upgrading to ios 17 is *optional*. if you don't like the new features,
then don't upgrade to it.
How is it optional? Won¹t everyone have to upgrade to it eventually to
maintain software support?
nope. there is no requirement to upgrade nor is it forced. when it
asks to confirm the upgrade, decline it. you can remain at whatever
version you want. ios developers have multiple devices with various
older versions for testing (which is annoying but that's how it is).
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
upgrading to ios 17 is *optional*. if you don't like the new features, >>>> then don't upgrade to it.
How is it optional? Wonšt everyone have to upgrade to it eventually to
maintain software support?
nope. there is no requirement to upgrade nor is it forced. when it
asks to confirm the upgrade, decline it. you can remain at whatever
version you want. ios developers have multiple devices with various
older versions for testing (which is annoying but that's how it is).
Hi badgolferman,
You are correct. It's nospam who is wrong (again).
If you want to be fully supported *you _must_ upgrade from iOS 16 to 17*
How is it optional? Won¹t everyone have to upgrade to it eventually to
maintain software support?
Based on Apple's policies, in about 6 years everyone will have had to
upgrade to iOS 17.
SIX YEARS
nope. they can keep using whatever they have now.
Clearly not true. iOS 14 hasn't had an update in nearly two years whereas
15 and 16 have had several. If you want a fully patched ios, it needs to be the most recent or next most recent for a short time.
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
Clearly not true. iOS 14 hasn't had an update in nearly two years whereas
15 and 16 have had several. If you want a fully patched ios, it needs to be >> the most recent or next most recent for a short time.
FACT:
*iOS has more than twice as many security holes as Android*
FACT
*iOS has over ten times the number of active exploits!*
Much of which is due to Apple's lack of support for older iOS releases.
<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-security-update-policy-only-the-latest-oses-are-fully-patched/>
<https://hothardware.com/news/apple-admits-only-fully-patches-security-flaws-in-latest-os-releases>
<https://screenrant.com/apple-product-security-update-lifespan/>
Unlike _every_ other operating system vendor of common consumer
operating systems, only Apple refuses to ever fully support
more than one release at a time.
Given iOS has the shortest support lifecycle of all smartphone
operating systems
, there's a good reason these are the facts:
upgrading to ios 17 is *optional*. if you don't like the new features,
then don't upgrade to it.
How is it optional? Won¹t everyone have to upgrade to it eventually to
maintain software support?
nope. there is no requirement to upgrade nor is it forced. when it
asks to confirm the upgrade, decline it. you can remain at whatever
version you want. ios developers have multiple devices with various
older versions for testing (which is annoying but that's how it is).
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
nope. there is no requirement to upgrade nor is it forced. when it
asks to confirm the upgrade, decline it. you can remain at whatever
version you want. ios developers have multiple devices with various
older versions for testing (which is annoying but that's how it is).
Yet again... *iKooks are completely ignorant of everything about Apple*
If you want to be fully supported *you _must_ upgrade from iOS 16 to 17*
It's not surprising that nospam is completely ignorant of this basic fact.
On 9/20/23 04:54, Wally J wrote:
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
nope. there is no requirement to upgrade nor is it forced. when
it asks to confirm the upgrade, decline it. you can remain at
whatever version you want. ios developers have multiple devices
with various older versions for testing (which is annoying but
that's how it is).
Yet again... *iKooks are completely ignorant of everything about
Apple*
If you want to be fully supported *you must upgrade from iOS 16 to
17*
It's not surprising that nospam is completely ignorant of this
basic fact.
It wouldn't be as bad if they didn't arbitrarily move the supported
devices forward. The ONLY one I think was justified was the 32 bit
cutoff, but they still could've very easily made a 32b version. Hell,
even Windows does that.
It wouldn't be as bad if they didn't arbitrarily move the supported
devices forward. The ONLY one I think was justified was the 32 bit
cutoff, but they still could've very easily made a 32b version. Hell,
even Windows does that.
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
On 9/20/23 04:54, Wally J wrote:
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wroteIt wouldn't be as bad if they didn't arbitrarily move the supported
nope. there is no requirement to upgrade nor is it forced. when it
asks to confirm the upgrade, decline it. you can remain at whatever
version you want. ios developers have multiple devices with various
older versions for testing (which is annoying but that's how it is).
Yet again... *iKooks are completely ignorant of everything about Apple*
If you want to be fully supported *you _must_ upgrade from iOS 16 to 17* >>>
It's not surprising that nospam is completely ignorant of this basic fact. >>
devices forward. The ONLY one I think was justified was the 32 bit
cutoff, but they still could've very easily made a 32b version. Hell,
even Windows does that.
Nope. Windows 11 is 64b only.
On 9/20/23 04:54, Wally J wrote:
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
nope. there is no requirement to upgrade nor is it forced. when it
asks to confirm the upgrade, decline it. you can remain at whatever
version you want. ios developers have multiple devices with various
older versions for testing (which is annoying but that's how it is).
Yet again... *iKooks are completely ignorant of everything about Apple*
If you want to be fully supported *you _must_ upgrade from iOS 16 to 17*
It's not surprising that nospam is completely ignorant of this basic fact.
It wouldn't be as bad if they didn't arbitrarily move the supported
devices forward. The ONLY one I think was justified was the 32 bit
cutoff, but they still could've very easily made a 32b version. Hell,
even Windows does that.
candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/20/23 04:54, Wally J wrote:
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
nope. there is no requirement to upgrade nor is it forced. when
it asks to confirm the upgrade, decline it. you can remain at
whatever version you want. ios developers have multiple devices
with various older versions for testing (which is annoying but
that's how it is).
Yet again... *iKooks are completely ignorant of everything about
Apple*
If you want to be fully supported *you must upgrade from iOS 16 to
17*
It's not surprising that nospam is completely ignorant of this
basic fact.
It wouldn't be as bad if they didn't arbitrarily move the supported
devices forward. The ONLY one I think was justified was the 32 bit
cutoff, but they still could've very easily made a 32b version. Hell,
even Windows does that.
The only time Windows is used as an example in this newsgroup is as a
bad example or to blame them for what Apple is doing.
On 2023-09-20 08:49, badgolferman wrote:
On 9/20/23 04:54, Wally J wrote:The only time Windows is used as an example in this newsgroup is as a
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
bad example or to blame them for what Apple is doing.
Are you sure you're not Arlen?
On 9/20/23 04:54, Wally J wrote:
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
nope. there is no requirement to upgrade nor is it forced. when it
asks to confirm the upgrade, decline it. you can remain at whatever
version you want. ios developers have multiple devices with various
older versions for testing (which is annoying but that's how it is).
Yet again... *iKooks are completely ignorant of everything about Apple*
If you want to be fully supported *you _must_ upgrade from iOS 16 to 17*
It's not surprising that nospam is completely ignorant of this basic
fact.
It wouldn't be as bad if they didn't arbitrarily move the supported
devices forward. The ONLY one I think was justified was the 32 bit
cutoff, but they still could've very easily made a 32b version. Hell,
even Windows does that.
On 2023-09-20 13:48, Chris wrote:
Nope. Windows 11 is 64b only.
Will it run a 32bit app?
On 2023-09-20 14:56, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/20/23 13:07, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-20 13:48, Chris wrote:
Nope. Windows 11 is 64b only.
Will it run a 32bit app?
Probably. Windows is big on backwards compatibility.
Which means its tiny on evolving.
On 2023-09-20 16:28, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-20 14:56, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/20/23 13:07, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-20 13:48, Chris wrote:
Nope. Windows 11 is 64b only.
Will it run a 32bit app?
Probably. Windows is big on backwards compatibility.
Which means its tiny on evolving.
What is really amusing is that Apple started the Mac with the 32-bit
Motorola 68000 processor...
...then transitioned to the M68030...
...while maintaining backwards compatibility...
...then transition to the PowerPC architecture...
...while maintaining backwards compatibility...
...then the Intel x86 architecture...
...while maintaining backwards compatibility...
...and finally (currently) to the Apple Silicon architecture...
...while maintaining backwards compatibility.
On 9/20/23 13:07, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-20 13:48, Chris wrote:
Nope. Windows 11 is 64b only.
Will it run a 32bit app?
Probably. Windows is big on backwards compatibility.
On 2023-09-20 19:40, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-20 16:28, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-20 14:56, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/20/23 13:07, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-20 13:48, Chris wrote:
Nope. Windows 11 is 64b only.
Will it run a 32bit app?
Probably. Windows is big on backwards compatibility.
Which means its tiny on evolving.
What is really amusing is that Apple started the Mac with the 32-bit
Motorola 68000 processor...
...then transitioned to the M68030...
...while maintaining backwards compatibility...
...then transition to the PowerPC architecture...
...while maintaining backwards compatibility...
...then the Intel x86 architecture...
...while maintaining backwards compatibility...
...and finally (currently) to the Apple Silicon architecture...
...while maintaining backwards compatibility.
https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT208436
On 2023-09-20 16:54, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-20 19:40, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-20 16:28, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-20 14:56, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/20/23 13:07, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-20 13:48, Chris wrote:
Nope. Windows 11 is 64b only.
Will it run a 32bit app?
Probably. Windows is big on backwards compatibility.
Which means its tiny on evolving.
What is really amusing is that Apple started the Mac with the 32-bit
Motorola 68000 processor...
...then transitioned to the M68030...
...while maintaining backwards compatibility...
...then transition to the PowerPC architecture...
...while maintaining backwards compatibility...
...then the Intel x86 architecture...
...while maintaining backwards compatibility...
...and finally (currently) to the Apple Silicon architecture...
...while maintaining backwards compatibility.
https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT208436
"Apple began transitioning to 64-bit hardware and software technology
for Mac over a decade ago"
On 2023-09-20 20:04, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-20 16:54, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-20 19:40, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-20 16:28, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-20 14:56, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/20/23 13:07, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-20 13:48, Chris wrote:
Nope. Windows 11 is 64b only.
Will it run a 32bit app?
Probably. Windows is big on backwards compatibility.
Which means its tiny on evolving.
What is really amusing is that Apple started the Mac with the 32-bit
Motorola 68000 processor...
...then transitioned to the M68030...
...while maintaining backwards compatibility...
...then transition to the PowerPC architecture...
...while maintaining backwards compatibility...
...then the Intel x86 architecture...
...while maintaining backwards compatibility...
...and finally (currently) to the Apple Silicon architecture...
...while maintaining backwards compatibility.
https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT208436
"Apple began transitioning to 64-bit hardware and software technology
for Mac over a decade ago"
Regardless, 32b apps are dead in Mac OS now (last OS was Mojave that
would run them).
Windows 10 still runs 32b apps; Win 11 too.
"Apple began transitioning to 64-bit hardware and software technology
for Mac over a decade ago"
In an article posted in 2020.
It wouldn't be as bad if they didn't arbitrarily move the supported
devices forward.
The ONLY one I think was justified was the 32 bit
cutoff, but they still could've very easily made a 32b version. Hell,
even Windows does that.
On 2023-09-20 17:12, Alan Browne wrote:
Regardless, 32b apps are dead in Mac OS now (last OS was Mojave that
would run them).
Windows 10 still runs 32b apps; Win 11 too.
Sure. So?
On 9/20/23 19:23, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-20 17:12, Alan Browne wrote:
Regardless, 32b apps are dead in Mac OS now (last OS was Mojave that
would run them).
Windows 10 still runs 32b apps; Win 11 too.
Sure. So?
So consumers want to be able to use older apps?
On 2023-09-20 13:48, Chris wrote:
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
On 9/20/23 04:54, Wally J wrote:
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wroteIt wouldn't be as bad if they didn't arbitrarily move the supported
nope. there is no requirement to upgrade nor is it forced. when it
asks to confirm the upgrade, decline it. you can remain at whatever
version you want. ios developers have multiple devices with various
older versions for testing (which is annoying but that's how it is).
Yet again... *iKooks are completely ignorant of everything about Apple* >>>>
If you want to be fully supported *you _must_ upgrade from iOS 16 to 17* >>>>
It's not surprising that nospam is completely ignorant of this basic fact. >>>
devices forward. The ONLY one I think was justified was the 32 bit
cutoff, but they still could've very easily made a 32b version. Hell,
even Windows does that.
Nope. Windows 11 is 64b only.
Will it run a 32bit app?
On 21/09/2023 03:52, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/20/23 19:23, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-20 17:12, Alan Browne wrote:So consumers want to be able to use older apps?
Regardless, 32b apps are dead in Mac OS now (last OS was Mojave thatSure. So?
would run them).
Windows 10 still runs 32b apps; Win 11 too.
Yes. If it works, any change is just unwanted extra effort.
Most people are interested in results, not the inner workings.
On 9/20/23 19:23, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-20 17:12, Alan Browne wrote:So consumers want to be able to use older apps?
Regardless, 32b apps are dead in Mac OS now (last OS was Mojave thatSure. So?
would run them).
Windows 10 still runs 32b apps; Win 11 too.
On 9/20/23 19:23, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-20 17:12, Alan Browne wrote:
Regardless, 32b apps are dead in Mac OS now (last OS was Mojave that
would run them).
Windows 10 still runs 32b apps; Win 11 too.
Sure. So?
So consumers want to be able to use older apps?
So consumers want to be able to use older apps?
Yes. If it works, any change is just unwanted extra effort.
Most people are interested in results, not the inner workings.
Yea, people don't want to change apps and some don't have a 64b version
In article <uef0cr$2vh1n$2@dont-email.me>, candycanearter07
<no@thanks.net> wrote:
It wouldn't be as bad if they didn't arbitrarily move the supported
devices forward.
it's not arbitrary.
The ONLY one I think was justified was the 32 bit
cutoff, but they still could've very easily made a 32b version. Hell,
even Windows does that.
no they couldn't. the arm 32bit and 64bit instruction sets are
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2023-09-20 13:48, Chris wrote:
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
On 9/20/23 04:54, Wally J wrote:
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
nope. there is no requirement to upgrade nor is it forced. when it >>>>>> asks to confirm the upgrade, decline it. you can remain at whatever >>>>>> version you want. ios developers have multiple devices with various >>>>>> older versions for testing (which is annoying but that's how it is). >>>>>Yet again... *iKooks are completely ignorant of everything about Apple* >>>>>
If you want to be fully supported *you _must_ upgrade from iOS 16 to 17* >>>>>
It's not surprising that nospam is completely ignorant of this basic fact.
It wouldn't be as bad if they didn't arbitrarily move the supported
devices forward. The ONLY one I think was justified was the 32 bit
cutoff, but they still could've very easily made a 32b version. Hell,
even Windows does that.
Nope. Windows 11 is 64b only.
Will it run a 32bit app?
Maybe?
On 2023-09-20 19:52, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/20/23 19:23, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-20 17:12, Alan Browne wrote:
Regardless, 32b apps are dead in Mac OS now (last OS was Mojave that
would run them).
Windows 10 still runs 32b apps; Win 11 too.
Sure. So?
So consumers want to be able to use older apps?
Do they?
Do they really?
Show your work.
On 2023-09-21 02:52:10 +0000, candycanearter07 said:
On 9/20/23 19:23, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-20 17:12, Alan Browne wrote:
Regardless, 32b apps are dead in Mac OS now (last OS was Mojave that
would run them).
Windows 10 still runs 32b apps; Win 11 too.
Sure. So?
So consumers want to be able to use older apps?
Most consumers couldn't care less. As long as the computer can easily
run an email app, a web browser, and some sort of word processor and spreadsheet, they're happy. Mostly it is whatever software that comes
free / bundled with the computer.
Businesses that use custom apps may need to be able to run older
software, but most businesses users don't care either - they just buy
new equipment and new software, and write it off their taxes as a
"business expense".
A tiny minority of people that want to keep using old apps are the only
ones who even know such a problem even exists.
On 2023-09-20 17:12, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-20 20:04, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-20 16:54, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-20 19:40, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-20 16:28, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-20 14:56, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/20/23 13:07, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-20 13:48, Chris wrote:
Nope. Windows 11 is 64b only.
Will it run a 32bit app? [AAA]
Probably. Windows is big on backwards compatibility.
Which means its tiny on evolving.
What is really amusing is that Apple started the Mac with the
32-bit Motorola 68000 processor...
...then transitioned to the M68030...
...while maintaining backwards compatibility...
...then transition to the PowerPC architecture...
...while maintaining backwards compatibility...
...then the Intel x86 architecture...
...while maintaining backwards compatibility...
...and finally (currently) to the Apple Silicon architecture...
...while maintaining backwards compatibility.
https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT208436
"Apple began transitioning to 64-bit hardware and software technology
for Mac over a decade ago"
Regardless, 32b apps are dead in Mac OS now (last OS was Mojave that
would run them).
Windows 10 still runs 32b apps; Win 11 too.
Sure. So?
The ONLY one I think was justified was the 32 bit
cutoff, but they still could've very easily made a 32b version. Hell,
even Windows does that.
no they couldn't. the arm 32bit and 64bit instruction sets are
Not impossible - just very undesirable.
You can segregate processes so 32b code will run on a 64b OS on ARM.
But it means all libraries for the 32b code be installed as well as the
64b versions. Lots of code storage and a segregated section of RAM to
load and run them as well. And some sort of 'tween interface for IO as
that would all be on the 64b side.
Very messy.
In article <aQWOM.3932$Lmc1.184@fx44.iad>, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
The ONLY one I think was justified was the 32 bit
cutoff, but they still could've very easily made a 32b version. Hell,
even Windows does that.
no they couldn't. the arm 32bit and 64bit instruction sets are
Not impossible - just very undesirable.
it's impossible.
You can segregate processes so 32b code will run on a 64b OS on ARM.
not when there aren't 32 bit instructions on the chip to run them.
But it means all libraries for the 32b code be installed as well as the
64b versions. Lots of code storage and a segregated section of RAM to
load and run them as well. And some sort of 'tween interface for IO as
that would all be on the 64b side.
you can install all the libraries you want, but if the 32 bit
instructions aren't on the chip, it's not going to work.
Very messy.
actually, very clean. it won't work.
You can segregate processes so 32b code will run on a 64b OS on ARM.
not when there aren't 32 bit instructions on the chip to run them.
Arm 64b processors do run 32 bit instructions. But it's one set or the
other for any given process.
Very messy.
actually, very clean. it won't work.
Sure it will. On an ARM 64 processor. You're focused on Apple Silicon.
On 2023-09-20 22:58, Alan wrote:
Do they?
Do they really?
Show your work.
I do have a legacy photo slideshow program that I like running under
WinXP in a virtual container. It also runs under Win10 (tested by me)
and I assume under Win11 (not tested by me).
I haven't found a photo slideshow presenter that works quite like it for
Mac to date. (With LViewPro I can generate lists separately into txt
files for presentation order. So I've written a program to do that for
me depending on criteria I select or generate random order slideshows.)
Some of us (inc. me) are wedded to legacy abandonware.
I run a secondary legacy 'puter just to keep MacSOUP alive.
On 2023-09-21 02:10, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
Will it run a 32bit app?
Maybe?
Per online sources, yes.
In article <uegp1a$33qqp$4@dont-email.me>, candycanearter07
<no@thanks.net> wrote:
So consumers want to be able to use older apps?
Yes. If it works, any change is just unwanted extra effort.
Most people are interested in results, not the inner workings.
Yea, people don't want to change apps and some don't have a 64b version
no need to change apps, just update to the latest version, which will
also add various other features.
if the developer can't be bothered to update it to 64 bit, then the
problem is with the developer, not the operating system.
In article <CVXOM.96158$noZ7.64524@fx13.iad>, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
You can segregate processes so 32b code will run on a 64b OS on ARM.
not when there aren't 32 bit instructions on the chip to run them.
Arm 64b processors do run 32 bit instructions. But it's one set or the
other for any given process.
apple's a11 (and later) and m-series do not have 32 bit.
arm processors in android phones and other devices can (for now,
although not for long), but that's not relevant here.
Very messy.
actually, very clean. it won't work.
Sure it will. On an ARM 64 processor. You're focused on Apple Silicon.
that's what's inside iphones, ipads and now macs.
On 9/21/23 07:51, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-21 02:10, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
Will it run a 32bit app?
Maybe?
Per online sources, yes.
Darn thing could probably run DOS games.
On 2023-09-21 10:00, nospam wrote:
In article <CVXOM.96158$noZ7.64524@fx13.iad>, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
You can segregate processes so 32b code will run on a 64b OS on ARM.
not when there aren't 32 bit instructions on the chip to run them.
Arm 64b processors do run 32 bit instructions. But it's one set or the
other for any given process.
apple's a11 (and later) and m-series do not have 32 bit.
Selective snipping noted. As you wrote yesterday:
nospam wrote (2023-09-20 20:27 (GMT-4:00).
[ no they couldn't. the arm 32bit and 64bit instruction sets are ]
===
That was the context of my reply and it was placed after that statement
of yours.
It wouldn't be as bad if they didn't arbitrarily move the supported
devices forward. The ONLY one I think was justified was the 32 bit
cutoff, but they still could've very easily made a 32b version. Hell,
even Windows does that.
On 9/21/23 07:50, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-20 22:58, Alan wrote:
Do they?
Do they really?
Show your work.
I do have a legacy photo slideshow program that I like running under
WinXP in a virtual container. It also runs under Win10 (tested by me)
and I assume under Win11 (not tested by me).
I haven't found a photo slideshow presenter that works quite like it
for Mac to date. (With LViewPro I can generate lists separately into
txt files for presentation order. So I've written a program to do
that for me depending on criteria I select or generate random order
slideshows.)
Yea, there's plenty of useful apps that haven't been updated in years.
Name the oldest application you use.
In article <GPYOM.91807$bmw6.32361@fx10.iad>, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2023-09-21 10:00, nospam wrote:
In article <CVXOM.96158$noZ7.64524@fx13.iad>, Alan Browne
<bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
You can segregate processes so 32b code will run on a 64b OS on ARM. >>>>>not when there aren't 32 bit instructions on the chip to run them.
Arm 64b processors do run 32 bit instructions. But it's one set or the >>>> other for any given process.
apple's a11 (and later) and m-series do not have 32 bit.
Selective snipping noted. As you wrote yesterday:
nospam wrote (2023-09-20 20:27 (GMT-4:00).
[ no they couldn't. the arm 32bit and 64bit instruction sets are ]
===
That was the context of my reply and it was placed after that statement
of yours.
the original statement was about *apple* keeping 32 bit compatibility:
android is also dropping 32 bit support, starting with the pixel 7:
the original statement was about *apple* keeping 32 bit compatibility:
Doesn't matter
- that is not what I was replying to. You made an
assertion that 32b code could not run on a 64b system. It can. Not a
great idea where ARM is concerned - but it can be done.
In article <4y0PM.9717$EIy4.2000@fx48.iad>, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
the original statement was about *apple* keeping 32 bit compatibility:
Doesn't matter
it does, since that's what was being discussed.
- that is not what I was replying to. You made an
assertion that 32b code could not run on a 64b system. It can. Not a
great idea where ARM is concerned - but it can be done.
32 bit code can run *only* if there's 32 bit instructions on the chip.
as i said several times, the a11 *removed* 32 bit, making it
*impossible*, and now android is following with 64-bit only hardware.
On 2023-09-21 02:52:10 +0000, candycanearter07 said:
On 9/20/23 19:23, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-20 17:12, Alan Browne wrote:
Regardless, 32b apps are dead in Mac OS now (last OS was Mojave that
would run them).
Windows 10 still runs 32b apps; Win 11 too.
Sure. So?
So consumers want to be able to use older apps?
Most consumers couldn't care less. As long as the computer can easily
run an email app, a web browser, and some sort of word processor and spreadsheet, they're happy. Mostly it is whatever software that comes
free / bundled with the computer.
Businesses that use custom apps may need to be able to run older
software, but most businesses users don't care either - they just buy
new equipment and new software, and write it off their taxes as a
"business expense".
A tiny minority of people that want to keep using old apps are the only
ones who even know such a problem even exists.
In article <4y0PM.9717$EIy4.2000@fx48.iad>, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
the original statement was about *apple* keeping 32 bit compatibility:
Doesn't matter
it does, since that's what was being discussed.
- that is not what I was replying to. You made an
assertion that 32b code could not run on a 64b system. It can. Not a
great idea where ARM is concerned - but it can be done.
32 bit code can run *only* if there's 32 bit instructions on the chip.
as i said several times, the a11 *removed* 32 bit, making it
*impossible*, and now android is following with 64-bit only hardware.
the original statement was about *apple* keeping 32 bit compatibility:
Doesn't matter
it does, since that's what was being discussed.
- that is not what I was replying to. You made an
assertion that 32b code could not run on a 64b system. It can. Not a
great idea where ARM is concerned - but it can be done.
32 bit code can run *only* if there's 32 bit instructions on the chip.
as i said several times, the a11 *removed* 32 bit, making it
*impossible*, and now android is following with 64-bit only hardware.
And you intially said that 64-bit "ARM processors" [emphasis mine] don't
have 32-bit instructions, when what you meant was only Apple's ARM-based processors.
You mispoke, and what you said WAS wrong.
the original statement was about *apple* keeping 32 bit compatibility:
Doesn't matter
it does, since that's what was being discussed.
You're the one who brought up 32b on 64b ARM machines.
As they say in court, "You opened that door ..."
- that is not what I was replying to. You made an
assertion that 32b code could not run on a 64b system. It can. Not a
great idea where ARM is concerned - but it can be done.
32 bit code can run *only* if there's 32 bit instructions on the chip.
And again, what I was replying to was your assertion that you can't run
32b code on a 64b ARM.
as i said several times, the a11 *removed* 32 bit, making it
*impossible*, and now android is following with 64-bit only hardware.
Irrelevant to your statement about ARM processors. I'll repeat it so
you can snip it again:
nospam wrote:
[no they couldn't. the arm 32bit and 64bit instruction sets are]
===
In article <xX0PM.12282$C_lf.1731@fx33.iad>, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
Doesn't matter
the original statement was about *apple* keeping 32 bit compatibility: >>>>
it does, since that's what was being discussed.
You're the one who brought up 32b on 64b ARM machines.
nope, that was someone else, who claimed that apple could have
continued to support 32 bit apps, just like windows did. they could
not.
As they say in court, "You opened that door ..."
as they say in court, objection overruled.
- that is not what I was replying to. You made an
assertion that 32b code could not run on a 64b system. It can. Not a >>>> great idea where ARM is concerned - but it can be done.
32 bit code can run *only* if there's 32 bit instructions on the chip.
And again, what I was replying to was your assertion that you can't run
32b code on a 64b ARM.
that assertion is correct.
the only way 32 bit code can run is if there's 32 bit support on the
chip itself.
as i said several times, the a11 *removed* 32 bit, making it
*impossible*, and now android is following with 64-bit only hardware.
Irrelevant to your statement about ARM processors. I'll repeat it so
you can snip it again:
nospam wrote:
[no they couldn't. the arm 32bit and 64bit instruction sets are]
===
you left out the rest of it, that they are different. that statement is correct.
In article <uei6cv$3lrjc$1@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
the original statement was about *apple* keeping 32 bit compatibility: >>>>Doesn't matter
it does, since that's what was being discussed.
- that is not what I was replying to. You made an
assertion that 32b code could not run on a 64b system. It can. Not a >>>> great idea where ARM is concerned - but it can be done.
32 bit code can run *only* if there's 32 bit instructions on the chip.
as i said several times, the a11 *removed* 32 bit, making it
*impossible*, and now android is following with 64-bit only hardware.
And you intially said that 64-bit "ARM processors" [emphasis mine] don't
have 32-bit instructions, when what you meant was only Apple's ARM-based
processors.
and some from other manufacturers.
<https://www.androidcentral.com/phones/snapdragon-8-gen-3-leak-64-bit-on
Furthermore, the core leak for the Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 states the
"Hunter" and "Hayes" codenames refer to unannounced CPU cores.
Apparently, these cores drop 32-bit support, meaning Qualcomm's
upcoming chip could probably only support 64-bit, as referenced in a
piece of the company's code.
This would mean more 64-bit-only phones may arrive later this
year following the launch of the Pixel 7, which was the first Android
phone with that distinction.
again, the original comment was that apple could have continued to
support 32 bit apps. they could not, since the hardware does not have
32 bit anymore.
the transition for android is much slower for various reasons, but it
too will drop 32 bit support.
You mispoke, and what you said WAS wrong.
wrong on both.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 146:46:32 |
| Calls: | 10,383 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 14,054 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (1,861K bytes) |
| Messages: | 6,417,714 |