32 bit windows plugins dropped because of Mac Catalina?

[mabian]

Hello,

I am seeing many devs releasing updates for Catalina, at the same time dropping the 32 bit version of their plugin for Windows as well... this is from Klanghelm latest changelog for example:

"- dropped 32-bit support in order to follow current fulfill security and technical requirements by the OS vendors"

I know that sooner or later this was going to happen, but I don't like at all the rationale.
On Windows 32 VST2 plugins are still doing great, are there really such technical and security requirements forcing to drop them at all?

Also, and most important, what happens to project using the 32 bit versions as they get wiped from a plugin upgrade?

Almost ranting, I know, but I'm not really getting this sort of 64-bit only madness...

- Mario

[syntonica]

The Klangheim statement sounds a bit odd and abrupt. I can imagine there will be a few angry end-users with pitchforks storming their castle gates. But, at the same time, just how big is that group compared to their 64-bit users? It also sounds a bit odd that the King of Backward Compatibility would suddenly start pushing on upgrading to 64-bit, but I'm really out of that loop. I suspect there's some Intel in there as well, trying to do some simplification in their designs for future chips.

End-users need to make a choice: freeze their system and possibly miss out on the next greatest thing or continue to upgrade, losing various plugins along the way. It's a real pain. On the Mac side, I've frozen my music computer at Mojave, despite Catalina at the front door, pounding to get in. (The Software Update shows only one update to install right now: Catalina, along with annoying icon decoration.) At some point down the road, in 2-3 years time, I'll probably spring for the new hotness in computing and bring along whichever plugs I can. However, I expect I will have to rebuy some, but at least I'll know what I want already. Considering how much we all used to drop on a ProTools system, this is nothing...

As for the 32-bit plugins I've lost, the only ones I have that I'll miss are the old Refx plugs. I already have 64-bit replacements for them (which wasn't a conscious effort) but I'll really miss Slayer for the sheer fun factor, despite not sounding that great. However, I have other 32-bit software I need to use that also prevents my upgrade. Plus, Xcode...

On the practical side, my 32-bit only plugs live happily amongst the 64-bit and 32/64-bit Universal ones, so I can continue to enjoy opening up my old projects and not worry about compatibility issues. I just have to remember to rename older versions of there are 64-bit only replacements going in, but I haven't seen that. Yet.

I believe Windows users can continue to do the same with adding 64-bit updates, but leaving their 32-bit only plugs untouched. It should be even easier since Windows has so many fun locations to stash plugins, users can easily group them by bittedness. It just takes a little forethought and organizational skills.

I'm sure other devs can comment on how pressured they feel by Apple/MS to continue the migration forward and how much is a conscious choice to drop support for older versions. I think it's probably a little more the latter to help continuing to garner income. Personally, I don't mind paying a reasonable upgrade fee, especially if I get a cool new feature or two and I get another couple of years longevity on the plug. I'm happy to continue to support my favorite devs. I just hope devs are open about their future plans so that end-users can plan accordingly.

[Forgotten]

I seriously doubt that devs are doing this because of Catalina, unless it’s an exercise in cutting off their nose to spite their face.

[Richard_Synapse]

Windows 32-bit should have no relation to OS X. The main reason to drop 32-bit support is just that few people need it -and likewise, support for Windows XP. Another reason could be that users confuse 32- and 64-bit DLLs, which happens every now and then.

For the record we still suport 32-bit plugins under Windows, however we will likely drop 32-bit support in the future as well, particularly for new plugins.

Richard

[earlevel]

Become a plug-in developer. Support AAX/AU/VST2/VST3 on Mac, AAX/VST2/VST3 on Windows. 64-bit and 32-bit. Now, how far back do you want to go for their respective OS versions? Do the math on how many systems you need to test under. Multiply by the number of plugin hosts you want to be sure to support. And ask yourself, how badly do you want to support the shrinking portions of the market, and be sure to factor in how much you need to charge for your product—to everyone—to do that. No, developers aren't being evil by dropping legacy support while at the same time trying to keep up with the latest requirements.

As for 32-bit support, it's easy to see that products that started with 32-bit support tend to keep it longer, since the code support is already there. For instance, iZotope's Ozone 8 still supported 32-bit, while Neutron never did (but looks like Ozone 9 is 64-only). It makes little sense to develop a new plugin today that supports 32-bit. (Also keep in mind that in some cases, supporting the oldest OS's means you probably need to avoid modern OS features to dumb it down.)

[0degree]

It's called Apple tax which sadly starts to creep into Windows world. For the same reason we have Waves 11 which nobody asked for

[sprnva]

32-bit is still alive and well on Mojave and under too. Obviously these devs just want to drop it to simplify things and are using this as an opportunity.

[syntonica]

(Also keep in mind that in some cases, supporting the oldest OS's means you probably need to avoid modern OS features to dumb it down.)

Which modern OS features do you need for a plugin?

(That's actually a legit question. I get by on C++, Cocoa and GDI+.)

[syntonica]

32-bit is still alive and well on Mojave and under too. Obviously these devs just want to drop it to simplify things and are using this as an opportunity.

Considering the whole 64 vs 32-bit thing has been ongoing for about the last TEN years, I think 32-bit has had its time in the sun and now it's time for it to go away and hangout with 16-bit and 8-bit computing. I know there was a poll a while ago regarding how many people used which. I'd be curious to see what the current numbers are--will 32-bit get over 5%?

This all just means that 128-bit computing is on the horizon!

[Rockatansky]

64-bit on consumer Windows systems has been around for, what, 16 years now? It's 14 years officially on macOS. Are people really upset that something that was obsolete 1.5 decades ago is finally being faded out? And nobody could have possibly anticipated it? Wow. Just imagine how much lighter and simpler and less confusing for end users Windows could finally get, if it only needed a single Program Files folder and only one 64-bit base system. People who want to live in the past can still install VirtualBox and run their 32-bit XP on a virtual machine, it would likely perform even better than being run natively on hardware from 2003. If you want to always use the latest software, you need to keep up with the latest developments, it's as easy as that. If you could be happy making music on a system that was obsolete 15+ years ago for the last 15+ years, then maybe you don't need the latest updates for everything in 2020. You already got 15+ years of use and updates out of it, so just keep making music with what's always worked for you.

[Hink]

It's called Apple tax which sadly starts to creep into Windows world. For the same reason we have Waves 11 which nobody asked for

since I already received a report on this post and it attempting to go deep into anti apple/mac I am going to say right here that this post did cross the threshold I plan on maintaining...if posts disappear, the thread disappears or gets locked people were warned on pg 1. We dont need more venomous posts against apple, we dont need another mac vs windows thread nor do we need another 32 bit vs 64 bit....so stay on topic

[JCJR]

I am way out of date. Haven't run virtual machines much in the last 7 years.

My main concern about backward compatibility is that there are old tools (yeah even 16 bit and 8 bit so far as that goes) which might not have modern substitutes.

Or alternately maybe you already own the 32 bit tool that is perfect for the task but its 64 bit (or Catalina compatible or win11 compatible or whatever) suitable replacement costs $600 or worse.

And sometimes there just ain't a direct replacement. If you really really dig on gigasampler and maybe have thousands of bucks worth of gs soundbanks you like just fine, then continuing to run gigasampler might be the preferred alternative. "I really loved playing that old gold top 1957 Les Paul but they changed the spec for guitar cables. Then the gold top didn't work anymore so I had to toss it in the dumpster."

Fast enough computers teamed with efficient enough virtual machines would neatly solve most of my backward compatibility gripes.

Last time I used winders running on a 2 core VMware on an 8 core Xeon 2.8 GHz Mac Cheese grater, it ran "transparently fast" on everything except audio. Running audio, the vm was almost the performance of winders running native on the slowest pc you could buy. Except even the slowest pc you could buy would probably do 8 or 16 tracks and VMware winders was more like 2 tracks with only the occasional nasty glitch.

If they have already got it fast enough, or if they ever get virtual machines running audio about as good as 2010 mid-price native performance it would be great.

Then all you need to put the cherry on top of the whipped cream are nice robust "virtual audio interfaces" to pipe audio in-between the virtual machines.

[Vokbuz]

This all just means that 128-bit computing is on the horizon!

Not really.

The main reason why 32bit became obsolete is amount of addressable memory. For 32bit it is 2^32=4GB and it is too small for today and even yesterday.

2^64 is 16 exabytes. Given the slowed down hardware development, hitting 64bit address limitation is not a problem of the near future

[Forgotten]

I don’t think current processors even use 64-bit addressing as they don’t need to. 128-bit is probably much further away than most people might think.

[syntonica]

This all just means that 128-bit computing is on the horizon!

Not really.

The main reason why 32bit became obsolete is amount of addressable memory. For 32bit it is 2^32=4GB and it is too small for today and even yesterday.

2^64 is 16 exabytes. Given the slowed down hardware development, hitting 64bit address limitation is not a problem of the near future

Oh, pooh! You're no fun! But yeah, speed is pretty much at a standstill, so cores are multiplying like rabbits. I look forward to the new 64-core i27 Intel processor.

I think it's time for a new paradigm in computer design. Whoever designs it will be rich.