Really old apps running on High Sierra

[silentstorm]

Was trying out HS on an external drive and found something interesting. SSD drive formatted in HFS+.

The discoveries:

1) FCP 7 is officially dead. This was released in 2009 if I'm not wrong, People think that it's ok to let it go.

2) Paragon ver 14 not installing.

3) Toast Ti 14 buggy but running.

4) iLife '11 not running, like FCP 7, but can be installed.

Here is the funny thing I found:

1) Quicktime 7.6 installs fine & runs well, Pro ver including!

2) iWork '09 full running well. Keynote, Numbers & Pages have no issues at all!

3) Sony XDCam Transfer 2.13 can run but I don't have a drive or file to test if the transcoding process is ok.

I think apple is selectively crippling those software by putting in codes in the new OS to prevent them from running or installing. Otherwise I can't think of any reason why iWork 09 & QT 7 can still be running well, they are as old or older than FCP7. I'm not sure if iWork 09 & QT7 are 32bit apps or 64bit though.

Nasty....

 

[robgendreau]

Was trying out HS on an external drive and found something interesting. SSD drive formatted in HFS+.

The discoveries:

1) FCP 7 is officially dead. This was released in 2009 if I'm not wrong, People think that it's ok to let it go.

2) Paragon ver 14 not installing.

3) Toast Ti 14 buggy but running.

4) iLife '11 not running, like FCP 7, but can be installed.

Here is the funny thing I found:

1) Quicktime 7.6 installs fine & runs well, Pro ver including!

2) iWork '09 full running well. Keynote, Numbers & Pages have no issues at all!

3) Sony XDCam Transfer 2.13 can run but I don't have a drive or file to test if the transcoding process is ok.

I think apple is selectively crippling those software by putting in codes in the new OS to prevent them from running or installing. Otherwise I can't think of any reason why iWork 09 & QT 7 can still be running well, they are as old or older than FCP7. I'm not sure if iWork 09 & QT7 are 32bit apps or 64bit though.

Nasty....

Maybe. I would have thought the idea of deliberately crippling Apple software to prevent use in new systems would be paranoia, until I encountered it myself. The old version of Airport Utility, which was required by any Apple network stuff (a warning sign I should have heeded), was deprecated in one of the OSs a while ago. So it wouldn't run. So you couldn't configure say an old Express or Extreme, and they were bricked if something needed changing. Ouch.

But some clever person figured out a hack, since it turned out Apple had simply made it refuse to open in the newer system (you could drop the downloaded 5.6.1 dmg on Automator for that app to open it, rename it, and then it worked again as say "Old Airport Express" with no issues). Might work with those other programs. See http://www.macinstruct.com/node/491

 

[silentstorm]

Maybe. I would have thought the idea of deliberately crippling Apple software to prevent use in new systems would be paranoia, until I encountered it myself. The old version of Airport Utility, which was required by any Apple network stuff (a warning sign I should have heeded), was deprecated in one of the OSs a while ago. So it wouldn't run. So you couldn't configure say an old Express or Extreme, and they were bricked if something needed changing. Ouch.

But some clever person figured out a hack, since it turned out Apple had simply made it refuse to open in the newer system (you could drop the downloaded 5.6.1 dmg on Automator for that app to open it, rename it, and then it worked again as say "Old Airport Express" with no issues). Might work with those other programs. See http://www.macinstruct.com/node/491

--
“Art is not what you see, but what you make others see.”
— Edgar Degas

Found this from wiki:

When QuickTime X attempts to operate with a 32-bit codec or perform an operation not supported by QuickTime X, it will start a 32-bit helper process to perform the requested operation. The website Ars Technica revealed that QuickTime X uses QuickTime 7.x via QTKit to run older codecs that have not made the transition to 64-bit.

Also from apple support site, they say HS doesn't support iWork 09, but mine runs fine. Maybe needs to install from fresh & not via OS upgrade path, clear cache & preference plist. This 09 version runs in both 32bit & 64bit. Interestingly this version also works in G4 & G5 macs. So no Rosetta needed? Could that mean LiveType in FCP6 is deliberately prevented from installing & running?

Could be some kind of meta data reading that all ver of OS x use to check apps publishing dates & prevent them from running or installing.

Oh well.... users are caught between security & apps they once spent money on. I guess now that's how tech companies force users to buy new stuffs & continue to make money.

 

[Kendall Helmstetter Gelner]

<..>

Also from apple support site, they say HS doesn't support iWork 09, but mine runs fine. Maybe needs to install from fresh & not via OS upgrade path, clear cache & preference plist. This 09 version runs in both 32bit & 64bit. Interestingly this version also works in G4 & G5 macs. So no Rosetta needed? Could that mean LiveType in FCP6 is deliberately prevented from installing & running?

Could be some kind of meta data reading that all ver of OS x use to check apps publishing dates & prevent them from running or installing.

OSX does nothing like that though.

What does determine if an app will run in High Sierra is simply how well it used the system libraries, if it ventured outside them much or used them in ways since depreciated, it may not run. iWork '09 may technically run but you may well run into issues...

Of note is that High Sierra is the last version of OSX to support 32 bit apps, so after this some app will stop working simply because of that.

 

[Tom_N]

Interestingly this version also works in G4 & G5 macs. So no Rosetta needed?

The system requirements for iWork '09 say "A Mac with an Intel, PowerPC G5, or PowerPC G4 (500 MHz or faster) processor." I.e., Apple shipped it in the form of Universal Binaries.

Rosetta would not be needed because an Intel-based Mac would select the Intel binaries, and ignore the PowerPC ones.

Could that mean LiveType in FCP6 is deliberately prevented from installing & running?

Nope. LiveType 1.2 requires "Mac OS X 10.3.2 or later". That was a PowerPC-only version of Mac OS X. From this, we may surmise that LiveType 1.2 is PowerPC-only.

 

[silentstorm]

OSX does nothing like that though.

What does determine if an app will run in High Sierra is simply how well it used the system libraries, if it ventured outside them much or used them in ways since depreciated, it may not run. iWork '09 may technically run but you may well run into issues...

Of note is that High Sierra is the last version of OSX to support 32 bit apps, so after this some app will stop working simply because of that.

--
---> Kendall
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home

Thanks for the explanation. How is it possible that so many older software out there that totally cannot be installed but iWork09 is fine? What sort of lib it uses that other software simply didn't tap into? I would consider iWork09 a complex software, so the lib links & framework would be massive, just like so many other software.

I thought when Mavericks was launched, it was already officiated that OSx is going all full 64bit. No?

Looks like I won't be switching to HS anytime soon.

 

[Tom_N]

How is it possible that so many older software out there that totally cannot be installed but iWork09 is fine?

There's the PowerPC-only software issue, for one. The first Intel-based Macs came out in 2006, and in 2009, Rosetta was still around, which meant that there wasn't a big financial penalty for vendors who were slow to compile their software for Intel-based Macs.

The rest of it probably comes down to good software engineering practice.

Apple has motivation to play by the rules when it comes to using APIs. It would be rather embarrassing for them to have an application break because they could not be bothered to access their own libraries in the approved ways.

Third parties don't always play by the rules. Break the rules, and you make applications brittle.

What sort of lib it uses that other software simply didn't tap into? I would consider iWork09 a complex software, so the lib links & framework would be massive, just like so many other software.

I don't think it's a matter of iWork 09 using some special iWork 09 only library. It's more likely a matter of other software using APIs in unsupported ways.

I thought when Mavericks was launched, it was already officiated that OSx is going all full 64bit. No?

I believe that for several versions now, Mac OS X has required a 64-bit CPU and has run the kernel in 64-bit mode, while allowing applications to run in either 32-bit mode or 64-bit mode.

Starting with the release after High Sierra, the OS will only run 64-bit applications.

 

[silentstorm]

Thanks Tom, that is a nice explanation

 

[BeRuss]

But FCP7 is Apple Software.

 

[Tom_N]

But FCP7 is Apple Software.

Didn't Apple discontinue Final Cut Pro 7, in favor of Final Cut Pro X, some time ago? This article claims that Apple introduced Final Cut Pro X back in 2011:

https://www.cinema5d.com/final-cut-pro-7-is-finally-dead-time-to-move-on/

 

[terrydev]

You would have to produce some evidence to support the idea that apple is 'selectively crippling those software by putting in codes in the new OS to prevent them from running or installing'. What's rather more likely is that the OS has changed and varied since they were released, and, in the case of discontinued apps, they have not been updated to account for the changes. The iLife11 apps, for instance, all run perfectly well on High Sierra, in their updated forms, and those updates were all free. You can't update from an iLife11 install disk now, because the whole iLife concept was discontinued 5 or 6 years ago, and the apps sold individually via the App Store. There was even a period when apps installed from disk could be associated with App Store accounts, and so updated. And there are reports that folk have contacted Apple Support directly and been give codes to allow them to download up-to-date versions of disk installed apps. So, frankly, if Apple are selectively crippling apps, how do you account for that?

 

[avidracer]

Was trying out HS on an external drive and found something interesting. SSD drive formatted in HFS+.

The discoveries:

1) FCP 7 is officially dead. This was released in 2009 if I'm not wrong, People think that it's ok to let it go.

2) Paragon ver 14 not installing.

3) Toast Ti 14 buggy but running.

4) iLife '11 not running, like FCP 7, but can be installed.

Here is the funny thing I found:

1) Quicktime 7.6 installs fine & runs well, Pro ver including!

2) iWork '09 full running well. Keynote, Numbers & Pages have no issues at all!

3) Sony XDCam Transfer 2.13 can run but I don't have a drive or file to test if the transcoding process is ok.

I think apple is selectively crippling those software by putting in codes in the new OS to prevent them from running or installing. Otherwise I can't think of any reason why iWork 09 & QT 7 can still be running well, they are as old or older than FCP7. I'm not sure if iWork 09 & QT7 are 32bit apps or 64bit though.

Nasty....

I have one old external HD that I share with windows machine. When I had to install high sierra, paragon NTFS 14 would not install directly. I had to go down to sierrra, install paragon ntfs 14 and then upgrade to High sierra. It works perfectly in High sierra and this is something paragon must be doing deliberately. I rarely use NTFS drives and thus do not see myself having to by every new version to be in sync with apple releases.

 

[Tom_N]

The current version of Paragon NTFS is 15. According to Paragon, version 15 supports High Sierra. The version you have, 14, does not. No indication of whether this reflects precaution ("we never tested 14 with High Sierra"), or actual known issues. But it does sound like the installer is enforcing the official compatibility list.

https://kb.paragon-software.com/article/571

I can sympathize with being on the "application software vendor wants a paid upgrade every time there is an OS upgrade" treadmill. I was once on that for a "backup to DVD" program.