64-bit Mac

[Madd the Sane]

Is there any plans on making this game (and the other Shadowrun games) a 64-bit program? Catalina dropped support for 32-bit apps completely.

[rusty_dragon]

If you want to live in self-denial, noone could help you, sorry.

Most of Apple's game library being unplayable is purely Apple's fault. As well as why Apple no longer has VR. Noone would be fixing that for Apple.

[rusty_dragon]

Originally posted by Jormundgand:

Originally posted by rusty_dragon:

If you want to live in self-denial, noone could help you, sorry.

Most of Apple's game library being unplayable is purely Apple's fault. As well as why Apple no longer has VR. Noone would be fixing that for Apple.

Go whine in a place where people care.

But it's you who are whining here, blaming developers, and demanding from them to fix Apple's crap.

Why don't you go and cry in Apple's support? Ri-i-ight.

[rusty_dragon]

I'm sorry that you're unable to play your favorite game. I wish you could. But that's not a reason to attack people who made it.

[rusty_dragon]

Originally posted by Jormundgand:

Originally posted by rusty_dragon:

I'm sorry that you're unable to play your favorite game. I wish you could. But that's not a reason to attack people who made it.

The only person attacking anyone here is you.

No you is laziest argument one can make.

Originally posted by Jormundgand:

You're attacking apple for doing the sensible stuff in deprecating outdated hardware (x86-64 was released in 2000); the deprecation is 3 years old and the support for 32 bit was removed a year ago.

BS.
You've been played by Apple and blindly repeat their lies. Since they gave you a target for your anger of loosing ability to play older games. The very developers who originally made support for your PC. You're biting a hand that feeds.
Because every x86_64 cpu has support for 32bit. So, if you're removing 32 bit support, like apple did, you are discontinuing support of actual hardware. Crippling it. Preventing users from fully utilizing hardware they've bought.

Originally posted by Jormundgand:

The developers had _ample_ time to fix this.

It's another lie on Apple's manager's side. That's not how software development works, period. Only absolutely naive person would believe that whole world would run to update their software for free to 64 bit only because Apple said so.

Originally posted by Jormundgand:

It is not Apple's fault that they didn't.

Except it is. It's an OS holder's responsibility to maintain support for own API and compatibility for existing software. Otherwise it would be too expensive and time-consuming to maintain software for it, and developers would stop building for it.
It's Apple who is shooting itself in the foot. First they made completely unnecessary demand for everyone to recompile to 64bit.
Now making 64bit support is already useless. Since Apple are now placing another demand - to port software to completely different architecture.

Originally posted by Jormundgand:

Are you going to demand that the new ARM based machines also support old crappy hardware modes? What about those old PowerPC machines? Why not demand that they also still support Mac OS 6 applications for Motorola processors on M1 CPUS?

Sorry, pal. You have very shallow knowledge of subject and just throw words around for the sake of debating for a company you're a fanboy of.
Btw, even Apple can't afford complete drop of compatibility for their existing software library.
That's why they provide backward-compatibility emulation to run x86 software on their new ARM processors.

Originally posted by Jormundgand:

Seriously. Read your own comments a few times. You're an entitled brad. Get over yourself.

The only person who feel yourself entitled here is you. "Gib me 64bit support, it's just a few minutes to compile! You must do what Apple has said!"
I've wasted my time trying to explain actual state of things to you, so YOU won't be looking as stupid as you do.

But seemingly you can't "get over yourself".

[DaveOfDeath]

I don't know why you're bothering Rusty_Dragon... You know the all mighty apple reigns supreme in all things. (Rolls eyes)

A game that was released in 2013 (which is when *this* title was released, 2014 for dragonfall, and 2015 for Hong Hong) no longer being compatible with a 2020 update to an OS that didn't exist back then doesn't seem unreasonable on either Apple nor HBS' parts.

Apple is no more responsible for backwards compatibility than any other OS developer. However, telling the developers of a 7 year old game that they need to update it because of an incompatibility of a modern/current operating system is equally ridiculous.

You can "it would take seconds for any competent developer to fix" all you like... But the fact is... They haven't. Based on their responsiveness... They won't.

Unless everyone is willing to RE-BUY a 64 bit version, there's no point in them doing anything with it.

I wouldn't hold my breath for HBS nor Apple to come along and wave the magic wand and fix this.

I'm a pretty strong HBS fan, but they've moved on to other titles / projects with current revenue streams... Can't really fault them for that.

[rusty_dragon]

Originally posted by Jormundgand:

I really _really_ shouldn't even give you a response but serisouly, the ammount of ignorant nonsense you're spouting is just too much.

1. I am definetly _not_ an apple fanboy. My house runs linux only and that's what it will continue to do.

Then why the hell you are posting here in favor of updating for a Mac PC? You don't have better things to do in your life?
And more importantly, why the hell you are defending "deprecation of 32bit" idiocy?

Originally posted by Jormundgand:

2. When you deprecate something, its whomever is using your ♥♥♥♥ that has to update. hey have been warned that their stuff won't work _very soon_ if they don't do anything about it.

If someone deprecate something, it doesn't mean you have to update. Especially update for free. It's in the interest of OS developer and hardware seller to keep support for a library.

Originally posted by Jormundgand:

3. Given Apples trackrecord regarding backwards compatebility, I would expect Rosetta 2 to be deprecated in the next minor release of mac os 11 and gone in the version after. Backwards compatibility for apple is not a major concern. You either keep up or you become irrelevant.

Well, they surely do. Just like they did it plenty of time before. But currently they can't hence Rosetta 2.

Originally posted by Jormundgand:

4. 2 years to update software, that's written in C# is an eternity. If you can't update your stuff to 64 bit in that time, it's your own damn fault.

This makes zero sense. Maybe you read some stupid tech blogs, I don't know. It has zero relevance to the subject of discussion.

Originally posted by Jormundgand:

5. Blaming people for not wanting to spend resources on maintaining backwards compatibility to support an massive amount of software, that they can't even test even if they had the resources to do so, is ignorant at best, likely just a sign of stupidity.

Ignorant? What software development, maintenance of OS ecosystem or business has to do with ignorance?
Nothing.

Stop reading stupid blogs, and wasting other people's time with your nonsense.

[Madd the Sane]

Part of Apple's reason for removing 32-bit support is because, with the transition to Apple Silicon, they didn't want to port their own old 32-bit libraries (Carbon, QuickTime, DrawSprocket) to yet another architecture. Especially where a lot of the new programs won't even target the old frameworks.
But why not make Intel macOS keep supporting 32-bit apps? Because Apple didn't want their new Apple Silicon Macs to be seen to start out with a disadvantage.
Apple has been planning the Arm transition for a long time.

[Jormundgand]

Originally posted by Madd the Sane:

Part of Apple's reason for removing 32-bit support is because, with the transition to Apple Silicon, they didn't want to port their own old 32-bit libraries (Carbon, QuickTime, DrawSprocket) to yet another architecture. Especially where a lot of the new programs won't even target the new frameworks.
But why not make Intel macOS keep supporting 32-bit apps? Because Apple didn't want their new Apple Silicon Macs to be seen to start out with a disadvantage.
Apple has been planning the Arm transition for a long time.

I advice you to stop discussing the topic any further. Especially if you have valid arguments.

[rusty_dragon]

Originally posted by Jormundgand:

Originally posted by Madd the Sane:

Part of Apple's reason for removing 32-bit support is because, with the transition to Apple Silicon, they didn't want to port their own old 32-bit libraries (Carbon, QuickTime, DrawSprocket) to yet another architecture. Especially where a lot of the new programs won't even target the new frameworks.
But why not make Intel macOS keep supporting 32-bit apps? Because Apple didn't want their new Apple Silicon Macs to be seen to start out with a disadvantage.
Apple has been planning the Arm transition for a long time.

I advice you to stop discussing the topic any further. Especially if you have valid arguments.

So you only accept invalid arguments?
Are you part of Apple's damage control police to advice people what they should or should not discuss?