High Sierra runs on all Sierra-capable hardware, starts process to kill 32-bit apps

Posted:
in macOS
In a series of sessions at WWDC, Apple amplified that any Mac that is capable of running Sierra can run High Sierra -- but a shift away from 32-bit apps will start with the new version of the operating system.




Apple has officially announced that in January 2018, all new apps submitted to the Mac App Store are required to be 64-bit. The noose tightens a bit in the summer of 2018, with all app updates needing to comply with the mandate.

In the "Platform State of the Union" session shortly after the main keynote, Apple said that it would "aggressively" warn users about 32-bit apps in the macOS version after High Sierra. Additionally, High Sierra would be the last version to support 32-bit apps "without compromises."

Apple shifted to 64-bit capable Intel processors in 2006 for most of the product line, with the sole holdout, the Mac mini that launched with a 32-bit processor, migrating in 2007. As a result, hardware won't be a hold-up to adoption.

With iOS 11, Apple has completed the migration of its mobile platform to 64-bit only that it began two years ago. Starting with the new release, 32-bit apps don't launch at all.

At the same event, Apple also confirmed that no Mac hardware was being left behind with the release of High Sierra. Any computer capable of running Sierra will be able to upgrade to High Sierra.

The High Sierra update to macOS is intended as a refinement of Sierra, much like Snow Leopard was to Leopard, and Mountain Lion was to Lion. Improvements shown at the WWDC keynote include Safari refinements, Photos speed enhancements, the inclusion of Apple's APFS, H.265 support, and Metal 2.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 37
    thedbathedba Posts: 443member
    Good move by Apple. Are there any popular apps that are still 32 bit?

    lolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 37
    schlackschlack Posts: 672member
    I have a (spare) 2010 13" MBP that's still stock config (4GB RAM/250GB HDD) and is actually pretty fast running Sierra. The idea that in 2018 it may even run faster under High Sierra is quite amazing. When I was a kid, computers felt significantly outdated after 2-3 years.
    rezwitswilliamlondonlongpathlolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 37
    rezwitsrezwits Posts: 580member
    Man the OS after High Sierra is going to be sketchy. How can they make sure every unix executible in the system is 64-bit? and reliable? Seems like quite a bit of work... The "ability" tho to at least run a 32-bit app was/is a great "feature" of our OS as it stands right now :( I got stuff I know I am not going to be able to run...
    netmage
  • Reply 4 of 37
    ctwisectwise Posts: 43member
    Adobe crap is still 32-bit. Not sure about the apps themselves, but the Adobe Desktop and supporting processes are all 32-bit. So is Cisco AnyConnect (VPN client). And so is the Dropbox file system monitor daemon. In other words, yes, there are still a significant number of commonly used tools and third-party system daemons that are 32-bit.
    netmage
  • Reply 5 of 37
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 29,347member
    As long as macOS supports Adobe CS5 software. There is no way I'm upgrading beyond this older version. Done with Adobe.
  • Reply 6 of 37
    rezwits said:
    Man the OS after High Sierra is going to be sketchy. How can they make sure every unix executible in the system is 64-bit? and reliable? Seems like quite a bit of work... The "ability" tho to at least run a 32-bit app was/is a great "feature" of our OS as it stands right now :( I got stuff I know I am not going to be able to run...
    I doubt Apple is going to cut off its nose to spite its face (if you know that expression), so let's see what happens. You bring up a good point about all the pure unix stuff, but I expect that the open source community (for the most part) will be able to handle this in the 2+ years they have to prepare (a few months until HS, then 1 year of HS, then one year of warnings/alerts in Denali, THEN the shoe drops).
    rezwitswatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 37
    wonkothesanewonkothesane Posts: 1,171member
    schlack said:
    I have a (spare) 2010 13" MBP that's still stock config (4GB RAM/250GB HDD) and is actually pretty fast running Sierra. The idea that in 2018 it may even run faster under High Sierra is quite amazing. When I was a kid, computers felt significantly outdated after 2-3 years.
    I can say the same for my oldest of Macs in the house as well - 2009 MBP. In particular, after switching completely to SSD. :)
    lolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 37
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 2,887administrator
    As long as macOS supports Adobe CS5 software. There is no way I'm upgrading beyond this older version. Done with Adobe.
    CS6 is all 64-bit. CS5 is mostly, but I'm not sure what is and what isn't. Photoshop is 64 for sure.
    SpamSandwichwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 37
    indyfxindyfx Posts: 318member
    rezwits said:
    Man the OS after High Sierra is going to be sketchy. How can they make sure every unix executible in the system is 64-bit? and reliable? Seems like quite a bit of work... The "ability" tho to at least run a 32-bit app was/is a great "feature" of our OS as it stands right now :( I got stuff I know I am not going to be able to run...
    Run a 32 bit VM for legacy apps 
    lolliver
  • Reply 10 of 37
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,447member
    indyfx said:
    rezwits said:
    Man the OS after High Sierra is going to be sketchy. How can they make sure every unix executible in the system is 64-bit? and reliable? Seems like quite a bit of work... The "ability" tho to at least run a 32-bit app was/is a great "feature" of our OS as it stands right now :( I got stuff I know I am not going to be able to run...
    Run a 32 bit VM for legacy apps 
    Except if its something like Photoshop or something that requires graphics acceleration a VM wouldn't be a good solution. 
  • Reply 11 of 37
    indyfxindyfx Posts: 318member
    macxpress said:
    indyfx said:
    rezwits said:
    Man the OS after High Sierra is going to be sketchy. How can they make sure every unix executible in the system is 64-bit? and reliable? Seems like quite a bit of work... The "ability" tho to at least run a 32-bit app was/is a great "feature" of our OS as it stands right now :( I got stuff I know I am not going to be able to run...
    Run a 32 bit VM for legacy apps 
    Except if its something like Photoshop or something that requires graphics acceleration a VM wouldn't be a good solution. 
    Im fairly sure photoshop is all 64
  • Reply 12 of 37
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 592member
    Apple shifted to 64-bit capable Intel processors in 2006 for most of the product line, with the sole holdout, the Mac mini that launched with a 32-bit processor, migrating in 2007. As a result, hardware won't be a hold-up to adoption.
    God this forum software is so abysmal. Can't exit the quote box on iOS. Brilliant.

    Some of the original iMacs were Core Duo, which was 32-bit. Core 2 was 64-bit, but Apple's decision to use 32-bit firmware until about 2009 meant booting a 64-bit OS was slightly more difficult; so Apple didn't bother.
    edited June 2017
  • Reply 13 of 37
    tipootipoo Posts: 879member
    schlack said:
    I have a (spare) 2010 13" MBP that's still stock config (4GB RAM/250GB HDD) and is actually pretty fast running Sierra. The idea that in 2018 it may even run faster under High Sierra is quite amazing. When I was a kid, computers felt significantly outdated after 2-3 years.

    Swap that HDD for an SSD and it'll feel 80% of the way to a modern computer. A C2D and an SSD are a nicer experience than the highest end processor on an HDD imo, at least for general consumer workloads. 
  • Reply 14 of 37
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,468member
    schlack said:
    I have a (spare) 2010 13" MBP that's still stock config (4GB RAM/250GB HDD) and is actually pretty fast running Sierra. The idea that in 2018 it may even run faster under High Sierra is quite amazing. When I was a kid, computers felt significantly outdated after 2-3 years.
    Video is certainly snappy under High Sierra.   From what I'm seeing people will be very happy with High Sierra.    
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 37
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,468member

    rezwits said:
    Man the OS after High Sierra is going to be sketchy. How can they make sure every unix executible in the system is 64-bit? and reliable? Seems like quite a bit of work... The "ability" tho to at least run a 32-bit app was/is a great "feature" of our OS as it stands right now :( I got stuff I know I am not going to be able to run...
    I would have to say that most UNIX executables have been 64 bit clean for a decade or more now.   At least the core system software would be 64 bit clean.   Now third party apps and deamons are another thing but the writing has been on the wall for a long time here, if your software vendor can't do a 64 clean app it really is time to change vendors.  

    Personally I'm happy with this move from Apple.    What bothers me though is that some supplied "UNIX" software such as Python is a bit outdated, Apple needs to ditch the Python 2 series for Python 3.
    rezwitslolliver
  • Reply 16 of 37
    loquiturloquitur Posts: 97member
    schlack said:
    I have a (spare) 2010 13" MBP that's still stock config (4GB RAM/250GB HDD) and is actually pretty fast running Sierra. The idea that in 2018 it may even run faster under High Sierra is quite amazing. When I was a kid, computers felt significantly outdated after 2-3 years.
    I can say the same for my oldest of Macs in the house as well - 2009 MBP. In particular, after switching completely to SSD. :)
    ... and along with running dosdude1's patcher for Sierra "unsupported" Macs, like MacBooks from 2008, even. Looks like that crew
    is hot on the trail in extending lifetime for these machines with High Sierra.   So far, it looks like SSDs are actually required for APFS.
    edited June 2017
  • Reply 17 of 37
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,678member
    In System Information under Software » Applications I have about 90% has a yes under 64-bit-Bit (Intel). A lot of it seems like legacy stuff, anyway, like QuickTime 7.6 and DVD player, for the Apple stuff. Even Adobe has 64-bit applications/processes, and several uninstallers are still at 32-bit. I don't see this has a huge deal for the timeframe given.
    edited June 2017 lolliver
  • Reply 18 of 37
    ryanarrryanarr Posts: 2unconfirmed, member
    This sucks for iWork '09 holdouts like myself, as it's still 32 bit. I've mostly moved on to MS Office given what a turd iWork became, but I still occasionally fire up Numbers when I want a spreadsheet to look nice. 
  • Reply 19 of 37
    netroxnetrox Posts: 593member
    There are a lot of applications still running as 32bit... ScanSnap Manager, Google Earth, Picasa, InkServer, video application, Creative Services (for Adobe - Adobe is doing a HORRIBLE job, leaves way too many useless processes), and Kindle. 

    I look forward to get rid of them though. They have to go. And Creative Cloud processes need to go as well!
  • Reply 20 of 37
    macxpress said:
    indyfx said:
    rezwits said:
    Man the OS after High Sierra is going to be sketchy. How can they make sure every unix executible in the system is 64-bit? and reliable? Seems like quite a bit of work... The "ability" tho to at least run a 32-bit app was/is a great "feature" of our OS as it stands right now :( I got stuff I know I am not going to be able to run...
    Run a 32 bit VM for legacy apps 
    Except if its something like Photoshop or something that requires graphics acceleration a VM wouldn't be a good solution. 
    Running 32x apps (that require a lot of number crunching and which could have been faster on x64) isn't a good solution, either..
    lolliver
Sign In or Register to comment.