Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #116847 > unrolled thread

64 to 32 bit

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  64 to 32 bit Gerry <address@domain.com> - 2018-05-31 15:12 -0700
    Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-31 18:37 -0400
      Re: 64 to 32 bit gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2018-05-31 21:27 -0700
      Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-01 01:50 -0400
        Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 02:04 -0400
        Re: 64 to 32 bit Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-01 18:20 +1200
    Re: 64 to 32 bit Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-01 13:52 +1200
      Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-05-31 22:41 -0400
        Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-01 14:50 +0000
          Re: 64 to 32 bit Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-02 01:22 +0000
        Re: 64 to 32 bit "Snit's dysautonomia http://bit.ly/2Jqpplk" <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 23:28 -0700
      Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 01:29 -0400
        Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-01 01:41 -0400
          Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 02:04 -0400
      Re: 64 to 32 bit Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2018-06-01 08:36 +0100
        Re: 64 to 32 bit Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2018-06-01 11:10 -0400
          Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 11:21 -0400
          Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-01 12:49 -0400
            Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 12:51 -0400
        Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-01 15:50 +0000
          Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-01 12:54 -0400
            Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 13:08 -0400
            Re: 64 to 32 bit Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-02 01:31 +0000
            Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-02 15:31 +0000
              Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-02 14:40 -0400
                Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 14:42 -0400
                Re: 64 to 32 bit Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2018-06-02 22:36 -0400
                Re: 64 to 32 bit Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-05 09:24 +0000
            Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-02 15:39 +0000
              Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-02 14:44 -0400
                Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 14:49 -0400
                  Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-02 15:00 -0400
                    Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 15:12 -0400
                    Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-02 21:44 +0000
                      Re: 64 to 32 bit "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2018-06-04 18:41 +0000
                        Re: 64 to 32 bit Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 12:14 -0700
                        Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-04 19:21 +0000
                          Re: 64 to 32 bit gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2018-06-04 14:39 -0700
                Re: 64 to 32 bit Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2018-06-02 19:56 +0100
                  Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-02 15:04 -0400
                    Re: 64 to 32 bit Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-06-04 18:54 -0400
                Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-02 21:43 +0000
                Re: 64 to 32 bit Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-05 09:29 +0000
          Re: 64 to 32 bit Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2018-06-01 15:09 -0400
            Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-02 15:46 +0000
              Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 12:00 -0400
                Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-02 16:58 +0000
                  Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-02 14:50 -0400
                    Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 14:54 -0400
                      Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-02 15:01 -0400
                        Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 15:12 -0400
                          Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-02 17:56 -0400
                            Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 18:08 -0400
                              Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-03 03:55 +0000
                                Re: 64 to 32 bit "Snit's dysautonomia http://bit.ly/2Jqpplk" <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 07:48 -0700
                                Re: 64 to 32 bit "Snit's dysautonomia http://bit.ly/2Jqpplk" <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 11:28 -0700
                            Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-03 03:54 +0000
                            Re: 64 to 32 bit Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-05 09:43 +0000
                        Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-02 21:37 +0000
                        Re: 64 to 32 bit Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-03 12:07 +1200
                        Re: 64 to 32 bit Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-05 09:42 +0000
              Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-02 14:47 -0400
                Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 14:49 -0400
                Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-02 21:40 +0000
                Re: 64 to 32 bit Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-05 09:45 +0000
              Re: 64 to 32 bit Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2018-06-02 22:35 -0400
                Re: 64 to 32 bit Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-03 15:09 +1200
                Re: 64 to 32 bit Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-05 09:47 +0000

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#116847 — 64 to 32 bit

I've been seeing various programs pop up and give me the warning that 
in newer operating systems these 32 bit programs will not be 
operational.  But I clicked "okay" and went on about my business.  Now 
I've forgotten which of these apps were which, and realize I need to 
beg languishing developers and/or find alternative apps to do my 
bidding.

Is there an easy way to get a comprehensive list of which apps on my 
system will need added code?  Or a way to clear the notification 
process so all applicable programs will get that initial complaint 
again, where I can scribble it down?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#116849

In article <peps08$pbm$1@news.albasani.net>, Gerry <address@domain.com>
wrote:

> I've been seeing various programs pop up and give me the warning that 
> in newer operating systems these 32 bit programs will not be 
> operational.  But I clicked "okay" and went on about my business.  Now 
> I've forgotten which of these apps were which, and realize I need to 
> beg languishing developers and/or find alternative apps to do my 
> bidding.
> 
> Is there an easy way to get a comprehensive list of which apps on my 
> system will need added code?  Or a way to clear the notification 
> process so all applicable programs will get that initial complaint 
> again, where I can scribble it down?

click on the apple menu, hold down option key and the about this mac
item will change to system information..., choose that, then click
applications on the left (in the software section), click on the 64 bit
column to sort, possibly twice so that 32 bit sorts at the top instead
of bottom (or scroll to the bottom).

some of those apps will be apple's, which will obviously be updated,
replaced or discontinued entirely.

the non-apple apps are the ones you need to worry about.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116853

On 2018-05-31 22:37:17 +0000, nospam said:

> In article <peps08$pbm$1@news.albasani.net>, Gerry <address@domain.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> I've been seeing various programs pop up and give me the warning that
>> in newer operating systems these 32 bit programs will not be
>> operational.  But I clicked "okay" and went on about my business.  Now
>> I've forgotten which of these apps were which, and realize I need to
>> beg languishing developers and/or find alternative apps to do my
>> bidding.
>> 
>> Is there an easy way to get a comprehensive list of which apps on my
>> system will need added code?  Or a way to clear the notification
>> process so all applicable programs will get that initial complaint
>> again, where I can scribble it down?
> 
> click on the apple menu, hold down option key and the about this mac
> item will change to system information..., choose that, then click
> applications on the left (in the software section), click on the 64 bit
> column to sort, possibly twice so that 32 bit sorts at the top instead
> of bottom (or scroll to the bottom).
> 
> some of those apps will be apple's, which will obviously be updated,
> replaced or discontinued entirely.
> 
> the non-apple apps are the ones you need to worry about.

Cool.  Thanks so much!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116856

On 2018-05-31 18:37, nospam wrote:

> the non-apple apps are the ones you need to worry about.

Depends. If you are using older deprecated apps that still work, those
apps won't get updated to 64 bits. (I don't know off hand which ones
could fit this desription). One would normally be aware that you're
using an app that Apple hasn't upgraded and that it has been EOLed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116857

In article <p85QC.129232$RI2.32411@fx26.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> 
> > the non-apple apps are the ones you need to worry about.
> 
> Depends.

no it doesn't.

> If you are using older deprecated apps that still work, those
> apps won't get updated to 64 bits.

which means those apps will run with compromises and at some point, not
at all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116860

On 2018-06-01 05:50:13 +0000, JF Mezei said:
> On 2018-05-31 18:37, nospam wrote:
> 
>> the non-apple apps are the ones you need to worry about.
> 
> Depends. If you are using older deprecated apps that still work, those
> apps won't get updated to 64 bits. (I don't know off hand which ones
> could fit this desription). One would normally be aware that you're
> using an app that Apple hasn't upgraded and that it has been EOLed.

Some people are worried about QuickTime 7 Player. They still use it 
because it has features never brought into the newer versions. For 
example
<https://discussions.apple.com/thread/8048098>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116851

On 2018-05-31 22:12:24 +0000, Gerry said:
> 
> I've been seeing various programs pop up and give me the warning that 
> in newer operating systems these 32 bit programs will not be 
> operational.  But I clicked "okay" and went on about my business.  Now 
> I've forgotten which of these apps were which, and realize I need to 
> beg languishing developers and/or find alternative apps to do my 
> bidding.

As of the current information, Apple is saying 32-bit apps will not run 
*as* *efficiently* under the next version of macOS (10.14) ... it has 
*not* said that they will not be able to run at all.



> Is there an easy way to get a comprehensive list of which apps on my 
> system will need added code?  Or a way to clear the notification 
> process so all applicable programs will get that initial complaint 
> again, where I can scribble it down?

1.  Go to the Apple menu and choose "About This Mac", then in the
    'Overview' tab, click on the 'System Report' button.
    (Or you can open the 'System Information' app yourself from
    the 'Utilities' folder.)

2. In the 'Software' section, click on 'Applications'.

3. In the top-right pane, click on the column heading
   '64-bit Intel' to sort the list into 'Yes' and 'No' blocks.
   You can also drag that column left until it's next to the app
   name column. That will give you a list of which apps are and
   are not 64-bit.

4. You can print it to a PDF, but it lists each app as a separate
   block, rather than a nice list as in the window.
   (The Save command will save the whole System Information to an
   XML document, which is even less easy to read without some
   extra work.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116852

On 2018-05-31 21:52, Your Name wrote:

> As of the current information, Apple is saying 32-bit apps will not run 
> *as* *efficiently* under the next version of macOS (10.14) ... it has 
> *not* said that they will not be able to run at all.

I wonder if this just means that 32bit libraries won't be updated with
newfangled system calls that improve system performance.  (as opposed to
Apple degrading performance of 32 bit libraries).

> 2. In the 'Software' section, click on 'Applications'.

That System Information application will list all applications on
mounted disks. For instance, if you have a backup disk with Snow Leopard
system, the System information will show those apps as well. And if you
sort by 32bit, it will likely show a whole lot of system Apps that are
32 bits first.

So before you do this, you should dismount all non-system disks to
ensure the System Information only scans your system disk.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116865

On 2018-06-01, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2018-05-31 21:52, Your Name wrote:
>
>> As of the current information, Apple is saying 32-bit apps will not run 
>> *as* *efficiently* under the next version of macOS (10.14) ... it has 
>> *not* said that they will not be able to run at all.
>
> I wonder if this just means that 32bit libraries won't be updated with
> newfangled system calls that improve system performance.  (as opposed to
> Apple degrading performance of 32 bit libraries).

FUD ALERT: Apple's not going to purposely do anything nefarious
to "degrade performance of 32-bit libraries".

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116888

In message <fnd4p5Fjr8qU1@mid.individual.net> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2018-06-01, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> On 2018-05-31 21:52, Your Name wrote:
>>
>>> As of the current information, Apple is saying 32-bit apps will not run 
>>> *as* *efficiently* under the next version of macOS (10.14) ... it has 
>>> *not* said that they will not be able to run at all.
>>
>> I wonder if this just means that 32bit libraries won't be updated with
>> newfangled system calls that improve system performance.  (as opposed to
>> Apple degrading performance of 32 bit libraries).

> FUD ALERT: Apple's not going to purposely do anything nefarious
> to "degrade performance of 32-bit libraries".

What will happen is that 32 bit Apps will take longer to launch because
the 32bit libraries will not be loaded by default. There may even be new
system features that 32-bit apps will not be able to interface with at
all.

Then the 32 bit libraries will be removed from the system and those apps
will no longer work.

Chances are good we will know a bit more next week.


-- 
"I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with
sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forego their use."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116954

On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 7:41:05 PM UTC-7, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2018-05-31 21:52, Your Name wrote:
> 
> > As of the current information, Apple is saying 32-bit apps will not run 
> > *as* *efficiently* under the next version of macOS (10.14) ... it has 
> > *not* said that they will not be able to run at all.
> 
> I wonder if this just means that 32bit libraries won't be updated with
> newfangled system calls that improve system performance.  (as opposed to
> Apple degrading performance of 32 bit libraries).
> 
> > 2. In the 'Software' section, click on 'Applications'.
> 
> That System Information application will list all applications on
> mounted disks. For instance, if you have a backup disk with Snow Leopard
> system, the System information will show those apps as well. And if you
> sort by 32bit, it will likely show a whole lot of system Apps that are
> 32 bits first.
> 
> So before you do this, you should dismount all non-system disks to
> ensure the System Information only scans your system disk.



Snit's posts are nothing but a meaningless prattle. 

My uptime is almost ninety weeks and that is just how I roll. For others I would merely think the comment is worth looking into. Of course, given that it's Snit I would skip that doubt and go straight to 'lie' because that's most of what he does. It is faster to assume it is a lie until proved otherwise. Despite Snit's claim that he has "no interest in making automated posts" (a lie as proved by the fact that he annoyed everyone in COLA) he was quoted asking programmers how they would take down a website. Lots of denizens persist in replying to Snit. Frankly I don't criticize The Flying Spaghetti Monster for being pissed but I can not figure out why he posts here after all this nonsense. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is more interested in dialog as found in a Facebook venue and open forums suck for that. 

He upsets multiple groups of people who are mere civilians, but that's a narcissist for you. What you and I care about isn't a factor. 

I still am unconvinced that these posts are definitely scripted. Frankly I do not really care. 



-- 
This Trick Gets Women Hot For You!!
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.development.apps/G2-ZXYAEyIM
https://youtu.be/u4xD43Khhkw
Jonas Eklundh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116854

In article <peq8si$pba$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> As of the current information, Apple is saying 32-bit apps will not run 
> *as* *efficiently* under the next version of macOS (10.14) ... it has 
> *not* said that they will not be able to run at all.

nope. they said with compromises but did not say what those compromises
will be.

check back on monday, after the wwdc keynote.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116855

On 2018-06-01 01:29, nospam wrote:

> nope. they said with compromises but did not say what those compromises
> will be.


They said the same thing before 32bit apps on iPhone were to be killed,
but I never felt any slowdown.

If they will widthdraw 32bit APIs, it doesn't make sense that they would
thinker with them one version before retirement. But it makes more sense
that they WON'T thinker with them to make use of newer services that
boost performamnce. (for instance, Metal performance for graphics not
available in 32 bit APIs.)


The warnings about performanmce is likely more about telling people to
not use 32bit apps to do performance measurements of system (since they
wouldn't be using the better optimized 64 bit APis).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116858

In article <t05QC.280211$DS3.118816@fx42.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> 
> > nope. they said with compromises but did not say what those compromises
> > will be.
> 
> They said the same thing before 32bit apps on iPhone were to be killed,

no they didn't. 

all that happened was an alert that said the app needed to be updated
and that using it can slow down the phone.

> but I never felt any slowdown.

there was.

> If they will widthdraw 32bit APIs, 

when, not if.

> it doesn't make sense that they would
> thinker with them one version before retirement. But it makes more sense
> that they WON'T thinker with them to make use of newer services that
> boost performamnce. (for instance, Metal performance for graphics not
> available in 32 bit APIs.)

yes it does.

instead of a sudden cutoff, 32 bit apps will continue to work, but with
as yet unspecified compromises.

check back next week when those compromises are almost certainly going
to be known.

> The warnings about performanmce is likely more about telling people to
> not use 32bit apps to do performance measurements of system (since they
> wouldn't be using the better optimized 64 bit APis).

they didn't say anything about performance.

all they said was that there would be compromises, which can mean
pretty much anything.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116862

In article <peq8si$pba$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

>As of the current information, Apple is saying 32-bit apps will not run 
>*as* *efficiently* under the next version of macOS (10.14)

WTF does this mean? Does Apple insert a NOOP between successive machine
instructions so the app only runs half as fast?

-- 
"Please stop telling us what you feel. Please stop telling us what your 
intuition is. Your intuitive feelings are of no interest whatsoever, 
and nor are mine. I don't give a bugger what you feel, or what I feel. 
I want to know what the evidence shows."             -- Richard Dawkins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116866

In article <010620180836443392%timstreater@greenbee.net>,
 Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> In article <peq8si$pba$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name
> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> 
> >As of the current information, Apple is saying 32-bit apps will not run 
> >*as* *efficiently* under the next version of macOS (10.14)
> 
> WTF does this mean? Does Apple insert a NOOP between successive machine
> instructions so the app only runs half as fast?

My guess is that there will be a compatibility layer in the system 
libraries, that has to convert between 32-bit and 64-bit structures when 
calling into the operating system. This will slow down many operations 
by the 32-bit applications.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116867

In article <barmar-3DF5A0.11102901062018@reader.eternal-september.org>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> > >As of the current information, Apple is saying 32-bit apps will not run 
> > >*as* *efficiently* under the next version of macOS (10.14)
> > 
> > WTF does this mean? Does Apple insert a NOOP between successive machine
> > instructions so the app only runs half as fast?
> 
> My guess is that there will be a compatibility layer in the system 
> libraries, that has to convert between 32-bit and 64-bit structures when 
> calling into the operating system. This will slow down many operations 
> by the 32-bit applications.

a very good guess.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116871

On 2018-06-01 11:10, Barry Margolin wrote:

> My guess is that there will be a compatibility layer in the system 
> libraries, that has to convert between 32-bit and 64-bit structures when 
> calling into the operating system. This will slow down many operations 
> by the 32-bit applications.

Why would Apple write new software to provide that compatibility layer
when the 32bit libraries will only be needed for another year? Far
better to just leave them as is until they are removed.

Apple already has APIs that are only available in 64 bits, so Apple can
still add new ones and change 64 bit APIs for improved performance etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116873

In article <5OeQC.67727$VB3.18697@fx11.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> 
> > My guess is that there will be a compatibility layer in the system 
> > libraries, that has to convert between 32-bit and 64-bit structures when 
> > calling into the operating system. This will slow down many operations 
> > by the 32-bit applications.
> 
> Why would Apple write new software to provide that compatibility layer
> when the 32bit libraries will only be needed for another year? Far
> better to just leave them as is until they are removed.

many reasons.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116868

On 2018-06-01, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <peq8si$pba$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name
><YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>
>>As of the current information, Apple is saying 32-bit apps will not
>>run *as* *efficiently* under the next version of macOS (10.14)
>
> WTF does this mean? Does Apple insert a NOOP between successive
> machine instructions so the app only runs half as fast?

My god, people... Please stop with the FUD. Nothing nefarious is going
on. This is simple engineering, and nothing more. iOS separates 32- and
64-bit frameworks on 64-bit devices such that when all apps running on
the device are 64-bit, the operating system doesn't bother to load
32-bit versions of those libraries. The result is that the system uses
less memory and launches apps more quickly. Even apps that happen to be
64-bit "by accident" but don't actually have 64-bit performance
optimizations benefit from this memory efficiency. When 32-bit apps are
thrown into the mix, performance of the entire system is adversely
affected. There are, of course, other aspects of system and app design
that can also factor into performance; but that's the key take away from
Apple's warning.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web