Re:macOS Catalina
by _ph_ on Monday October 07, 2019 @05:12PM
(#21186004)
Going to 64 bit can be a lot of work. So there is quite some software which is still lightly maintained for which there isn't a 64 bit update available. Software which has worked perfectly fine up to date.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:macOS Catalina
by davrosthedalek on Monday October 07, 2019 @06:47PM
(#21186812)
Additionally, it has zero benefit for many applications from a performance stand point, or makes them even slower.
> or makes them even slower.
Only in misleading microbenchmarks. In the real world, the memory bandwidth saved by using 32-bit pointers in some programs that can be guaranteed to not need more than 4GB of memory (or ASLR or other features enabled by x86-64) is completely outweighed by the costs of keeping both 64-bit and 32-bit libraries on disk and in memory and in cache. That's why even on Linux the x32 ABI was never able to gain traction even among Gentoo users, and why retaining traditional 32-bit support is viewed as only a compatibility measure for closed-source code that literally can't be updated.
Re:macOS Catalina
by chrisseaton on Monday October 07, 2019 @06:52PM
(#21186848)
> it has zero benefit for many applications
They literally can't run without porting, disregarding performance. The benefit is infinite!
Re:macOS Catalina
by davrosthedalek on Monday October 07, 2019 @07:03PM
(#21186921)
But that's artificial, and you know it. The only reason for forcing 64bit is to lower Apple's support cost and push its bottom line.
Re:macOS Catalina
by chrisseaton on Monday October 07, 2019 @07:18PM
(#21187024)
Fine by me - sweeping out the dust.
If a program works fine, with no issues, why should companies be forced to update it simply because Apple decrees they no longer support 32 bit applications? "Sweeping the dust" is an absurd declaration.