MacOS Catalina: only 64-bit. OS that might ship with 32-bit. software that might brick your Mac

[S w a t s o n]

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Apple gives you the power to make that choice for yourself. 

 

Great, you can make the choice to get yourself infected/breached, you do that. I'm 100% fine with them not making it a little GUI toggle to basically open the device to attack.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Months before updating my MacBook Pro to Catalina, I went through my programs and removed everything that was 32Bit. There were only a few programs, and an odd game (like Papers Please). 
 

Now I realize that being this proactive is beyond most users, but the upside of that is most users stick to the Mac App Store and trusted developers who have been 64Bit for a long time. 
 

It’s only these edge cases where users are using deprecated software that macOS can’t handle during the heavy modifications to the file system that come with Catalina. 

I've had Catalina with some old software and never had any problems with current software. I really don't get what error the article is talking about. Its not that I dont appreciate something like this could happen, but I don't understand the OP. 

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, S w a t s o n said:

Great, you can make the choice to get yourself infected/breached, you do that.

Nice false dichotomy. 

[S w a t s o n]

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

Nice false dichotomy. 

Enjoy your rootkits

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, S w a t s o n said:

Enjoy your rootkits

I'm sure I'm ultra vulnerable. 

[Blademaster91]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

Same old story with current apple corporate direction, disable the old stuff and force customers to buy new everything.  Ratchet industries IRL.

I don't see the point of rushing to ditch 32bit support, the decision breaks compatibility especially for education or pros that need to use older software, IMO at least give users the choice to have support for 32bit apps, then again it's Apple and they'd rather force you to buy new everything.

1 hour ago, S w a t s o n said:

because keeping years old bugs is a good idea..

 

and you can block the updates if you really want to it's just not exposed

Kinda ironic the OS easily gives you the option to be without critical updates. Unpopular opinion,but Windows hiding the option to completely block updates is a good thing, most users would just block it.

[mr moose]

51 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Nice false dichotomy. 

That's not a false dichotomy,  Not updating any software natural leads to more vulnerable systems.

 

This is not even a thing up for debate,  especially when talking about an OS.  

[soldier_ph]

They Should've called it Emma...

[Kilrah]

3 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

In macOS you can refuse all updates, forever. 

Not all, some security updates are pushed on you without asking nor even notifying.

Not that I don't think it's good, but it's not "all". 

[Thaldor]

4 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Months before updating my MacBook Pro to Catalina, I went through my programs and removed everything that was 32Bit. There were only a few programs, and an odd game (like Papers Please). 
 

Now I realize that being this proactive is beyond most users, but the upside of that is most users stick to the Mac App Store and trusted developers who have been 64Bit for a long time. 
 

It’s only these edge cases where users are using deprecated software that macOS can’t handle during the heavy modifications to the file system that come with Catalina. 

 

1 hour ago, floofer said:

I've had Catalina with some old software and never had any problems with current software. I really don't get what error the article is talking about. Its not that I dont appreciate something like this could happen, but I don't understand the OP. 

The problem here is that while upgrading to the Catalina the macOS might not upgrade the entitlement subsystem completely to the new 64-bit version and so are left with basicly 32-bit account management and the OS is dead because there is no support for 32-bit architecture. Apparently in some cases this may also lead into bricked EFI that means Catalina upgrade bricked your Mac for good.

It's good to hear that probably most get on without problems but the real hitter here is that those with problems get again the warm and always so nice Apple Fuck You, Pay More -treatment. While most of the problems are fixed by removing one file that requires about 5-10 minutes and some knowledge, Apples "official" fix is to change the logicboard and SSD at customers expense (Apple hasn't come out with anything official, but their community is moderated by people who actually work for Apple and they are apparently banning people who give the "wrong" suggestion to remove the problematic file, I would say that is Apples Official stance here just because someone higher must give green light for this and someone even higher also).

[LeSheen]

2 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

I don't see the point of rushing to ditch 32bit support, the decision breaks compatibility especially for education or pros that need to use older software, IMO at least give users the choice to have support for 32bit apps, then again it's Apple and they'd rather force you to buy new everything.

To be fair they didn't really rush this. It was announced a while back they would drop the support. Honestly it's way overdue there is no reason why any modern application should still be 32bit. And this is a good way to force those stubborn developers. Ubuntu(linux) tried to do the same a while back as well. But because of backlash of primarily the gaming community they decided to support in some way (I think a separate repository). For gamers I can still see the appeal (could be achieved with a vm or sandbox) but since macos isn't really know for gaming anyway...

[Video Beagle]

16 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

IMO at least give users the choice to have support for 32bit apps,

.....They have the choice...don't go to Catalina. There will be security updates for Mojave for the next 4 or so years.

 

My main computer is still on Mojave, and will remain so until I'm ready to upgrade it/feel the need to upgrade it/see the bugs have been worked out of the upgrade/get drunk and just upgrade it.

 

I'm typing this on an El Capitain system. 

 

All work just fine, and I have no rush to upgrade.

 

Just as an aside....isn't the "news section" supposed to have actual news sources sited? Not some one's rant, and anecdotes he read on some other forum?

[Kilrah]

55 minutes ago, LeSheen said:

there is no reason why any modern application should still be 32bit.

But there is also no reason an OS should drop support for all legacy applications that aren't maintained anymore.

[Chunchunmaru_]

5 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Apple gives you the power to make that choice for yourself. 

 

I'm pretty sure the real point here is you can also decide which updates to do.

 

I mean, you can separately update security vulnerabilities similarly to Linux where at least Ubuntu/Debian package manager has a flag for security updates rather than the application ones

 

Windows "new" system is just bad as it is. I wouldn't mind twice to automatically apply security updates if only I could prevent other useless updates that are more likely to harm the system.

[NumLock21]

What is the <app of the path>

 

Is typing

"rm -rf <path of the path>" going to work or it is looking for a specific path? If it is looking for a specific path, than what is that path name?

[GoodBytes]

Another funny thing with this OS, is that after Apple did all the joking with Vista with UAC prompts (which is what Linux based OS already introduced), now Apple joins the party. I think they could no longer deny the security benefits of not being true admin/root.

 

Looking on Twiiter, many people using the new OS are now doing the same complains that Windows users did back in Vista days when UAC was introduced. Unlike Windows, there is so far no option to reduce them or hide them to my knowledge.

[Commodus]

4 hours ago, Kilrah said:

But there is also no reason an OS should drop support for all legacy applications that aren't maintained anymore.

Sure there is -- not that Apple is necessarily in the right in this case, but eventually there will be changes an OS developer needs to make that will be hindered by needing compatibility with those legacy apps.

 

Windows has been held back (both in terms of feature and sales) because of that compatibility with old apps.  Microsoft was obsessed with legacy support above all else for a while, and now it's regretting that as companies insist on running Windows XP or 7 in order to avoid upgrading their 20-year-old database app.  It either has to limit progress to appease these people or accept that they may never be customers again.  Imagine if car makers were forced to keep CD players because a handful of older buyers didn't want to download or stream music -- that's Microsoft's situation in a nutshell.

 

Apple is occasionally too aggressive, but one of the beauties of its software is that it doesn't feel obligated to chain itself to compatibility.  It'll offer transitions, but when it's done with a software layer, it can move on relatively quickly.  And that, in turn, prevents most developers from becoming complacent.  They can't just keep issuing small updates to the same app forever; they have to modernize if they want to stay relevant.  The problem, of course, is that Apple gave people plenty of warning about 64-bit code and still has devs who have yet to update.

[Zando_]

1 minute ago, Commodus said:

Apple is occasionally too aggressive, but one of the beauties of its software is that it doesn't feel obligated to chain itself to compatibility.  It'll offer transitions, but when it's done with a software layer, it's done for good.  And that, in turn, prevents most developers from becoming complacent.  They can't just keep issuing small updates to the same app forever; they have to modernize if they want to stay relevant.

^^^ Yeah, this is the norm for Apple. See them pushing thunderbolt 3 as the only ports at all on their new laptops and such, they like to pick a standard and aggressively push that, and it's up to other companies or devs to keep up. iOS already went 64-bit only, I think with 12? Not too surprising that they'd do it on macOS too. 

3 minutes ago, Commodus said:

The problem, of course, is that Apple gave people plenty of warning about 64-bit code and still has devs who have yet to update.

My dad still has to use Internet Explorer for some banking stuff. Banking stuff, which should be secure, relies on software that only works with a browser even Microsoft is doing their best to kill.  Some bois really hate updating their software. 

[NumLock21]

Why is my question being ignored?
I don't have a mac, but I'm still curious as to what is <path of the app>

No one knows?

[BrinkGG]

32 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Why is my question being ignored?
I don't have a mac, but I'm still curious as to what is <path of the app>

No one knows?

When you said "the <app of the path>" I thought you were trolling cause you had it backwards. 

 

OSX works just like linux where you can "cd" your way around the disk to find files you need. For example, the path of google chrome on my Mbp is: MacintoshHD/Applications/"Google Chrome.app" and the contents of the program are inside the Google Chrome.app "directory" (same as clicking show contents on the application's ctrl + click menu.), so to delete an app, I would do: rm -rf MacintoshHD/Applications/"Google Chrome.app" 

 

If I remember correctly that is. Work has fried my brain and replaced it with lukewarm spaghetti. 

[NumLock21]

1 hour ago, BrinkGG said:

When you said "the <app of the path>" I thought you were trolling cause you had it backwards. 

 

OSX works just like linux where you can "cd" your way around the disk to find files you need. For example, the path of google chrome on my Mbp is: MacintoshHD/Applications/"Google Chrome.app" and the contents of the program are inside the Google Chrome.app "directory" (same as clicking show contents on the application's ctrl + click menu.), so to delete an app, I would do: rm -rf MacintoshHD/Applications/"Google Chrome.app" 

 

If I remember correctly that is. Work has fried my brain and replaced it with lukewarm spaghetti. 

Opps, I do meant <path of the app> not <app of the path> sorry about that.

With that said, in the Louis Rossmann video is showed this path

 

System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/IMTranscoding.framework/XPCService/IMTranscoderAgent.xpc/Contents/MacOS/IMTrancoderAgent FAILURE TO RETURN KERNEL ADDRESS SPACE 

I assume users who got bricked have to delete the single file in that specific path.

 

rm -rf System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/IMTranscoding.framework/XPCService/IMTranscoderAgent.xpc/Contents/MacOS/IMTrancoderAgent

The "FAILURE TO RETURN KERNEL ADDRESS SPACE" is just the error message and not an actual file.

[BrinkGG]

12 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Opps, I do meant <path of the app> not <app of the path> sorry about that.

With that said, in the Louis Rossmann video is showed this path

 

System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/IMTranscoding.framework/XPCService/IMTranscoderAgent.xpc/Contents/MacOS/IMTrancoderAgent FAILURE TO RETURN KERNEL ADDRESS SPACE 

I assume users who got bricked have to delete the single file in that specific path.

 

rm -rf System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/IMTranscoding.framework/XPCService/IMTranscoderAgent.xpc/Contents/MacOS/IMTrancoderAgent

The "FAILURE TO RETURN KERNEL ADDRESS SPACE" is just the error message and not an actual file.

So if that was during load logs (I haven't seen Louis' video yet but I'll watch it soon), that prints the system file that is being loaded and a dmesg string after it. So the path ends with IMTranscoderAgent.

 

A little tip for paths, especially on Linux or unix based OSes:

If I try to go to /Applications/Google Chrome.app as a just typed it (cd /Applications/Google Chrome.app), it will fail, and say something like "No directory with the name Google". Because there is a space in the name, terminal reads that as a separate location and will only take the text up until the space. To get around this, just add quotes to the name with spaces in it. For example: /Applications/"Google Chrome.app" will get you into that folder. 

 

Hope this helps.  

 

EDIT: Formatting is hard. 

[Jito463]

13 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

The difference is that in macOS you have the power to refuse an update. You aren’t forced unlike with Windows 10. Further, if anything does happen, a simple TimeMachine restore fixes everything.

Except in this case, where you can't even get to the Restore OS boot screen.  It has the ability completely brick the Mac, requiring another Mac to fix the issue.

3 hours ago, Commodus said:

Imagine if car makers were forced to keep CD players because a handful of older buyers didn't want to download or stream music -- that's Microsoft's situation in a nutshell.

What's wrong with CD players?  Now, if you had said cassette tape players instead, that would be a different story.

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, Jito463 said:

Except in this case, where you can't even get to the Restore OS boot screen.  It has the ability completely brick the Mac, requiring another Mac to fix the issue.

This can be a problem with any OS. Only having one system is a recipe for disaster. 

[Jito463]

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

This can be a problem with any OS. Only having one system is a recipe for disaster. 

Agreed, I was just going off your statement that using Time Machine would fix everything.