN and run the Win32 app with Wine over SSH on their Windows machines :-)

I've fell in love with the X as I have managed to set this up (quite easily, BTW). I certainly don't want Linux to loose such a beautiful ability as it switches to Wayland (I don't worry much about Wine though, all the distributions but Ubuntu keep shipping multiarch libs and it works just fine but I won't update my Mac as it has just 128 GiBs SSD and I have no disk space to spare for a Windows VM).

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by Rebelgecko on Saturday June 22, 2019 @02:59PM (#20251124)
That's pretty much it. Its really annoying to have to dual boot Windows so that I can play a game like Civ IV. It's sad that a number of somewhat recent games, as well as games that I want to fire up for nostalgia purposes (e.g. Starcraft) don't work anymore.
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by moduspol on Saturday June 22, 2019 @08:15PM (#20252466)
They're already working on getting Starcraft to 64 bit [1], but Starcraft is also interesting in that this is the second time this has happened. As a PowerPC application, it also required Rosetta back in the day, and now will need further recompilation for 64-bit only Macs.

[1] https://us.battle.net/forums/en/starcraft/topic/20762237268#...

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by Rebelgecko on Saturday June 22, 2019 @09:04PM (#20252644)
True, Blizzard in particular does a fantastic job supporting their older games. It's still a bummer for other games, such as the beloved (by me) Escape Velocity series, whose publisher is now defunct.

Its also annoying for people with some commercial software. My dad uses an older nonsubscription version of photoshop and some desktop publishing software that I believe will be incompatible with Catalina

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by qwerty456127 on Saturday June 22, 2019 @03:45PM (#20251358)
Having spare time to play Civilization is a luxury (I could only afford this when I was a child, now I only have a humble amount of time left after working, studying, sleeping and working out and I prefer to spend this time with my loved one, outdoors usually). You better just enjoy it and don't waste it on thoughts about annoyances.

As for StarCraft you can run it in VirtualBox, or perhaps even DOSBox with Windows95 might be enough.

Nevertheless I agree people should care about keeping old games playable - these are an important part of human cultural legacy, a fairly serious form of art, as are paintings, literature, etc.

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by rubbingalcohol on Saturday June 22, 2019 @02:29PM (#20250984)
> other than old things that might not be ported

That's about the only reason to care as far as I can tell.

I was pretty surprised to see that relatively recent ports like Bioshock Infinite won't be getting a 64-bit update. We had 64-bit games back in 2005 starting with the original Far Cry, so I'm not sure how this could even be a problem nearly 15 years later.

Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by jacobush on Saturday June 22, 2019 @02:36PM (#20251018)
Even building for 32 bit again can be a lot of trouble, let alone updating every little dependency
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by wincy on Saturday June 22, 2019 @08:27PM (#20252515)
Irrational Games, who made Bioshock Infinite’s company went out of business. Who is going to update it?
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by earenndil on Saturday June 22, 2019 @10:17PM (#20252877)
Yes but the macos port is by aspyr; do they not have the code anymore?
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by Doctor_Fegg on Saturday June 22, 2019 @06:32PM (#20252061)
Pre-subscription Adobe apps.
Re:macOS Catalina, 64-bit, 32-bit, and related Questions by corey_moncure on Saturday June 22, 2019 @04:04PM (#20251460)
Visual Studio