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

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 37
    I installed this on a 2016 MacBook Pro 15" 1T, 16G, 2.9 GHz.

    Nothing but kernel panics. Wouldn't even finish the login process.  It was a nightmare ..
  • Reply 22 of 37
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,033member
    I installed this on a 2016 MacBook Pro 15" 1T, 16G, 2.9 GHz.

    Nothing but kernel panics. Wouldn't even finish the login process.  It was a nightmare ..
    Working pretty great for me with a 2013 15" MBP. I'm running some tests right now before I install High Sierra with APFS to compare with the tests I'll run after as my results seem too good to be true.
  • Reply 23 of 37
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 1,947member
    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...
    Doesn't it only apply to AppStore apps?
    So you'll get a warming for legacy, 3rd party and unix apps click a button and move on.
    Soli
  • Reply 24 of 37
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,033member
    mattinoz 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...
    Doesn't it only apply to AppStore apps?
    So you'll get a warming for legacy, 3rd party and unix apps click a button and move on.
    Wait, people think that apps not going through the Mac App Store are going to be required to run at 64-bit? I don't even see how that would be possible since the Intel chips will still support 32-bit. Sure, Apple could remove everything in macOS support the legacy architecture, but it's simply not the same environment as with the iPhone, so I can't see that happening. Maybe once they move to a budget Mac or Mac-like notebook or desktop running macOS on ARM we'll see that happen.
  • Reply 25 of 37
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,505member
    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've got great news for you!  My old test machine is a 2010 MBP i7 15" (I also use modern macs of course) with one simple mod, I have removed the slow HDD and installed a 500GB SSD and I removed the optical (simply for weight as it was redundant anyway). Guess what?  It's been running High Sierra since the moment it was available to developers.  It has been flawless.  I made sure I also converted to APFS at time of installation, this over the existing Sierra with all the apps.  Very stable and no issues at all.
    wonkothesane
  • Reply 26 of 37
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,505member
    Soli said:
    I installed this on a 2016 MacBook Pro 15" 1T, 16G, 2.9 GHz.

    Nothing but kernel panics. Wouldn't even finish the login process.  It was a nightmare ..
    Working pretty great for me with a 2013 15" MBP. I'm running some tests right now before I install High Sierra with APFS to compare with the tests I'll run after as my results seem too good to be true.
    You'll love it. I'm in awe.  I wonder if those testing on partitions are the ones hitting issues or even on HFS+.  I cloned various Sierra working boot drives and installed 10.13 on them with APFS.  Not any issues at all on various Macs.  It's astonishing.  Note CCC beta is available for 10,13 (with a few minor caveats it's working great).
    edited June 2017
  • Reply 27 of 37
    wonkothesanewonkothesane Posts: 1,634member
    MacPro said:
    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've got great news for you!  My old test machine is a 2010 MBP i7 15" (I also use modern macs of course) with one simple mod, I have removed the slow HDD and installed a 500GB SSD and I removed the optical (simply for weight as it was redundant anyway). Guess what?  It's been running High Sierra since the moment it was available to developers.  It has been flawless.  I made sure I also converted to APFS at time of installation, this over the existing Sierra with all the apps.  Very stable and no issues at all.
    Great news. In another thread I just wondered whether older Macs with patched Sierra will support APFS. It seems there is hope :)

    did you use DOS dude's patch?
  • Reply 28 of 37
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,033member
    MacPro said:
    Soli said:
    I installed this on a 2016 MacBook Pro 15" 1T, 16G, 2.9 GHz.

    Nothing but kernel panics. Wouldn't even finish the login process.  It was a nightmare ..
    Working pretty great for me with a 2013 15" MBP. I'm running some tests right now before I install High Sierra with APFS to compare with the tests I'll run after as my results seem too good to be true.
    You'll love it. I'm in awe.  I wonder if those testing on partitions are the ones hitting issues or even on HFS+.  I cloned various Sierra working boot drives and installed 10.13 on them with APFS.  Not any issues at all on various Macs.  It's astonishing.  Note CCC beta is available for 10,13 (with a few minor caveats it's working great).
    APFS is amazing. I'm conducting 16 different tests with a nearly 5GB video file having its container stripped and replaced, and then addd to iTunes between Sierra and High Sierra, HFS+ and APFS, a local HDD and external RAID1+0, and between the new and old versions of the app to see what how the timeframe shift between each setup.
    edited June 2017
  • Reply 29 of 37
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,033member
    MacPro said:
    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've got great news for you!  My old test machine is a 2010 MBP i7 15" (I also use modern macs of course) with one simple mod, I have removed the slow HDD and installed a 500GB SSD and I removed the optical (simply for weight as it was redundant anyway). Guess what?  It's been running High Sierra since the moment it was available to developers.  It has been flawless.  I made sure I also converted to APFS at time of installation, this over the existing Sierra with all the apps.  Very stable and no issues at all.
    Great news. In another thread I just wondered whether older Macs with patched Sierra will support APFS. It seems there is hope :)

    did you use DOS dude's patch?
    I personally don't see any need for Apple to waste the effort for makes that can't run High Sierra to get the final version of APFS.

    What Macs that can run Sierra aren't allowed to run High Sierra?

  • Reply 30 of 37
    wonkothesanewonkothesane Posts: 1,634member
    Soli said:
    MacPro said:
    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've got great news for you!  My old test machine is a 2010 MBP i7 15" (I also use modern macs of course) with one simple mod, I have removed the slow HDD and installed a 500GB SSD and I removed the optical (simply for weight as it was redundant anyway). Guess what?  It's been running High Sierra since the moment it was available to developers.  It has been flawless.  I made sure I also converted to APFS at time of installation, this over the existing Sierra with all the apps.  Very stable and no issues at all.
    Great news. In another thread I just wondered whether older Macs with patched Sierra will support APFS. It seems there is hope :)

    did you use DOS dude's patch?
    I personally don't see any need for Apple to waste the effort for makes that can't run High Sierra to get the final version of APFS.

    What Macs that can run Sierra aren't allowed to run High Sierra?

    To my knowledge all Macs that run Sierra _out of the bix_ run High Sierra. I was wondering about those machines where Sierra runs by patching it. Maybe APFS requires some hardware feature, like some controller, that simply is not available on an older Mac. 
  • Reply 31 of 37
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,033member
    Soli said:
    MacPro said:
    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've got great news for you!  My old test machine is a 2010 MBP i7 15" (I also use modern macs of course) with one simple mod, I have removed the slow HDD and installed a 500GB SSD and I removed the optical (simply for weight as it was redundant anyway). Guess what?  It's been running High Sierra since the moment it was available to developers.  It has been flawless.  I made sure I also converted to APFS at time of installation, this over the existing Sierra with all the apps.  Very stable and no issues at all.
    Great news. In another thread I just wondered whether older Macs with patched Sierra will support APFS. It seems there is hope :)

    did you use DOS dude's patch?
    I personally don't see any need for Apple to waste the effort for makes that can't run High Sierra to get the final version of APFS.

    What Macs that can run Sierra aren't allowed to run High Sierra?

    To my knowledge all Macs that run Sierra _out of the bix_ run High Sierra. I was wondering about those machines where Sierra runs by patching it. Maybe APFS requires some hardware feature, like some controller, that simply is not available on an older Mac. 
    No special HW required, you just get less of a benefit with HDDs, but there's still a definite benefit. However, there could be downsides, too, which is what I'm trying to test for now.
    edited June 2017
  • Reply 32 of 37
    bkkcanuckbkkcanuck Posts: 862member
    The successor to High Sierra will start warning, the version after that successor will supposedly be the one to drop it... which means this release 27 months in the future will drop support.  Apple typically supports an OS for 3+ years after it is released with needed security patches etc.  This means that if you are a business dependent on it ... you really have 3 to 5 months to upgrade the offending apps -- before security becomes a concern.... If the app is no longer supported and you are using it for "mission critical" things you are already playing russian roulette with your business.  

    I went through my apps and found a minimum since for apps I use I tend to upgrade them.  It leaves me with apps that I have not updated and likely won't update that are 32 bit.  Cisco VPN client I think -- but Cisco will have an update to that one.  Adobe Flash installer I think is still 32 bits, but I would actually like it if flash were no longer supported on macOS since some pages serve HTML5 to iOS but still use flash on the desktop .... this is really annoying.  

    Apple's DVD Player is still 32 bits -- I expect they might actually just not drop it sometime in the future.  

    So I don't see this being a big deal, but there are many people that are really upset.  I have told them they don't have to upgrade OSs if they are running vintage apps.... They can actually install it in a VM if they have no other options on a new computer.  

    Leaving old unsupported code in the operating system for compatibilities sake is a security risk since there is more old code that may be able to be exploited.  It also creates a culture where you end up with code that people just are afraid to maintain and just leave there because it is so old and no-one knows for sure what it was for.  It becomes a situation where every new version of the OS you add code and it just grows more and more bloated.  If you have a culture where you deprecate and remove stuff in addition to adding you will end up with a better more efficient operating system.  

    It has been a good 30 years or so since I wrote assembly language programs... so if I get some stuff wrong about the architecture I am sure someone will correct me.

    While it is true that 32-bit apps will run faster on newer processors than older because of improvements in things like cycles per instruction, caching and even clock speeds of the processor itself. What you are not getting though are things like more internal registers, and registers that are 64 bits wide. These things would increase performance for larger integer math (and there are many that write programs without optimizing the size of their primitives to what is used - so they might use 64 bit integers even though they only needed 32 bit integers). Using 32 bit architecture to do 64 bit integer math would mean multiple trips to pull data into different registers etc. Things like accessing memory outside of 32 bit addressing space means that you would have to page and potentially page back and forth when your dealing with stuff like that. The internal microcode over time will move to optimize 64 bit over 32 bit etc. as well. 

    If you no longer require 32 and 64 bit libraries loaded up into the OS (more common ones would have both loaded for different applications) you end up with less memory used and just by virtue that you will less likely reach the limit -- there will be less swapping which turns into better performance.

    The biggest impact will be the applications that are still using Carbon -- which was deprecated maybe 4 versions ago.

    So IMHO it is a net positive.
  • Reply 33 of 37
    bkkcanuckbkkcanuck Posts: 862member
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    MacPro said:
    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've got great news for you!  My old test machine is a 2010 MBP i7 15" (I also use modern macs of course) with one simple mod, I have removed the slow HDD and installed a 500GB SSD and I removed the optical (simply for weight as it was redundant anyway). Guess what?  It's been running High Sierra since the moment it was available to developers.  It has been flawless.  I made sure I also converted to APFS at time of installation, this over the existing Sierra with all the apps.  Very stable and no issues at all.
    Great news. In another thread I just wondered whether older Macs with patched Sierra will support APFS. It seems there is hope :)

    did you use DOS dude's patch?
    I personally don't see any need for Apple to waste the effort for makes that can't run High Sierra to get the final version of APFS.

    What Macs that can run Sierra aren't allowed to run High Sierra?

    To my knowledge all Macs that run Sierra _out of the bix_ run High Sierra. I was wondering about those machines where Sierra runs by patching it. Maybe APFS requires some hardware feature, like some controller, that simply is not available on an older Mac. 
    No special HW required, you just get less of a benefit with HDDs, but there's still a definite benefit. However, there could be downsides, too, which is what I'm trying to test for now.
    I am guessing that there are potential issues with edge cases that don't really happen on iOS devices .... things like "copied" files that should to the user suppose to be two different files but one copy on the hard drive (COW) vs files that are suppose to be treated as the same file (sym-links).... [not saying that is one I expect or know to be a problem, just something you might not have occurrences of on iOS]
  • Reply 34 of 37
    bkkcanuckbkkcanuck Posts: 862member
    mattinoz 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...
    Doesn't it only apply to AppStore apps?
    So you'll get a warming for legacy, 3rd party and unix apps click a button and move on.
    You will get warnings in version 10.14 (High Sierra is 10.13) and so it could be problematic in 10.15 -- 27 months from now if you upgrade on release date.  I expect enterprises will have the ability to deactivate the warnings.... which users will also learn how to do....  

    As far as UNIX applications.... the ones that come with the Mac will work fine.... other than that I am not aware of any UNIX executeable being able to be installed even now.... does not things like Homebrew actually compile them.  I don't see even that being much of an issue... people have to create the scripts and they usually don't work all that well until just after a release where someone who maintains them updates them for the new OS.  
  • Reply 35 of 37
    djames4242djames4242 Posts: 639member
    bkkcanuck said:

    Apple's DVD Player is still 32 bits -- I expect they might actually just not drop it sometime in the future.  

    I haven't used Apple's DVD player in years. VLC works much better (and it's already 64-bit).
  • Reply 36 of 37
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    djames4242 said:
    VLC works much better


    bkkcanuck said:
    I found the VLC player to be a last resort ... ugly, clunky and well.... basically a poorly designed UI.
    VLC STILL DOESN’T LET YOUR COMPUTER SLEEP WHILE IT IS OPEN. I mean, come the fuck on. How is that something that apps even have control over?
    edited July 2017
  • Reply 37 of 37
    bkkcanuckbkkcanuck Posts: 862member
    bkkcanuck said:

    Apple's DVD Player is still 32 bits -- I expect they might actually just not drop it sometime in the future.  

    I haven't used Apple's DVD player in years. VLC works much better (and it's already 64-bit).
    I found Apple's DVD Player to be much nicer.... it works great for playing DVDs directly and when you rename the directory to be .dvdmedia....  

    I found the VLC player to be a last resort ... ugly, clunky and well.... basically a poorly designed UI.

    BTW, DVD Player is still 32 bit in High Sierra which gives a good indication it is not going to be updated.
    edited July 2017
Sign In or Register to comment.