Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I don't think it's fair to expect Apple to support 32-bit processors anymore. OS X will run on Core2Duo, which is nearly 10 years old. My parents' iMac is a 2006 and runs El Cap.



I think it's understandable, but also interesting when juxtaposed with Microsoft still making 32-bit versions of Windows 10 in 2016. They're supporting the same hardware that Apple won't, and also an additional 10 years of security updates (Windows 10 End-Of-Life for those 32-bit machines is October 14, 2025 [1]).

I also have a 64-bit Core 2 Duo that Apple no longer supports. OS X Lion was the last release for the 2007 MacBook 3,1.

[1] http://windows.microsoft.com/en-au/windows/lifecycle


It is interesting, but perhaps it doesn't mean much in the end. All it really signifies is that Macbooks are PC-compatible. Microsoft is under a lot more pressure to support 32-bit processors, as they're still kicking around - Apple meanwhile only have to support their own hardware.

I would also say that Microsoft's End-Of-Life security update promises mean a lot less now that they've demonstrated willingness to subvert that system to force-upgrade people.


stop denying apples active agency in their policies and cultivated culture...

they are actively pro-consumerism they are actively pro-waste

they actively don't care about your slighly older product. you are advocating holding them to a lesser standard of culpability and support than M$ and I find it ridiculous.

There's a palpable issue here. One shouldn't try to deny it.


> I don't think it's fair to expect Apple to support 32-bit processors anymore.

It might not be fair to expect it, but it's absolutely fair to count it against how Apple supports their customers.


I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that Apple doesn't support their customers well because they don't spend time writing software for 10 year old hardware?


> Are you saying that Apple doesn't support their customers well because they don't spend time writing software for 10 year old hardware?

This isn't even close to what he said, and it only makes sense if you have an extremely reductive black-and-white view of the world. There are places on the spectrum between "perfect support" and "absolute shit support", and the phrase "count against" simply implies that supporting decade old hardware is a notch higher than the same support setup without that advantage.


Once you have cross-platform support, keeping it is not very hard. And most of their code works on 32-bit Arm. So it would not be an unreasonable burden.

Computers have slowed down. Basic support for for 10 years is not a crazy idea.


You cannot have 100% platform support of 100% quality 100% of the time. Compromise has to be made. If you're not making an explicit compromise by mercilessly cutting platform support, you're implicitly compromising schedule and quality. Apple have always been the best by far at prioritizing quality, and making hard choices, well above and beyond anybody within any industry they enter. They have always fixed the most painful problems first, and leaving the less important ones to later or never. They are willing to leave a gap in their lineup for two or three quarters because an SKU would fail some obscure quality metric[1][2]. Even so, thy have already had some unpleasant bug creep over the past few years[0]. It's not like they are leisurely coasting and twiddling their fingers — had they been supporting old hardware, software on new hardware would have been measurably worse.

[0] https://marco.org/2015/01/04/apple-lost-functional-high-grou... [1] http://www.pcworld.com/article/226520/Apple_Explains_White_i... [2] iPhone 6S available 25 September 2015, iPhone SE available 31 March 2016


>had they been supporting old hardware, software on new hardware would have been measurably worse

Might not have been measurable, and might just cost an extra engineer without really harming anything.

If they had gone 64-bit-only, I'd be much more in agreement with you. But if you're still supporting a 32 bit platform, you have a lot of restrictions put on you, and the marginal cost of keeping support for a second 32 bit platform is not a big deal.


You vastly underestimate both how different these old systems are, how many resources it takes to support every additional platform, that the burden increases non-linearly, and what kind of weird release-blocking bugs those extra platforms may introduce, delaying fixes and hogging resources.

At minimum, slow systems require gracefully degrading GUI, which increases complexity by an order of magnitude. The graphics card capabilities are a much better first approximation than the word width.

If it took just a few extra engineers, or a few thousand, to fix the bugs that they have, Apple would have done it. The Mythical Man-Month, and all that.


They still support slow systems, just ones that happen to be 64 bit. You're being ridiculous when you say a few thousand engineers couldn't do it. This could be almost completely separate from ongoing development. man-month would not be a problem.


AMD has had 64 bit processors for 13 years. When the opteron released it was faster than intel too.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: