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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #118448 > unrolled thread

Mojave in a VM?

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

Contents

  Mojave in a VM? Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-09-27 11:20 -0400
    Re: Mojave in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-27 11:52 -0400
    Re: Mojave in a VM? "Andre G. Isaak" <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2018-09-27 10:00 -0600
    Re: Mojave in a VM? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2018-09-28 09:18 +1200
      Re: Mojave in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-09-28 17:42 +0000
        Re: Mojave in a VM? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2018-09-29 11:59 +1200
        Re: Mojave in a VM? Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-09-29 10:45 -0400
          Re: Mojave in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-09-29 17:36 +0000
            Re: Mojave in a VM? Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-09-29 13:37 -0400
          Re: Mojave in a VM? Percival John Hackworth <pjh@nanoworks.com> - 2018-09-29 23:56 -0700
    Re: Mojave in a VM? befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2018-09-28 09:24 +0200
    Re: Mojave in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-09-28 17:30 +0000
      Re: Mojave in a VM? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2018-09-29 11:59 +1200
        Re: Mojave in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-28 20:06 -0400
          Re: Mojave in a VM? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2018-09-29 12:43 +1200
            Re: Mojave in a VM? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2018-10-01 13:15 +1300
              Re: Mojave in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-10-01 01:58 -0400
              Re: Mojave in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-10-01 13:22 +0000
                Re: Mojave in a VM? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2018-10-02 02:59 +1300
                  Re: Mojave in a VM? Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-10-01 10:08 -0400
                  Re: Mojave in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-10-01 13:37 -0400
                    Re: Mojave in a VM? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2018-10-02 13:30 +1300
                      Re: Mojave in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-10-02 00:37 +0000
                      Re: Mojave in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-10-02 09:28 +0000
                  Re: Mojave in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-10-01 19:43 +0000
                    Re: Mojave in a VM? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2018-10-02 13:30 +1300
    Re: Mojave in a VM? Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-09-28 17:02 -0400

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#118448 — Mojave in a VM?

Can Mojave be installed under Fusion to test it?

I have some 32 bit apps for which I don't see 64 bit versions, as of 
yet, and I want to see how they'll do under Mojave before I install it.

Thx.
-- 
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants.  Proof that we
  need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
                                           - unknown protester

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#118451

In article <KvqdnW82hYW7aDHGnZ2dnUU7-aXNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

> Can Mojave be installed under Fusion to test it?

the latest version of vmware fusion supports mojave as a guest.

<https://docs.vmware.com/en/VMware-Fusion/11/rn/fusion-11-release-notes.
html>

> I have some 32 bit apps for which I don't see 64 bit versions, as of 
> yet, and I want to see how they'll do under Mojave before I install it.

try installing it on an external drive.

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

#118452

In article <KvqdnW82hYW7aDHGnZ2dnUU7-aXNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

> 
> Can Mojave be installed under Fusion to test it?

Yes.
 
> I have some 32 bit apps for which I don't see 64 bit versions, as of 
> yet, and I want to see how they'll do under Mojave before I install it.

I updated to Mojave yesterday, and as far as I can tell none of my 
32-bit apps were affected by the upgrade. It gave me the same warnings 
it started giving in High Sierra on first run, but everything seems to 
work fine.

Andre

-- 
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.

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

#118464

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

> Can Mojave be installed under Fusion to test it?

Yes - I have had a Mojave VM (upgraded my Mountain Lion VM as a test,
after taking a snapshot, then rolled it back afterwards) running under
High Sierra with the latest VMware Fusion 11, plus another freshly
installed Mojave VM in Fusion 11 running on Mojave.

I didn't try Fusion 10 with a Mojave guest.

> I have some 32 bit apps for which I don't see 64 bit versions, as of 
> yet, and I want to see how they'll do under Mojave before I install it.

I've been testing with an upgraded clone of my High Sierra system, and
so far the only signficant general issue I've noticed with 32-bit apps
is that some of them alerted me again they were "not optimized".

It appears that Mojave is doing repeated warnings with a minimum delay
(I've seen a claim it is 30 days but haven't tested that yet). The
original warning in 10.10.4 was a one-off.

The only application I've found so far with a signficant new problem is
Pages 4.3 (Pages '09) which gets an error message when attempting to
open any document. Oddly, Numbers and Keynote '09 aren't doing the same
thing, but they already had other problems in High Sierra which meant I
had stopped using them. I'm still using Pages '09 because of ongoing
collaborative projects with other people using that version, but we
should be able to move to the latest version.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

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

#118482

In message <1nvty5h.svsrrilh3xjN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> The only application I've found so far with a signficant new problem is
> Pages 4.3 (Pages '09) which gets an error message when attempting to
> open any document. Oddly, Numbers and Keynote '09 aren't doing the same
> thing, but they already had other problems in High Sierra which meant I
> had stopped using them. I'm still using Pages '09 because of ongoing
> collaborative projects with other people using that version, but we
> should be able to move to the latest version.

You can also run a VM of Sierra or something under Mojave. I mean, I
wouldn't want to do it full time on my 6 year old iMac, but it should be
fine on any recent machine with 16GB of RAM or more.

-- 
It's better to burn out than it is to rust -- Neil Young as quoted be
Kurt Cobain

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

#118496

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <1nvty5h.svsrrilh3xjN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> David Empson
> <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> > The only application I've found so far with a signficant new problem is
> > Pages 4.3 (Pages '09) which gets an error message when attempting to
> > open any document. Oddly, Numbers and Keynote '09 aren't doing the same
> > thing, but they already had other problems in High Sierra which meant I
> > had stopped using them. I'm still using Pages '09 because of ongoing
> > collaborative projects with other people using that version, but we
> > should be able to move to the latest version.
> 
> You can also run a VM of Sierra or something under Mojave. I mean, I
> wouldn't want to do it full time on my 6 year old iMac, but it should be
> fine on any recent machine with 16GB of RAM or more.

The Pages '09 project is a monthly newsletter so tends to get used over
a few days then not touched again for a month. That sort of thing is
fine in a VM. I have VMware Fusion (now all the way to 11) and have
built up a set of VMs with every macOS version from 10.5 to 10.14, which
are useful for comparative and compatibility testing, and using as a
reference when I'm helping someone remotely who is running a particular
OS version. Some of them have old applications I can't run in later OS
versions but are only needed on rare occasions.

My Late 2013 MacBook Pro with 16 GB RAM is fine running VMs, and I've
even run three at once on occasion. I'm intending to get 32 GB of RAM in
my next computer but no need to rush out and buy a 2018 model.

Next year with the loss of 32-bit applications I'm looking at MacSOUP as
the biggest problem. I'm not interested in switching to another news
client (I'd rather write my own but don't have time and the decline in
content doesn't justify the effort), so my best option is to run MacSOUP
in a VM and probably access USENET less often.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

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

#118504

On 2018-09-28 13:42, Lewis wrote:
> In message <1nvty5h.svsrrilh3xjN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>> The only application I've found so far with a signficant new problem is
>> Pages 4.3 (Pages '09) which gets an error message when attempting to
>> open any document. Oddly, Numbers and Keynote '09 aren't doing the same
>> thing, but they already had other problems in High Sierra which meant I
>> had stopped using them. I'm still using Pages '09 because of ongoing
>> collaborative projects with other people using that version, but we
>> should be able to move to the latest version.
> 
> You can also run a VM of Sierra or something under Mojave. I mean, I
> wouldn't want to do it full time on my 6 year old iMac, but it should be
> fine on any recent machine with 16GB of RAM or more.

My iMac (i7) is 6 years old and I have little doubt that it would run an 
OS under Fusion w/o much issue.  24 GB of RAM doesn't hurt either.

OTOH I'm running Fusion 7 - which might not be able to run Mojave.

-- 
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants.  Proof that we
  need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
                                           - unknown protester

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

#118505

In message <DaKdnUTMfudwEjLGnZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2018-09-28 13:42, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <1nvty5h.svsrrilh3xjN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>>> The only application I've found so far with a signficant new problem is
>>> Pages 4.3 (Pages '09) which gets an error message when attempting to
>>> open any document. Oddly, Numbers and Keynote '09 aren't doing the same
>>> thing, but they already had other problems in High Sierra which meant I
>>> had stopped using them. I'm still using Pages '09 because of ongoing
>>> collaborative projects with other people using that version, but we
>>> should be able to move to the latest version.
>> 
>> You can also run a VM of Sierra or something under Mojave. I mean, I
>> wouldn't want to do it full time on my 6 year old iMac, but it should be
>> fine on any recent machine with 16GB of RAM or more.

> My iMac (i7) is 6 years old and I have little doubt that it would run an 
> OS under Fusion w/o much issue.  24 GB of RAM doesn't hurt either.

Sounds like we have the same machine., I know it will run it, but I
wouldn't want to run it full time.

> OTOH I'm running Fusion 7 - which might not be able to run Mojave.

The Parallels Desktop Lite (Free) runs OS X in a VM just fine. It should
run Mojave as well though I haven't specifically tried that.

-- 
Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out.

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

#118506

On 2018-09-29 13:36, Lewis wrote:
> In message <DaKdnUTMfudwEjLGnZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2018-09-28 13:42, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <1nvty5h.svsrrilh3xjN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>>>> The only application I've found so far with a signficant new problem is
>>>> Pages 4.3 (Pages '09) which gets an error message when attempting to
>>>> open any document. Oddly, Numbers and Keynote '09 aren't doing the same
>>>> thing, but they already had other problems in High Sierra which meant I
>>>> had stopped using them. I'm still using Pages '09 because of ongoing
>>>> collaborative projects with other people using that version, but we
>>>> should be able to move to the latest version.
>>>
>>> You can also run a VM of Sierra or something under Mojave. I mean, I
>>> wouldn't want to do it full time on my 6 year old iMac, but it should be
>>> fine on any recent machine with 16GB of RAM or more.
> 
>> My iMac (i7) is 6 years old and I have little doubt that it would run an
>> OS under Fusion w/o much issue.  24 GB of RAM doesn't hurt either.
> 
> Sounds like we have the same machine., I know it will run it, but I
> wouldn't want to run it full time.
> 
>> OTOH I'm running Fusion 7 - which might not be able to run Mojave.
> 
> The Parallels Desktop Lite (Free) runs OS X in a VM just fine. It should
> run Mojave as well though I haven't specifically tried that.

I've been thinking of jumping ship to Parallels in any case ... might 
try that.  Thx.


-- 
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants.  Proof that we
  need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
                                           - unknown protester

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

#118522

On 29-Sep-2018, Alan Browne wrote
(in article<DaKdnUTMfudwEjLGnZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com>):

> On 2018-09-28 13:42, Lewis wrote:
> > In message<1nvty5h.svsrrilh3xjN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> David
> > Empson<dempson@actrix.gen.nz>  wrote:
> > > The only application I've found so far with a signficant new problem is
> > > Pages 4.3 (Pages '09) which gets an error message when attempting to
> > > open any document. Oddly, Numbers and Keynote '09 aren't doing the same
> > > thing, but they already had other problems in High Sierra which meant I
> > > had stopped using them. I'm still using Pages '09 because of ongoing
> > > collaborative projects with other people using that version, but we
> > > should be able to move to the latest version.
> >
> > You can also run a VM of Sierra or something under Mojave. I mean, I
> > wouldn't want to do it full time on my 6 year old iMac, but it should be
> > fine on any recent machine with 16GB of RAM or more.
>
> My iMac (i7) is 6 years old and I have little doubt that it would run an
> OS under Fusion w/o much issue. 24 GB of RAM doesn't hurt either.
>
> OTOH I'm running Fusion 7 - which might not be able to run Mojave.

I'm running Fusion 8 Pro and tried running 10.13. It didn't run. I got it to 
install, but it hung. My understanding when Fusion "knows" about the MacOS 
level, it "just works", which was my experience with a 10.12 guest. Give it 
enough memory, and it ran fine. All I needed it for was Mac-In-Tax. I may 
bite the bullet and upgrade to 10.11, which is the last version my MacPro 
2009 will run. Last time I did, it had terrible performance with certain 
applications. BookMacster would lollipop just clicking on an object and the 
developer had no way of duplicating the problem. I suspect it's a native 
system service that's had a problem.

I'm hoping I can do some sort of processor upgrade to my dual processor 
system so I can run 10.12, but I suspect the ROMs won't support it. I know 
EFI doesn't enable they hypervisor bit even though hypervisors work just fine 
on MacOS. Docker, however, won't run without Virtual Box because it checks 
for this bit.

And I *hate* the newer hardware. I'll probably migrate to a Hackintosh when I 
can't run 10.10 any more.
-- 
DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee...

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

#118467

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

> I have some 32 bit apps for which I don't see 64 bit versions, as of 
> yet, and I want to see how they'll do under Mojave before I install it.

I installed Mojave 3 days ago.
So far no problems at all with the 32 bit apps (MacSOUP etc. all run
fine in Mojave).
Just click away the warning and all is well.

I dread the next OS Update and the loss of MacSOUP though...

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

#118481

In message <KvqdnW82hYW7aDHGnZ2dnUU7-aXNnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

> Can Mojave be installed under Fusion to test it?

I can be installed under the free Parallels Desktop Lite.

It can also be installed on a new APFS volume alongside your current
install, and you can just reboot into it to see how it is. This is
certainly going to be more accurate a test than running it in a VM, but
depending on what your are testing, it might not matter.

> I have some 32 bit apps for which I don't see 64 bit versions, as of 
> yet, and I want to see how they'll do under Mojave before I install it.

They run exactly as they did under previous versions. The ONLY
difference is you get a warning the app needs to be updated.

-- 
"It's unacceptable to think" - George W Bush 15/Sep/2006

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

#118497

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <KvqdnW82hYW7aDHGnZ2dnUU7-aXNnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne
> <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> 
> > Can Mojave be installed under Fusion to test it?
> 
> I can be installed under the free Parallels Desktop Lite.
> 
> It can also be installed on a new APFS volume alongside your current
> install, and you can just reboot into it to see how it is. This is
> certainly going to be more accurate a test than running it in a VM, but
> depending on what your are testing, it might not matter.

I did the equivalent with a clone on an external drive.

> > I have some 32 bit apps for which I don't see 64 bit versions, as of
> > yet, and I want to see how they'll do under Mojave before I install it.
> 
> They run exactly as they did under previous versions. The ONLY
> difference is you get a warning the app needs to be updated.

I've tested that warning and can confirm it recurs every 30 days (I
advanced the clock ahead in a VM and relaunched a 32-bit application
after each date change). High Sierra's warning was a one-off.

You should be able to avoid the recurring warning with the usual trick
of setting the date way into the future, launching the application(s),
dismissing the warning, quitting, then restoring the correct date.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

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

#118499

In article <1nvw12u.1n2csf2n250qoN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
<dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

> You should be able to avoid the recurring warning with the usual trick
> of setting the date way into the future, launching the application(s),
> dismissing the warning, quitting, then restoring the correct date.

i did that long ago for a reason i don't recall, and it caused time
machine to stop functioning since the next time to back up was a few
years into the future.

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

#118500

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <1nvw12u.1n2csf2n250qoN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
> <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> 
> > You should be able to avoid the recurring warning with the usual trick
> > of setting the date way into the future, launching the application(s),
> > dismissing the warning, quitting, then restoring the correct date.
> 
> i did that long ago for a reason i don't recall, and it caused time
> machine to stop functioning since the next time to back up was a few
> years into the future.

Good point. Other things may be confused as well (e.g. iCloud sessions
and anything based on certificates). I was testing it on a bare minimum
system with nothing important running.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

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

#118544

David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1nvw12u.1n2csf2n250qoN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
> > <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> > 
> > > You should be able to avoid the recurring warning with the usual trick
> > > of setting the date way into the future, launching the application(s),
> > > dismissing the warning, quitting, then restoring the correct date.
> > 
> > i did that long ago for a reason i don't recall, and it caused time
> > machine to stop functioning since the next time to back up was a few
> > years into the future.
> 
> Good point. Other things may be confused as well (e.g. iCloud sessions
> and anything based on certificates). I was testing it on a bare minimum
> system with nothing important running.

I've found a better solution: the file where the date of last
notification is stored can be patched with a "defaults write" command.
No need to fiddle with the clock.

You need to know the CFBundleIdentifier of the application, which you
can find in its Contents/Info.plist file. It is a reverse domain name
usually of the form:

        com.developer.application

Here is an example of the general syntax needed, substituting
CFBUNDLEIDENTIFIER for the appropriate value. The following all needs to
be on a single line, and the quotes are required around the key name.

defaults write com.apple.coreservices.uiagent
"CSUILast32BitPromptDate_v2 for CFBUNDLEIDENTIFIER" -date 2030-01-01

This sets the date of last alert for that application way into the
future, preventing it recurring until 30 days after that point.

Example for the application I was testing with:

defaults write com.apple.coreservices.uiagent
"CSUILast32BitPromptDate_v2 for com.ScooterSoftware.BeyondCompare" -date
2030-01-01

com.apple.coreservices.uiagent.plist has another field
CSUI32BitLastAlertDate which holds the date/time the last alert was
displayed for anything, but it seems to be for record keeping only as
changing it two months back or ahead had no effect on whether or not the
alert was displayed for my test application.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

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

#118558

On 2018-09-30 20:15, David Empson wrote:

> defaults write com.apple.coreservices.uiagent
> "CSUILast32BitPromptDate_v2 for CFBUNDLEIDENTIFIER" -date 2030-01-01
> 


MANY thanks. This info not only useful to reset the nagging date, but
also get a list of 32 bit apps you have used:

> defaults read com.apple.coreservices.uiagent
> {
>     CSUIHasSafariBeenLaunched = 1;
>     CSUIHaveCenteredGatekeeperProgressWindow = 1;
>     "CSUILast32BitPromptDate for com.adobe.InDesign (8100)" = "2018-03-30 02:11:01 +0000";
>     "CSUILast32BitPromptDate for com.adobe.QT32Server (6.0.2.0)" = "2018-04-10 20:36:59 +0000";
>     "CSUILast32BitPromptDate for com.adobe.QT32Server (6.0.5.0)" = "2018-04-06 04:48:33 +0000";
>     "CSUILast32BitPromptDate for com.adobe.adobe_licutil (7.0.1.109)" = "2018-03-30 02:11:05 +0000";
>     "CSUILast32BitPromptDate for com.barebones.textwrangler (397016)" = "2018-03-31 23:14:52 +0000";
>     "CSUILast32BitPromptDate for com.gammonsoft.AbsoluteBackgammon (8.6.1)" = "2018-04-03 22:39:57 +0000";
>     "CSUILast32BitPromptDate for com.garmin.BaseCamp (4.6.3)" = "2018-04-02 04:05:34 +0000";
>     "CSUILast32BitPromptDate for com.garmin.BaseCamp (4.7.0)" = "2018-06-03 18:18:28 +0000";
>     "CSUILast32BitPromptDate for com.garmin.RoadTrip ((null))" = "2018-05-06 04:38:17 +0000";
>     "CSUILast32BitPromptDate for com.rogueamoeba.AudioHijackPro2 (2.11.6)" = "2018-05-17 04:04:21 +0000";
>     "CSUILast32BitPromptDate for com.stuffit.Expander (12.0.1)" = "2018-06-27 17:15:48 +0000";
>     CSUILastOSVersionWhereSafariRecommendationWasMade = "10.13.2";
>     CSUIRecommendSafariBackOffInterval = 259200;
>     CSUIRecommendSafariNextNotificationDate = "2017-12-13 04:19:02 +0000";
>     "NSWindow Frame CSUIGatekeeperProgressWindow" = "464 698 400 70 0 0 1280 1001 ";


I suspect that apps that get upgraded warnings issued for the old
version don't go away but nevet get trioggered since older version never
launched.

Note the multiple versions of Garmin BaseCamp in that listing.

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

#118559

In message <1nvzte8.jtni3b1xiar6mN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> defaults write com.apple.coreservices.uiagent
> "CSUILast32BitPromptDate_v2 for CFBUNDLEIDENTIFIER" -date 2030-01-01

Someone, probably someone in this group, is you yo do this and then
pitch a shitfit in a year when 10.15 won't run any of xes 32 bit apps.

But that is a pretty cool find.

All of my 32 bit aps are a store games and AudioBookBuilder, and I doubt
they will get updated.


-- 
Mickey and Mallory know the difference between right and wrong; the just
don't give a damn.

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

#118560

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <1nvzte8.jtni3b1xiar6mN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> David Empson
> <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> > defaults write com.apple.coreservices.uiagent
> > "CSUILast32BitPromptDate_v2 for CFBUNDLEIDENTIFIER" -date 2030-01-01
> 
> Someone, probably someone in this group, is you yo do this and then
> pitch a shitfit in a year when 10.15 won't run any of xes 32 bit apps.

I will not have any sympathy if someone misuses this to stick their head
in the sand and ignore the problem.

> But that is a pretty cool find.
> 
> All of my 32 bit aps are a store games and AudioBookBuilder, and I doubt
> they will get updated.

My main concern was a temporary workaround for one particular app
(Beyond Compare) that is aiming to be 64-bit in time for 10.15 but it
probably won't be there for several months (major rewrite in progress),
and in the meantime will keep bugging me, so that particular problem is
now solved (as long as Apple doesn't change the mechanism).

I already have a plan for most of my remaining 32-bit applications which
will never go to 64-bit, and it does not involve running them on Mojave
in the long term.

A few others (including games that are actively supported) are in the
"wait and see what happens" category.

I like it that this solution requires handling each application
separately: I can this use for ones which I know about and have a plan
for, and leave the warning there for everything else which I use
infrequently that might surprise me in the next year because it is still
32-bit.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

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

#118561

On 2018-10-01 09:59, David Empson wrote:
> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 
>> In message <1nvzte8.jtni3b1xiar6mN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> David Empson
>> <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>>> defaults write com.apple.coreservices.uiagent
>>> "CSUILast32BitPromptDate_v2 for CFBUNDLEIDENTIFIER" -date 2030-01-01
>>
>> Someone, probably someone in this group, is you yo do this and then
>> pitch a shitfit in a year when 10.15 won't run any of xes 32 bit apps.
> 
> I will not have any sympathy if someone misuses this to stick their head
> in the sand and ignore the problem.
> 
>> But that is a pretty cool find.
>>
>> All of my 32 bit aps are a store games and AudioBookBuilder, and I doubt
>> they will get updated.
> 
> My main concern was a temporary workaround for one particular app
> (Beyond Compare) that is aiming to be 64-bit in time for 10.15 but it
> probably won't be there for several months (major rewrite in progress),
> and in the meantime will keep bugging me, so that particular problem is
> now solved (as long as Apple doesn't change the mechanism).
> 
> I already have a plan for most of my remaining 32-bit applications which
> will never go to 64-bit, and it does not involve running them on Mojave
> in the long term.
> 
> A few others (including games that are actively supported) are in the
> "wait and see what happens" category.
> 
> I like it that this solution requires handling each application
> separately: I can this use for ones which I know about and have a plan
> for, and leave the warning there for everything else which I use
> infrequently that might surprise me in the next year because it is still
> 32-bit.
> 

One of my issues is I use a lean IDE (Lightweight IDE) which is 32 bit. 
It compiles my code to 64 bit (since it just calls the external 
compiler).  But the author of Lightweight doesn't seem inclined to 
support it much - he does know someone who "might" be interested in 
completing the conversion.  (Some parts have been converted).   I'll 
even throw in modest amounts of cash if someone does the work.

-- 
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants.  Proof that we
  need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
                                           - unknown protester

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web