Mojave is Apple's last version of macOS to support 32-bit apps

AppleInsiderAppleInsider
Posted:
in macOS edited June 2018
The newest version of macOS will accelerate the phasing-out of 32-bit apps, Apple confirmed at WWDC on Monday, with Xcode 10 dropping support for the apps entirely.

Sebastien Marineau at WWC announces phaseout of 32-bit


At the WWDC State of the Union event, following the announcement of macOS Mojave (macOS 10.14) in the keynote earlier in the day, Apple vice president of software Sebastien Marineau revealed Mojave will be "the last release to support 32-bit at all."

"One of our key missions is always to push the Mac forward by extending its capabilities to take advantage of the latest technologies," Marineau advised. "As we push a platform forward, we sometimes have to deprecate legacy functionality to ensure that we're not holding it back."

This means the QuickTime framework, Java 1.6 Apple framework and Carbon HLTB will be removed.

Apple also said at WWDC Monday that the new and redesigned Xcode 10 will drop support for 32-bit macOS apps. Development of 64-bit apps will remain unaffected by the change.

Warning: App is not optimized


Apple debuted 64-bit support with Mac OS Leopard in 2007, and has slowly been phasing out 32-bit in recent years.

High Sierra had been announced as the last macOS release to support 32-bit apps "without compromises," and in April, macOS users began receiving alerts that 32-bit apps were not optimized for the current operating system. The move continues Apple's long phase-out of those apps.

MacOS users can use this test to find which 32-bit applications are on their desktop.

Mojave, which was introduced by Apple's Craig Federighi in the main keynote Monday in San Jose, includes such new features as Dark Mode, enhanced privacy and Desktop Stacks.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    While the System Report shows quite few 32 bit apps on my Late 2013 iMac 14,2 the apps I use on a day to day basis are not among them. So far I have gotten only one dialog box like the one above and that was the Hallmark Greeting Card app. Time to do quite a bit of housecleaning. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 32
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,727member
    As I am running Mojave now on my main Mac (yes full backed up), I've only found one app with an issue so far, Firestorm Viewer.  So I made a second small partition on my Mac Pro Boot drive and installed Sierra for those that and a few apps I can see me needing for some time to come, not least of which is a Fujitsu Scansnap that refuses to use both High Sierra and Mojave.  I was pleased to see the new Disk Utilities in Mojave is very comprehensive and allowed me to create an HFS+ partition on my APFS boot volume, I then used Carbon Copy Cloner to load the Sierra bootable system from a disk image I have stored (Apple's own Mac OS installation won't work for this as it reported it would prevent my Boot Camp from working).  I also have  VMWare Fusion VMs of every Intel Mac OS since it came out just for fun.  VMWare still works fine in Mojave.
  • Reply 3 of 32
    ylonylon Posts: 49member
    From a technical side and OS design standpoint, this is not necessary. The real reason for this is to push their agenda towards the new hardware. They are flirting with producing a non-Intel platform and this is designed to help make this a cleaner transition. Overall it's very disappointing to see this kind of action from Apple without being both more forthright or offering more options for its users. They can continue to offer uncompromised support even more simply than they did with PowerPC support as they previously did for a longer period of time since it's actually part of the hardware, especially for the "legacy" (ha ha) systems that will be around for many, many years to come.
    PatchyFog
  • Reply 4 of 32
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    About time!   It has been 10+ years so it is hard to feel sorry for any developer or user that hasnt adapted yet.   This could lead to far more efficient operating system behavior with the purging if 32 bit apps.  

    Now i have to wonder if they will finally upgrade Python on the platform.  
    lkruppracerhomie3
  • Reply 5 of 32
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    Hmmm...Compressor and Steam are the ones that would annoy me to lose.  Lego Mindstorms EV3 and Kindle somewhat less annoying but I expect at least Kindle to get updated when the time comes.
  • Reply 6 of 32
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,808member
    ylon said:
    From a technical side and OS design standpoint, this is not necessary. The real reason for this is to push their agenda towards the new hardware. They are flirting with producing a non-Intel platform and this is designed to help make this a cleaner transition. Overall it's very disappointing to see this kind of action from Apple without being both more forthright or offering more options for its users. They can continue to offer uncompromised support even more simply than they did with PowerPC support as they previously did for a longer period of time since it's actually part of the hardware, especially for the "legacy" (ha ha) systems that will be around for many, many years to come.
    Oh please....They've given developers more than enough time to convert their apps and things over. Like YEARS! Apple has never been known for keep old-tech around like other companies do (**cough** Microsoft) for ages. It gets to a point where it holds them back and keeps them from doing the things they want do to. Were all lucky Apple has kept 32-bit compatibility around as long as they did. They could have worked to do this much quicker than they did. 

    Its more like you're just trying to justify using your 10yr old Mac for years to come. 
    edited June 2018 StrangeDayschabigpmb01jony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 32
    sevenfeetsevenfeet Posts: 465member
    Does that mean that Apple's DVD Player finally gets 64 bit support?   :D
  • Reply 8 of 32
    loquiturloquitur Posts: 137member
    sevenfeet said:
    Does that mean that Apple's DVD Player finally gets 64 bit support?   :D
    Makes sense, since 2012-or-later Macs w/optical drives are listed as supported under Mojave.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 32
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,095member
    ylon said:
    From a technical side and OS design standpoint, this is not necessary. The real reason for this is to push their agenda towards the new hardware. They are flirting with producing a non-Intel platform and this is designed to help make this a cleaner transition. Overall it's very disappointing to see this kind of action from Apple without being both more forthright or offering more options for its users. They can continue to offer uncompromised support even more simply than they did with PowerPC support as they previously did for a longer period of time since it's actually part of the hardware, especially for the "legacy" (ha ha) systems that will be around for many, many years to come.
    As a software engineer for decades, I can safely say you need a thicker tinfoil hat.

    There are countless of articles written about the advantages of going to 64-bit.  Start studying.
    StrangeDayschabigmacxpressracerhomie3fastasleeppmb01[Deleted User]watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 32
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,879member
    ylon said:
    From a technical side and OS design standpoint, this is not necessary. The real reason for this is to push their agenda towards the new hardware. They are flirting with producing a non-Intel platform and this is designed to help make this a cleaner transition. Overall it's very disappointing to see this kind of action from Apple without being both more forthright or offering more options for its users. They can continue to offer uncompromised support even more simply than they did with PowerPC support as they previously did for a longer period of time since it's actually part of the hardware, especially for the "legacy" (ha ha) systems that will be around for many, many years to come.
    Yeah this is nonsense. Go 64-bit or go home. 
    chabigmacxpressfastasleeppmb01jony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 32
    dabrace1984dabrace1984 Posts: 21member
    MacPro said:
    As I am running Mojave now on my main Mac (yes full backed up), I've only found one app with an issue so far, Firestorm Viewer.  So I made a second small partition on my Mac Pro Boot drive and installed Sierra for those that and a few apps I can see me needing for some time to come, not least of which is a Fujitsu Scansnap that refuses to use both High Sierra and Mojave.  I was pleased to see the new Disk Utilities in Mojave is very comprehensive and allowed me to create an HFS+ partition on my APFS boot volume, I then used Carbon Copy Cloner to load the Sierra bootable system from a disk image I have stored (Apple's own Mac OS installation won't work for this as it reported it would prevent my Boot Camp from working).  I also have  VMWare Fusion VMs of every Intel Mac OS since it came out just for fun.  VMWare still works fine in Mojave.
    Where I work, I have a Fujitsu ScanSnap iX500 connected to a Mac that is still running 10.12.  Both the computer and the iX500 rarely get used but I was thinking about upgrading it to 10.13.  According to Fujitsu, the iX500 is compatible with High Sierra.  What model of ScanSnap do you have?  If you have an iX500, what is it that is not compatible with High Sierra?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 32
    kpomkpom Posts: 660member
    Would this affect 32-bit Windows programs that run under WINE implementations like Crossover? Or as long as Crossover itself becomes 64-bit would it present the Windows program as 64-bit to MacOS?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 32
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    ylon said:
    From a technical side and OS design standpoint, this is not necessary. The real reason for this is to push their agenda towards the new hardware. They are flirting with producing a non-Intel platform and this is designed to help make this a cleaner transition. Overall it's very disappointing to see this kind of action from Apple without being both more forthright or offering more options for its users. They can continue to offer uncompromised support even more simply than they did with PowerPC support as they previously did for a longer period of time since it's actually part of the hardware, especially for the "legacy" (ha ha) systems that will be around for many, many years to come.
    If that was Apple's "agenda" with new versions of their OSes then they wouldn't support old machines for as long as they do.
    fastasleepwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 32
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,368member
    Dear Amazon, please update your Kindle app to 64-bit.

    On a related note, Microsoft Office 2011 for Mac kind of barfs all over itself on Mojave. You may have better luck than I did, but I finally decided to just pull the plug on Office 2011 and move to subscription-free LibreOffice 6. At least I got my $9.95 investment out of Office 2011. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 32
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,808member
    dewme said:
    Dear Amazon, please update your Kindle app to 64-bit.

    On a related note, Microsoft Office 2011 for Mac kind of barfs all over itself on Mojave. You may have better luck than I did, but I finally decided to just pull the plug on Office 2011 and move to subscription-free LibreOffice 6. At least I got my $9.95 investment out of Office 2011. 

    Why not just use iWork?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 32
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    macxpress said:
    dewme said:
    Dear Amazon, please update your Kindle app to 64-bit.

    On a related note, Microsoft Office 2011 for Mac kind of barfs all over itself on Mojave. You may have better luck than I did, but I finally decided to just pull the plug on Office 2011 and move to subscription-free LibreOffice 6. At least I got my $9.95 investment out of Office 2011. 
    Why not just use iWork?
    There are legitimate reasons to want or need Office apps which shouldn't be an issue in terms of functionality since they announced Office 365 coming to the Mac App Store.

  • Reply 17 of 32
    emoelleremoeller Posts: 574member
    MacPro said:
    As I am running Mojave now on my main Mac (yes full backed up), I've only found one app with an issue so far, Firestorm Viewer.  So I made a second small partition on my Mac Pro Boot drive and installed Sierra for those that and a few apps I can see me needing for some time to come, not least of which is a Fujitsu Scansnap that refuses to use both High Sierra and Mojave.  I was pleased to see the new Disk Utilities in Mojave is very comprehensive and allowed me to create an HFS+ partition on my APFS boot volume, I then used Carbon Copy Cloner to load the Sierra bootable system from a disk image I have stored (Apple's own Mac OS installation won't work for this as it reported it would prevent my Boot Camp from working).  I also have  VMWare Fusion VMs of every Intel Mac OS since it came out just for fun.  VMWare still works fine in Mojave.
    Thanks for this info...sounds like a good way to begin to mitigate ifuture ssues for me also....
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 32
    geirnoklebyegeirnoklebye Posts: 37unconfirmed, member
    MacPro said:
    As I am running Mojave now on my main Mac (yes full backed up), I've only found one app with an issue so far, Firestorm Viewer.  

    With removal of Carbon HLTB all the SecondLife and OpenSim viewers will stop to run as there are Carbon dependencies in all of them. You can see it clearly both in the source, but also that the /System/Library/Frameworks/Carbon.framework/Versions/A/Frameworks/HIToolbox.framework/ file is open as soon as you log into a grid.  The Color picker in particular is difficult to fix, but there are other dependencies too that are not directly trivial. 
  • Reply 19 of 32
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,417member
    geirnoklebye said:
    SecondLife

    Won’t someone think of the flying penises?
  • Reply 20 of 32
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,368member
    Soli said:
    macxpress said:
    dewme said:
    Dear Amazon, please update your Kindle app to 64-bit.

    On a related note, Microsoft Office 2011 for Mac kind of barfs all over itself on Mojave. You may have better luck than I did, but I finally decided to just pull the plug on Office 2011 and move to subscription-free LibreOffice 6. At least I got my $9.95 investment out of Office 2011. 
    Why not just use iWork?
    There are legitimate reasons to want or need Office apps which shouldn't be an issue in terms of functionality since they announced Office 365 coming to the Mac App Store.

    I like iWork just fine and use it for personal use because I'm all-in with Apple devices. However, I do have some Excel workbooks that I've created that must also work on other people's Windows and Linux machines. I consider LibreOffice Calc to be the least common denominator that works on all three platforms. It's also free, which matters to some folks. I do prefer MS Excel over both LibreOffice Calc and Numbers and generally do most of my spreadsheet design and data entry in Excel and make sure everything works correctly in LibreOffice Calc before pushing it out. I could do the same for Numbers but 90% of the folks I'm sharing my stuff with are using Windows or Linux. Unlike Word, which I despise, Excel is an outstanding software application that has served me well for nearly three decades.  
    edited June 2018
Sign In or Register to comment.