Intel, Universal 1 or 2 apps

Globet wrote:

Shouldn't Apple take some sort of a lead on this? Comms are confusing (for example - go to the Apple store for updated apps for silicon" seems only to apply to current Apple's own apps). Apple must be aware of (or can check) which apps sold on the store are of Kind Intel, Universal 1, or Universal 2. Maybe a flag on the store to indicate an app as "silicon compatible"? Vast majority of users don't become aware of this type of issue until it bites them...

Apple shows alerts for actively-used apps.

I’d assume Apple doesn’t show alerts for infrequently used or unused apps, because that’d bury many folks in alerts about their old and unused apps. They didn’t show alerts for unused stuff last time, either.

For those that want or need more details… As happened with the x86-32 to x86-64 transition at macOS 10.15 some six years ago (and that 32- to 64-bit app transition having started with OS X 10.4 and OS X 10.5, an aeon or two ago) the folks that want to inventory their entire macOS app installation catalog can use the existing macOS app inventory tool, the same inventory tool that was used previously, the same inventory tool that still shows the app kind. Which is the key to this whole discussion.

This thread is a discussion about the details and underpinning of macOS apps, including Mach-O and app bundles and about the migration from x86-64, as well as about the migration from x86-32, and from PPC, too.

This thread is not how I would suggest approaching the upgrade to macOS 27.

For where this is all headed, Apple will undoubtedly discuss that at WWDC26 next week.

And for completeness, I would (as a user) also not rush to upgrade to any new macOS version. Let Apple and the third-party app developers and other users find and fix and document whatever issues might arise.

If, however, you're an app developer or are managing or supporting IT, you will need test systems, and will want to test macOS 27 ahead of your users. Maybe this testing work includes running some betas too, and betas should only happen on testing machines, and not with any data you need to be available and uncorrupted, and not any hardware or any third-party apps you need to be available and uncorrupted.

NO

I am thinking, you maybe over micro-managing this Universal 1 versus Universal 2

Clearing, Apple has answered this question

" Updating an Intel-based app for Apple silicon means replacing it with a "Universal" or "Apple silicon" version of the app. "

More references:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_binary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_binary

https://ss64.com/mac/file.html

But looking up the app “kind” detail that is shown in the installed applications in the System Report is way easier.

Agreed. I have built Swift Universal2 dynamic linked libraries and their respective Universal2 apps. Not alot of fun there. Only have a couple of Intel apps on Tahoe that still need Rosetta 2, and they will be gone shortly.

Support ending for Intel based app pop up… - Apple Community

Need_help_give_help wrote:

If I read things correctly with the introduction of MacOS 27 it will be the end of Intel apps. (Some sites say MacOS 28).

My understanding is that if the app is designated “Universal” it will work in MacOS 27 and beyond.

Again my understanding is that “Universal  1” was for PowerPC & Intel and “Universal 2” is for Intel & ARM.

As my M1 is running Rosetta 2 ( I presume) the “Universal” and Intel designated apps are working.

When Rosetta 2 is dropped in MacOS 27 will these ‘Universal” apps still work if they are designated just  “Universal” or will they need to show  “Universal 2” or ????

 Universal 2

There must be a programmatic way to check what types of binaries are present in a Mac GUI application. After all, macOS itself must check that. Offhand, I do not know what other user-level ways of checking things there might be.

Servant of Cats wrote:

There must be a programmatic way to check what types of binaries are present in a Mac GUI application. After all, macOS itself must check that. Offhand, I do not know what other user-level ways of checking things there might be.

Sorry @ Servant of Cats

Posted reply to the incorrect contributor

Only on the second double expresso of the day

So I'm a bit confused on the Intel/silicon issue. I see recommendations that installing Rosetta 2 will enable the use of Intel-based apps, but elsewhere I see that Rosetta support is to be dropped when a future version of MacOS is launched. So far I'm not seeing much evidence of even majors (Amazon, for example in their desktop Music app, Intel only, offering a silicon-compatible version? Can anyone clarify? I already have several notifications popping up reporting that some of my apps will need to be updated...

Thanks for that. I've just printed out an App/Kind listing from my system report, so now I have a heads-up on what I'll need to sort. A fair proportion of my Intel-only apps are obsolete or legacy stuff that's just been hanging around and I should have cleared out a long time ago.

Need_help_give_help wrote:

Thanks for checking the date eg Nov 2020 (how much older though?) as an indicator but we should  be able to identify definitively which apps that might be Universal 1 or not.

I can't give a definitive cutoff date.

However, Apple started releasing Intel-based Macs in January of 2006, and stopped selling new PowerPC-based Macs entirely some time in the later part of 2006. I believe they only used 32-bit processors in some of the Macs introduced in 2006, transitioning to 64-bit Intel processors in late 2006 or 2007. (Those 64-bit Intel CPUs could run both 32-bit and 64-bit code, and Apple didn't pull support for 32-bit applications until the release of Catalina in 2019, so in the early Intel days, a lot of developers continued to release 32-bit Intel applications.)

I believe that most developers would have started abandoning PowerPC-based Macs within a few years after the transition to Intel-based hardware was complete.

I'd be extremely surprised if any developers were still building Universal 1 apps by the time that Big Sur came out, even assuming that the Xcode toolset still offered that option.