Fix the Most Annoying iOS 17 Features

[badgolferman]

Apple's iOS 17 software update is now out and available to the general
public for download. The latest iPhone OS has several new features,
including full-screen contact posters during phone calls, an improved
and more personalized autocorrect, swipe to reply in text messages,
interactive widgets, and so much more.

While most of these features are welcome, if you're like me, you may
not LOVE every single new offering from iOS 17. Sometimes I don't want
change, especially when it's drastic, because I get used to the way of
doing certain things.


https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/you-can-fix-the-most-annoying-ios-17-features-on-your-iphone-heres-how/

[nospam]

In article <xn0o70qvv...@reader443.eternal-september.org>,

badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> While most of these features are welcome, if you're like me, you may
> not LOVE every single new offering from iOS 17. Sometimes I don't want
> change, especially when it's drastic, because I get used to the way of
> doing certain things.

upgrading to ios 17 is *optional*. if you don't like the new features,
then don't upgrade to it.

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 19.09.23 um 15:56 schrieb badgolferman:

What is the purpose of this posting? Just to tell us that you are
inflexible?

Nobody said you have to upgrade.

--
Alea iacta est

[badgolferman]

How is it optional? Won’t everyone have to upgrade to it eventually to
maintain software support?

[nospam]

In article <uecda2$2d9ot$1...@dont-email.me>, badgolferman

<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> While most of these features are welcome, if you're like me, you may
> >> not LOVE every single new offering from iOS 17. Sometimes I don't want
> >> change, especially when it's drastic, because I get used to the way of
> >> doing certain things.
> >
> > 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).

[Alan]

Based on Apple's policies, in about 6 years everyone will have had to
upgrade to iOS 17.

SIX YEARS

[badgolferman]

nospam wrote:

>In article <uecda2$2d9ot$1...@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
><REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> While most of these features are welcome, if you're like me,
>>you may >> not LOVE every single new offering from iOS 17.
>>Sometimes I don't want >> change, especially when it's drastic,
>>because I get used to the way of >> doing certain things.
>> >

>> > 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).

The article is for those who find annoying features AFTER upgrading
with no method to downgrade.

[Wally J]

nospam <nos...@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*

It's not surprising that nospam is completely ignorant of this basic fact.

Yet again... *iKooks are completely ignorant of everything about Apple*

[Alan]

On 2023-09-19 10:45, Wally J wrote:
> nospam <nos...@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*

Sorry, but that's simply a lie.

Not a mistake: you are LYING.

[sms]

On 9/19/2023 10:04 AM, badgolferman wrote:

<snip>

> How is it optional? Won’t everyone have to upgrade to it eventually to
> maintain software support?

If you want to maintain OS support after iOS 16 is no longer being
supported, then yes, but that's years away.

If you buy an iPhone 15 you get iOS 17, there's no way around that.

Also, it's not like with Microsoft Windows where you can downgrade after
upgrading if you don't like the new version.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

[nospam]

In article <uecgfu$2dplo$2...@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:

> > How is it optional? Wonšt 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.

[nospam]

In article <uecpjl$2fmh7$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Also, it's not like with Microsoft Windows where you can downgrade after
> upgrading if you don't like the new version.

false.

[nospam]

In article <xn0o70ukz...@reader443.eternal-september.org>,

badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The article is for those who find annoying features AFTER upgrading
> with no method to downgrade.

you can downgrade for about a week or two after the official release
date (which means months for beta users).

or you can defer upgrading until the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

[Chris]

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.

[badgolferman]

I updated my work iPhone 11 to iOS 17. I do not see where I can
uninstall the new operating system. Care to show us rather than just
say nope?

[nospam]

In article <xn0o70zai...@reader443.eternal-september.org>,

there's this thing called a search engine. guess what it does when you
query for downgrade ios 17 to 16.

this works, even though it's about beta versions:
<https://www.macrumors.com/how-to/downgrade-from-ios-17-to-ios-17/>
<https://www.tomsguide.com/how-to/how-to-downgrade-from-ios-17-beta-back-
to-ios-16>

[Alan]

But the most recent works on phones bought up to 6 years ago, agreed?

[Wally J]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

>>> How is it optional? Wonšt 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.

It's not surprising nospam is completely oblivious about Apple support policy,
where the _only_ fully supported iOS release is iOS 17.
<https://support.apple.com/guide/deployment/about-software-updates-depc4c80847a/>

Not iOS 16. Not iOS 15. Not iOS 14.... *only iOS 17 has full support*.
<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/>

Which means anyone with an iPhone 8 or older is holding onto a radioactive
device in terms of security exploits that are already on it - and will be.

It's not a coincidence that Apple has the shortest support period of all
smartphone operating systems - and - at the same time - the most exploits.

*iOS... double the security holes... over ten time the active exploits*

[Wally J]

Chris <ithi...@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:

[Frankie]

On 19/9/2023, sms wrote:

>> How is it optional? Won’t everyone have to upgrade to it eventually to
>> maintain software support?
>
> If you want to maintain OS support after iOS 16 is no longer being
> supported, then yes, but that's years away.

Apple dropped full support for iOS 16 the very day that iOS 17 shipped.

> Also, it's not like with Microsoft Windows where you can downgrade after
> upgrading if you don't like the new version.

Apple supports older releases like iOS 16 like Windows supports Vista.

[Wally J]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

>> Also, it's not like with Microsoft Windows where you can downgrade after
>> upgrading if you don't like the new version.
>
> false.

*It's not only iOS that nospam is completely ignorant about*

With Windows, for example, you could install Windows 11 today, and then,
tomorrow you could wipe the disk clean and install Windows 10 all over.

*It's no longer surprising how ignorant the iKooks like nospam are*

[Alan]

On 2023-09-19 14:06, Wally J wrote:
> Chris <ithi...@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*

That's not a fact. That's an assertion.

Learn the difference.

>
> FACT
> *iOS has over ten times the number of active exploits!*

Supra.

>
> 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.

But makes that one OS support devices up to 6 years old...

>
> Given iOS has the shortest support lifecycle of all smartphone
> operating systems

That's not a fact. Supra.

>, there's a good reason these are the facts:

A colon is normally followed by a list.

Happy to help the ignorant.

[Alan]

And phones aren't general purpose computers.

Film at 11.

[badgolferman]

I don’t have iTunes and refuse to install it. And I don’t have a Mac so I
guess it’s impossible otherwise.

[nospam]

In article <ued922$2ikl8$1...@dont-email.me>, badgolferman

<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> I updated my work iPhone 11 to iOS 17. I do not see where I can
> >> uninstall the new operating system. Care to show us rather than just
> >> say nope?
> >
> > there's this thing called a search engine. guess what it does when you
> > query for downgrade ios 17 to 16.
> >
> > this works, even though it's about beta versions:
> > <https://www.macrumors.com/how-to/downgrade-from-ios-17-to-ios-17/>
> > <https://www.tomsguide.com/how-to/how-to-downgrade-from-ios-17-beta-back-
> > to-ios-16>
> >
>

> I donšt have iTunes and refuse to install it. And I donšt have a Mac so I
> guess itšs impossible otherwise.

your choice, but that's how to downgrade. you might be able to go to an
apple store and 'borrow' a mac there.

[*Hemidactylus*]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ued922$2ikl8$1...@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
> <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I updated my work iPhone 11 to iOS 17. I do not see where I can
>>>> uninstall the new operating system. Care to show us rather than just
>>>> say nope?
>>>
>>> there's this thing called a search engine. guess what it does when you
>>> query for downgrade ios 17 to 16.
>>>
>>> this works, even though it's about beta versions:
>>> <https://www.macrumors.com/how-to/downgrade-from-ios-17-to-ios-17/>
>>> <https://www.tomsguide.com/how-to/how-to-downgrade-from-ios-17-beta-back-
>>> to-ios-16>
>>>
>>

>> I don¹t have iTunes and refuse to install it. And I don¹t have a Mac so I
>> guess it¹s impossible otherwise.

>
> your choice, but that's how to downgrade. you might be able to go to an
> apple store and 'borrow' a mac there.
>

I’m amazed how the release of iOS 17 can generate such cantankerous
threads. I got it and haven’t run into any deal breakers yet. The battery
may have drained a little faster today. Nothing major.

[nospam]

In article <Y6GcncMgVbDJtpf4...@giganews.com>,
*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

> >
> Išm amazed how the release of iOS 17 can generate such cantankerous
> threads. I got it and havenšt run into any deal breakers yet. The battery

> may have drained a little faster today. Nothing major.

the battery always drains a little faster immediately after an upgrade
as various background processes do their thing. once they're done,
things return to normal.

another factor is people try out the various new features, which means
more usage than they otherwise would have had. that too returns to
normal.

[Alan]

So you're so doctrinaire that you can't install an application..

...and then uninstall it once you don't need it anymore?

Seriously?

[Hank Rogers]

It's apple's way or no way. Welcome to the garden.

[Alan]

On 2023-09-19 18:02, Hank Rogers wrote:
> badgolferman wrote:
>> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <xn0o70zai...@reader443.eternal-september.org>,
>>> badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> The article is for those who find annoying features AFTER upgrading
>>>>>> with no method to downgrade.
>>>>>
>>>>> you can downgrade for about a week or two after the official release
>>>>> date (which means months for beta users).
>>>>>
>>>>> or you can defer upgrading until the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
>>>>
>>>> I updated my work iPhone 11 to iOS 17.  I do not see where I can
>>>> uninstall the new operating system.  Care to show us rather than just
>>>> say nope?
>>>
>>> there's this thing called a search engine. guess what it does when you
>>> query for downgrade ios 17 to 16.
>>>
>>> this works, even though it's about beta versions:
>>> <https://www.macrumors.com/how-to/downgrade-from-ios-17-to-ios-17/>
>>> <https://www.tomsguide.com/how-to/how-to-downgrade-from-ios-17-beta-back-
>>> to-ios-16>
>>>
>>

>> I don’t have iTunes and refuse to install it. And I don’t have a
>> Mac so I
>> guess it’s impossible otherwise.

>>
>
> It's apple's way or no way. Welcome to the garden.
>
>

Indeed and there are 100s of millions of people who find that to be a boon.

[Jolly Roger]

That's a *you* problem.

> And I don’t have a Mac

Also a *you* problem.

And you haven't refuted what nospam said - it's true.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[Jolly Roger]

On 2023-09-19, *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <ued922$2ikl8$1...@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
>> <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I updated my work iPhone 11 to iOS 17. I do not see where I can
>>>>> uninstall the new operating system. Care to show us rather than just
>>>>> say nope?
>>>>
>>>> there's this thing called a search engine. guess what it does when you
>>>> query for downgrade ios 17 to 16.
>>>>
>>>> this works, even though it's about beta versions:
>>>> <https://www.macrumors.com/how-to/downgrade-from-ios-17-to-ios-17/>
>>>> <https://www.tomsguide.com/how-to/how-to-downgrade-from-ios-17-beta-back-
>>>> to-ios-16>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don¹t have iTunes and refuse to install it. And I don¹t have a Mac so I
>>> guess it¹s impossible otherwise.
>>
>> your choice, but that's how to downgrade. you might be able to go to an
>> apple store and 'borrow' a mac there.
>>
> I’m amazed how the release of iOS 17 can generate such cantankerous
> threads.

Most of them are from resident trolls looking for *anything* to bitch
and moan about.

> I got it and haven’t run into any deal breakers yet. The battery
> may have drained a little faster today. Nothing major.

It's normal for the device to work a little harder and drain the battery
a little faster right after an update.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2023-09-20, Hank Rogers <ha...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> badgolferman wrote:
>> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <xn0o70zai...@reader443.eternal-september.org>,
>>> badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> The article is for those who find annoying features AFTER upgrading
>>>>>> with no method to downgrade.
>>>>>
>>>>> you can downgrade for about a week or two after the official release
>>>>> date (which means months for beta users).
>>>>>
>>>>> or you can defer upgrading until the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
>>>>
>>>> I updated my work iPhone 11 to iOS 17. I do not see where I can
>>>> uninstall the new operating system. Care to show us rather than just
>>>> say nope?
>>>
>>> there's this thing called a search engine. guess what it does when you
>>> query for downgrade ios 17 to 16.
>>>
>>> this works, even though it's about beta versions:
>>> <https://www.macrumors.com/how-to/downgrade-from-ios-17-to-ios-17/>
>>> <https://www.tomsguide.com/how-to/how-to-downgrade-from-ios-17-beta-back-
>>> to-ios-16>
>>>
>>

>> I don’t have iTunes and refuse to install it. And I don’t have a Mac so I
>> guess it’s impossible otherwise.

>
> It's apple's way or no way. Welcome to the garden.

Android is right down the alley, next to the dumpster. Enjoy.

[Wally J]

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote

>>> I don't have iTunes and refuse to install it. And I don’t have a Mac so I
>>> guess it’s impossible otherwise.

>>
>> It's apple's way or no way. Welcome to the garden.
>
> Android is right down the alley, next to the dumpster. Enjoy.

The problem with iOS is it is _designed_ for people who can't do anything.\

The fact is my free 3-year-old Android is more powerful and safer than any
iPhone ever made, Jolly Roger - because the iPhone can't do anything.

And that free Android has longer support than any iPhone ever made.
Two to three times fewer zero-day holes.
Ten times fewer exploits too.
--
HINT: iOS is a toy operating system filled with zero-day exploited holes.

[Wally J]

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote

>> I˘m amazed how the release of iOS 17 can generate such cantankerous
>> threads.
>
> Most of them are from resident trolls looking for *anything* to bitch
> and moan about.

Hi Jolly Roger,

*You low-IQ ignorant iKooks _lied for years_ about Apple support*

FACT:
As of the 18th, iOS 16 is no longer supported for full hotfix support.

[Wally J]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

>> I donšt have iTunes and refuse to install it. And I donšt have a Mac so I
>> guess itšs impossible otherwise.
>
> your choice, but that's how to downgrade. you might be able to go to an
> apple store and 'borrow' a mac there.

The reason iOS can't do thousands of useful things is... the walled garden.

The same ever-present walled garden Alan Browne swears doesn't exist.

[candycanearter07]

On 9/19/23 21:58, Wally J wrote:
> The reason iOS can't do thousands of useful things is... the walled garden.
>
> The same ever-present walled garden Alan Browne swears doesn't exist.

Yeah, it feels like you're renting the device sometimes..
--
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 20.09.23 um 01:14 schrieb *Hemidactylus*:

It should be back to normal as soon as indexing and other one time
processes after an upgrade are finished.

--
Alea iacta est

[Alan]

On 2023-09-19 19:50, Wally J wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
>
>>>> I don't have iTunes and refuse to install it. And I don’t have a Mac so I
>>>> guess it’s impossible otherwise.
>>>
>>> It's apple's way or no way. Welcome to the garden.
>>
>> Android is right down the alley, next to the dumpster. Enjoy.
>
> The problem with iOS is it is _designed_ for people who can't do anything.\
>
> The fact is my free 3-year-old Android is more powerful and safer than any
> iPhone ever made, Jolly Roger - because the iPhone can't do anything.

Well that's just a lie...

...from a liar.

[Alan]

On 2023-09-19 19:54, Wally J wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
>

>>> I▌ amazed how the release of iOS 17 can generate such cantankerous

>>> threads.
>>
>> Most of them are from resident trolls looking for *anything* to bitch
>> and moan about.
>
> Hi Jolly Roger,
>
> *You low-IQ ignorant iKooks _lied for years_ about Apple support*
>
> FACT:
> As of the 18th, iOS 16 is no longer supported for full hotfix support.

Nope. That is an ASSERTION.

What IS a fact is that Apple routinely supports its devices for as long
as 6 years.

[Wally J]

nospam <nos...@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).

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.

[candycanearter07]

On 9/20/23 04:54, Wally J wrote:
> nospam <nos...@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.

[badgolferman]

candycanearter07 wrote:

>On 9/20/23 04:54, Wally J wrote:
>>nospam <nos...@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.

--
"A zebra does not change its spots." ~ Al Gore

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-09-20 10:42, candycanearter07 wrote:

> 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.

Just costs more to keep the OS up to date if it has to support 32b as
well as 64b. So the runtime is larger, s/w testing is longer, etc. and
so on.

Apple transitioned from 32 to 64 over a period of 4 years beginning 10
years ago this month (iOS 7)[1]. More than enough time for app
developers to catch up. (In most cases it was just a re-compile
exercise, and in the rest easy enough to make required changes).

MacOS hung in there a little longer... to 2018 or 19.

Apple has long led the market in pruning out of date/dying technology to
strengthen the rest - whether h/w or s/w.

[1] Test/beta versions came out earlier of course.
--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

[Chris]

Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2023-09-19 12:11, Chris wrote:
>> Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:

>>> On 2023-09-19 08:04, badgolferman wrote:
>>>> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>>>>> In article <xn0o70qvv...@reader443.eternal-september.org>,
>>>>> badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While most of these features are welcome, if you're like me, you may
>>>>>> not LOVE every single new offering from iOS 17. Sometimes I don't want
>>>>>> change, especially when it's drastic, because I get used to the way of
>>>>>> doing certain things.

>>>>>
>>>>> upgrading to ios 17 is *optional*. if you don't like the new features,
>>>>> then don't upgrade to it.
>>>>>
>>>>

>>>> How is it optional? Won’t 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

>>
>> 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.
>>
>

> But the most recent works on phones bought up to 6 years ago, agreed?

Not the point badgolferman was making.

nospam responded that upgrading to ios 17 was optional if you didn't like
some features, however, you only get all security/software updates with ios
17.

[Chris]

Nope. Windows 11 is 64b only.

[Alan Browne]

Will it run a 32bit app?

[Alan]

What do you mean "arbitrarily"?

Apple provides an up-to-date OS for devices up to 6 years old, and you
have no idea how much (or how little) effort it takes to make that happen.

[Alan]

Are you sure you're not Arlen?

[candycanearter07]

On 9/20/23 13:41, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-09-20 08:49, badgolferman wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/20/23 04:54, Wally J wrote:
>>>> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

>> 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.
>>
>
> Are you sure you're not Arlen?

Who?

[candycanearter07]

Probably. Windows is big on backwards compatibility.

[Alan Browne]

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.

[Alan]

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.

[Alan Browne]

https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT208436

[Alan]

"Apple began transitioning to 64-bit hardware and software technology
for Mac over a decade ago"

In an article posted in 2020.

[Alan Browne]

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.

[Alan]

Sure. So?

[nospam]

In article <uef0cr$2vh1n$2...@dont-email.me>, candycanearter07

<n...@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
different. apple added 64 bit with the a7, the first 64 bit arm chip
and could run either 32 or 64 bit, they eventually removed 32 bit with
the a11.

that means for any device with an a11 or later, it's impossible to run
32 bit apps because the instructions are simply not there anymore.

it also means the space on the chip that the 32 bit instruction support
used can now be purposed for more advanced tasks, such as the neural
engine.

[nospam]

In article <ueg1b3$35k5d$2...@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:

>
> "Apple began transitioning to 64-bit hardware and software technology
> for Mac over a decade ago"
>
> In an article posted in 2020.

the first mac with 64 bit was the powermac g5 way back in 2003, with
initial support in mac os 10.3/panther (although somewhat limited).

the intel transition put a bump into things because the core duo chips
were 32 bit, however, within a year or so, they were replaced with core
2 duo.

[candycanearter07]

So consumers want to be able to use older apps?

[Alan]

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.

[Chris]

Maybe?

[Chris]

candycanearter07 <n...@thanks.net> wrote:
> On 9/19/23 21:58, Wally J wrote:
>> The reason iOS can't do thousands of useful things is... the walled garden.
>>
>> The same ever-present walled garden Alan Browne swears doesn't exist.
>
> Yeah, it feels like you're renting the device sometimes..

I really don't understand this attitude.

[Your Name]

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.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-09-20 20:23, Alan wrote:
> 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?

Not exactly "Mr. Following the context of the sub-thread." are you?
[AAA] above.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-09-20 20:27, nospam wrote:
> In article <uef0cr$2vh1n$2...@dont-email.me>, candycanearter07
> <n...@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

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.

[Alan Browne]

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.)

[Alan Browne]

Per online sources, yes.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-09-21 02:10, Chris wrote:

> I really don't understand this attitude.

Keeping the myth of the Apple walled garden alive is a powerful tool
Android fanbois use with the weak minded.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-09-21 02:23, Your Name wrote:
> 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".

Many businesses don't run business s/w on their own computers (beyond
perhaps Word/Excel/Powerpoint) - they use "cloud" services. Salesforce,
Quickbooks, ERP s/w galore, for example.

My business is stuck running Win 10 (under VM) just for accounting as
the s/w the accountants like is not available under MacOS. That co.
does have a "rental" version online now (Sage) and it's likely we'll
move to that in the coming couple years if not Quickbooks.

> A tiny minority of people that want to keep using old apps are the only
> ones who even know such a problem even exists.

I'm down to one I'm fond of (under WinXP), but will leap to something
better if I find the one that is just right.

[badgolferman]

Alan Browne wrote:

>On 2023-09-21 02:10, Chris wrote:
>
>>I really don't understand this attitude.
>
>Keeping the myth of the Apple walled garden alive is a powerful tool
>Android fanbois use with the weak minded.

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3682761/apple-looks-poised-to-open-its-walled-garden-in-2023.html

--
"Defeat is worse than death because you have to live with defeat." ~
Bill Musselman

[nospam]

In article <aQWOM.3932$Lmc1...@fx44.iad>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@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.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-09-21 09:45, nospam wrote:
> In article <aQWOM.3932$Lmc1...@fx44.iad>, Alan Browne
> <bitb...@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.

Arm 64b processors do run 32 bit instructions. But it's one set or the
other for any given process.

>
>> 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.

Sure it will. On an ARM 64 processor. You're focused on Apple Silicon.

[nospam]

In article <CVXOM.96158$noZ7....@fx13.iad>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@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.

[candycanearter07]

Yea, there's plenty of useful apps that haven't been updated in years.

[candycanearter07]

Darn thing could probably run DOS games.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-09-21 10:00, nospam wrote:
> In article <CVXOM.96158$noZ7....@fx13.iad>, Alan Browne
> <bitb...@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.

> 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.

No shit. Again context. See above.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-09-21 10:50, candycanearter07 wrote:
> On 9/21/23 07:51, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2023-09-21 02:10, Chris wrote:
>>> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>> Will it run a 32bit app?
>>>
>>> Maybe?
>>
>> Per online sources, yes.
>>
>
> Darn thing could probably run DOS games.

Not certain - many DOS games had pretty good graphics (high resolution
as the graphics cards of the day would support). So drivers could be an
issue when in a "DOS" Window.

That said, the s/w I mention elsewhere that I wrote for setting up
slideshow lists is written as a command line program that is likely DOS
compatible - it runs in Terminal under WinXP/Win10.

[nospam]

In article <GPYOM.91807$bmw6....@fx10.iad>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> On 2023-09-21 10:00, nospam wrote:
> > In article <CVXOM.96158$noZ7....@fx13.iad>, Alan Browne
> > <bitb...@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:

In article <uef0cr$2vh1n$2...@dont-email.me>, candycanearter07
<n...@thanks.net> wrote:
> 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.

apple supported both 32 & 64 bit for the a7-a10, however, for the a11
and later, 32 bit was removed, making it impossible to support 32 bit
code.

android is also dropping 32 bit support, starting with the pixel 7:

<https://www.androidpolice.com/google-pixel-7-pro-64-bit-info/>
The latest post on the Android Developers Blog has officially dubbed
the Pixel 7 series as the first Android devices to go 64-bit-only.
Most of the missive is spent quantifying the benefits of removing
32-bit support including CPU performance improvements of up to
25%, an extra 150MB in available RAM allocation, support for improved
security tools, faster OS updates, and more. The company also expects
a further wave of 64-bit-only devices (including Google's own Pixel
Tablet) as the timeline progresses

[Alan]

Name the oldest application you use.

[Wally J]

Chris <ithi...@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.
>>>
>>
>> But the most recent works on phones bought up to 6 years ago, agreed?
>
> Not the point badgolferman was making.
>
> nospam responded that upgrading to ios 17 was optional if you didn't like
> some features, however, you only get all security/software updates with ios
> 17.

Wow. Someone on this newsgroup (in this case, Chris) actually understands.

The ignorant iKooks like Alan Baker & nospam can't comprehend that they
incessantly claim Apple gives long-term hotfix support and yet all the
iKooks are completely ignorant that full support is only on _one_ release!

At least Chris understood that concept. Kudos to Chris.

For those who comprehend what it means to support an operating system...
*Apple OS support is the _shortest_ in the industry*

[candycanearter07]

On 9/21/23 10:11, Alan wrote:
> Name the oldest application you use.

BYOND

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-09-21 11:10, nospam wrote:
> In article <GPYOM.91807$bmw6....@fx10.iad>, Alan Browne
> <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-09-21 10:00, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <CVXOM.96158$noZ7....@fx13.iad>, Alan Browne
>>> <bitb...@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:

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.

<S>

> android is also dropping 32 bit support, starting with the pixel 7:

Samsung were indeed stung by Apple's move - did not expect it at all.

[nospam]

In article <4y0PM.9717$EIy4...@fx48.iad>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@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.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-09-21 15:25, nospam wrote:
> In article <4y0PM.9717$EIy4...@fx48.iad>, Alan Browne
> <bitb...@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.

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]
===

[Alan]

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.

[Chris]

Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> 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".

Some businesses might be able to, but smaller ones, non-profits and
educational systems won't.

Universities for example run very old software to support equipment that
was bought a long time ago. The software is no longer supported by the
vendor but works just fine ... as long as it's on Windows XP.

The lab is definitely not going to spend 100+k on new hardware simply to
upgrade the software.

> A tiny minority of people that want to keep using old apps are the only
> ones who even know such a problem even exists.

It is a small number, but not frivolous.

[nospam]

In article <xX0PM.12282$C_lf...@fx33.iad>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@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.
>
> 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.

apple's a7 through a10 processors had both 32 & 64 bit instructions, so
apps could be either.

the a11 chip (and later) do not have 32 bit anymore. they only have 64
bit, making it impossible to run 32 bit code. full stop. no amount of
additional libraries or hacking is going to change that.

android is following (as they always do). android apps on the play
store have been required to include 64 bit since 2019, preparing for
the eventual 32 bit removal from hardware, which has begun. the pixel 7
is the first 64-bit only android phone, with more to follow.

<https://chromeunboxed.com/64-bit-builds-older-pixel-phones>
Unbeknownst to many, the Pixel 7 Series was released as the first
ever 64-bit only Android phone. This is a milestone many years in the
making and has been warned about since 2014 when Google told
Developers to start getting their apps ready for the change. Alas,
the time came, and the Pixel 7 and 7 Pro shipped with a 64-bit only
build of Android 13, which means that 32-bit apps cannot be installed
on these devices.

<https://www.arm.com/blogs/blueprint/android-64bit-future-mobile>
Arm Cortex-A ³big² cores will only support 64-bit code from 2022.
From AI to immersive mobile gaming, this is a major enabler for the
Android ecosystem.

> > 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.

[nospam]

In article <uei6cv$3lrjc$1...@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh...@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
ly>
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.

[Alan]

On 2023-09-21 13:21, nospam wrote:
> In article <uei6cv$3lrjc$1...@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh...@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.

The active word being "some".

>
> <https://www.androidcentral.com/phones/snapdragon-8-gen-3-leak-64-bit-on
> ly>
> 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.

Nope.

You made a general statement about "arm processors".

That general statement was wrong.

Now deal with that fact like a grown-up.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-09-21 16:21, nospam wrote:
> In article <xX0PM.12282$C_lf...@fx33.iad>, Alan Browne
> <bitb...@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.
>>
>> 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.

This is what you wrote (quoting for the nth time):

nospam wrote (2023-09-20 20:27 (GMT-4:00).

[ no they couldn't. the arm 32bit and 64bit instruction sets are ]
===

See where it says "arm". YOU wrote that.

>> As they say in court, "You opened that door ..."
>
> as they say in court, objection overruled.

Returned to the lower court.

>
>>>> - 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.

Which (again) you're changing the context.

>>> as i said several times, the a11 *removed* 32 bit, making it
>>> *impossible*, and now android is following with 64-bit only hardware.

Where you're referring to Apple Silicon.

In the quoted instance you were referring to arm. Again quoted above.

>>
>> 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.

Sure. And so is the statement that you can run both on the same 64b
processor - as long as they are in different processes.