News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Win32 on macOS by steve19 on Saturday December 14, 2019 @03:06AM (#21788404)
Does apple have a good reason for killing 32bit support? I play a number of games that will now never run without a VM.
Re:Win32 on macOS by musicale on Saturday December 14, 2019 @03:26AM (#21788456)
The obvious development reason is to simplify and unify the code base, tools, and build process across all of their platforms. 32-bit bugs can also be ignored/deleted for future versions.

The obvious hardware reason on iOS is that Apple can remove support for ARM32.

The obvious business reason is to encourage subscriptions to Apple Arcade.

Re:Win32 on macOS by jaflo on Saturday December 14, 2019 @05:59PM (#21792955)
How is Arcade related to 32-bit?
Re:Win32 on macOS by saagarjha on Saturday December 14, 2019 @06:38PM (#21793183)
Lots of games are 32-bit.
Re:Win32 on macOS by Wowfunhappy on Sunday December 15, 2019 @10:31AM (#21796660)
And just to fully complete the thought, I believe the GGP is implying "Break existing Mac games, so that people who want to play games on their Mac have to subscribe to Apple Arcade."
Re:Win32 on macOS by em500 on Saturday December 14, 2019 @07:16AM (#21789136)
https://pilky.me/apples-technology-transitions/

Section "Why Drop 32 Bit?" (last quarter of the article).

Re:Win32 on macOS by zmzrr on Saturday December 14, 2019 @09:50AM (#21789732)
"when you open a 32 bit app, 32 bit system libraries remain loaded forever!" okay how about you fix that instead?
Re:Win32 on macOS by chrisseaton on Saturday December 14, 2019 @03:44AM (#21788503)
Simplifying the software and hardware. Seems a good thing to clear out the cruft? Use a VM if you need to emulate ancient systems.
Re:Win32 on macOS by oefrha on Saturday December 14, 2019 @03:40AM (#21788493)
Probably a step towards the eventual arm64 transition.
Re:Win32 on macOS by mhd on Saturday December 14, 2019 @04:07AM (#21788564)
Killing it in the way they did? Not a dire technical one. In the past they managed to keep compatibility while switching operating systems ("Classic") and CPU architectures (68k -> PPC, PPC -> Intel). And that while being a much smaller company.

This is business, nothing else. Just like all the increased "security" restrictions. Corralling everyone towards the App Store. I think they've got too much legacy to ever totally cut off "regular" applications, but apart from that they're doing everything they can to move everything in the direction of iOS (or iPadOS now).

Not sure how long the days of the last commercial Unix will last.

Re:Win32 on macOS by throwaway884840 on Saturday December 14, 2019 @06:24AM (#21788951)
> In the past they managed to keep compatibility while switching operating systems ("Classic") and CPU architectures (68k -> PPC, PPC -> Intel).

The Classic Environment (OS 9 -> OS X) was dropped after 6 years.

Rosetta (PPC -> i386) was dropped after 5 years.

i386 -> x86_64 is now being dropped after 12 years.

Re:Win32 on macOS by Wowfunhappy on Sunday December 15, 2019 @10:47AM (#21796761)
Your point notwithstanding, the big difference to me is this: Classic and Rosetta were hacks with sucky UX. In particular, performance was terrible, in Rosetta because it was a full on CPU emulator, and Classic because it was booting Mac OS 9 in a Virtual Machine. Apps that used Classic also looked visually out of place.

Running 32 bit apps in Mac OS X Mojave is 100% seamless to the user—if it wasn't for Apple's warning dialogues that 32bit was going to be deprecated, most users—even advanced users—would never even know the app was 32 bit.

And that's because 32 bit support is a key feature of the amd64 architecture—it's the main reason most computers today use amd64 instead of the alternate standard proposed by Intel.

Re:Win32 on macOS by pvg on Saturday December 14, 2019 @05:02AM (#21788710)
Killing it in the way they did? Not a dire technical one. In the past they managed to keep compatibility

Killing it in what way? They kept compatibility for years and eventually ended it, just like the transitions you mention.

This is business, nothing else

Both the security changes and dropping 32 bits are technically reasonable things to do. You might not like them and that's perhaps not entirely unreasonable either but the notion that they were done for business, nothing else makes little sense. What business do you have in mind? Apple makes money selling iPhones.

Re:Win32 on macOS by soraminazuki on Saturday December 14, 2019 @04:26AM (#21788615)
I'd guess a translation layer would require much more effort to develop and maintain than just keeping 32 bit support. It wouldn't make much sense in this case because dropping support is the sole objective, not some side effect caused by architectural/OS changes.
Re:Win32 on macOS by mhd on Saturday December 14, 2019 @04:36AM (#21788647)
I was just mentioning those layers as something Apple was able to do if they wanted to keep being compatible. They could, but they don't want. How sinister that purpose is, is up to the reader...
Re:Win32 on macOS by wayoutthere on Saturday December 14, 2019 @12:55PM (#21790877)
Apple has a long history of sunsetting various technologies, so I don't know how this is different. Their solution to tech debt is often to just deprecate the edge cases -- which is probably the right decision.
Re:Win32 on macOS by jtdev on Saturday December 14, 2019 @01:29PM (#21791146)
It’s like the exact opposite approach that Microsoft seems to take with Windows, and a key reason that I prefer Apple/MacOS
Re:Win32 on macOS by wayoutthere on Saturday December 14, 2019 @01:33PM (#21791173)
Yeah, Apple tried to take the Microsoft approach with the Mac Clones in the late 90s and it failed spectacularly because it's just not in their DNA to be a tech company. They're a product company that hates managing technology longer than is absolutely necessary.
Re:Win32 on macOS by ben509 on Saturday December 14, 2019 @03:23PM (#21791945)
> This is business, nothing else.

That's entirely the case. Apple has to weigh the cost of maintaining compatibility against the value it brings.

And it's hard to see how if the developer can't make a business case for updating their software that Apple can make a business case for maintaining compatibility.

That's the business reality of Apple's primarily consumer market: consumers are generally willing to let old software go and buy new stuff.

Microsoft is simply in a different market: they have many large enterprise customers who are willing to pay top dollar for extensive backwards compatibility.

Re:Win32 on macOS by scarface74 on Saturday December 14, 2019 @09:05AM (#21789533)
Apple has supposedly been “corralling every one” to the Mac App Store for a decade. Isn’t it more likely that the conspiracy theories are wrong?
Re:Win32 on macOS by st3fan on Saturday December 14, 2019 @10:53AM (#21790087)
Yes. And that is what they are - conspiracy theories.
Re:Win32 on macOS by phs318u on Saturday December 14, 2019 @06:47PM (#21793241)
Conspiracy hypotheses.
Re:Win32 on macOS by goatinaboat on Saturday December 14, 2019 @02:20PM (#21791509)
Remember on 68k they also had to orchestrate the transition from 24-bit to 32-bit addressing.
Re:Win32 on macOS by hoistbypetard on Saturday December 14, 2019 @03:43PM (#21792094)
I remember using some Connectix gadget on a IIcx to make it able to address 32 bits. I spent some time in macsbug figuring out how it worked. It was really interesting. It essentially patched the memory manager early in the boot process then forced it to reinitialize itself.

I'm pretty sure Apple licensed that for some version of System 7 (maybe 7.5.something?) so that they could assume all post-boot 32-bit macs were 32-bit clean.

Re:Win32 on macOS by Kwpolska on Saturday December 14, 2019 @07:38AM (#21789216)
The Classic environment was retired in 2007 with the release of 10.5 Leopard, and was never available for x86 Macs. With 10.7 Lion (2011), they dropped support for 32-bit x86 Macs, and running PowerPC software via emulation (Rosetta). Eight years of support for 32-bit apps is quite long by these standards.
Re:Win32 on macOS by 4ad on Saturday December 14, 2019 @07:11AM (#21789117)
My speculation is that it's for the upcoming arm64 transition (yet another speculation). It's easier to make one emulator, than two.