[Wowfunhappy]

> A great example is 32-bit apps, where Apple gave something like an 8-year heads-up that 32-bit apps were going away, which happened a few years ago but it's not hard to find threads on HN where people are still complaining about it.

But actually, I personally believe that the actual reason Apple killed 32bit support was because they didn't want to build it into Rosetta. (And they didn't want Intel computers to be able to run anything their new Apple Silicon computers could not.)

Before Apple Silicon was on the horizon, it was no problem for Apple to keep 32 bit and carbon libraries around for eight years because they might as well, it's not doing any harm.

(I'm also one of the people who was/is mad about 32 bit support, but I acknowledge that my opinion on the matter has no bearing on what Apple will decide to do.)

[alwillis]

But actually, I personally believe that the actual reason Apple killed 32bit support was because they didn't want to build it into Rosetta. (And they didn't want Intel computers to be able to run anything their new Apple Silicon computers could not.)

I doubt it; that’s not how Apple rolls. They’re not like Microsoft which keeps legacy technologies around for backwards compatibility for several years after a technology is no longer mainstream.

Reasonable people can disagree but Apple is about the present and the future, not the past. Sure, they could have kept Carbon around or pick your favorite framework from the past but that’s generally not their thing.

Occasionally something from their past reappears, like the QuickDraw GX font format from the 90s that became the basis for today’s variable fonts on the web.

Apple has always been fine with some software not making the leap to the next operating system or processor architecture.

We’ve seen this going back to 68K to PowerPC then to Intel and now ARM.

Being able to run x86 operating systems (Windows) natively on Intel Macs was a huge selling point not that long ago and now it’s an afterthought that current buyers (mostly) don’t care about. Microsoft would bring Windows for ARM to Apple Silicon and so far, they haven’t.

And while this is all going on, Macs have never been more popular.

[astrange]

x86-32 was removed because it’s significantly less secure and performant than x86-64 and there were unfixable issues with the ABI like fragile ObjC superclasses. Don’t need any secret projects to explain that. The only people who seem to still have a problem are video game developers, who should maybe try writing clean code.

32-bit isn’t completely gone, it’s still on watchOS.

[Isthatablackgsd]

I would say it is more of the legacy codes that Apple don't want to keep providing support for backward compatibility. And it uses up spaces in your drive if they need to keep 32-bit library in case for those app that are running in that level.

Microsoft want to do that but it will be a huge risk since it will alienate their enterprise consumers.

[saagarjha]

> But actually, I personally believe that the actual reason Apple killed 32bit support was because they didn't want to build it into Rosetta.

Rosetta 2 contains functionality to correctly emulate 32-bit Intel code.

[Wowfunhappy]

It's not the 32 bit code though, it's all the old libraries (carbon) which happen to also be 32 bit.

[saagarjha]

Right. The 32 bit emulation is only really useful to CrossOver.