macOS updates for Apple Silicon Macs are larger than reported

Re:macOS updates for Apple Silicon Macs are larger than repo... by emilecantin on Monday August 21, 2023 @11:40AM (#37211049)

If I recall correctly, Apple went straight to 64 bits during the Intel transition. If they didn't, it wasn't long after so devs were still in the process of porting over to Intel anyway.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:macOS updates for Apple Silicon Macs are larger than repo... by dubya on Monday August 21, 2023 @11:57AM (#37211344)

There are definitely Mac 32-bit Intel games on Steam, like Portal, that won't run on anything recent.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:macOS updates for Apple Silicon Macs are larger than repo... by mowse_winded on Monday August 21, 2023 @02:04PM (#37213149)

Apple switched to Intel with first generation Intel Core Solo/Duo which were 32 bit CPUs in mid 2006. Then later that year they released "late 2006" models using Core 2 CPUs which were 64 bit. However, they only has support for 32-bit EFI so they could not boot 64-bit OS.

https://everymac.com/mac-answers/snow-leopard-mac-os-x-faq/m...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:macOS updates for Apple Silicon Macs are larger than repo... by lloeki on Monday August 21, 2023 @03:34PM (#37214258)

I had a "Blackbook", it was definitely a 32 bit CPU (T2500).

Software-wise 64 bit userland processes were supported since Tiger (CLI and Cocoa only, Carbon UI stayed 32 bit) before the kernel itself moved to 64 bits in Snow Leopard (although IIRC not the default except on Xserve and Mac Pro, the two that could have loads of RAM. You could tell it to boot the 64 bit kernel through nvram boot args or something though)

A few Macs had a 64 bit CPU but a 32 bit only bootloader/firmware. That made them disqualified for one of the major OS version updates when it required a full 64 bit boot chain.

[ Parent | on HN ]