Hi everyone,
I have an app developed a few years ago with Xojo version 2020 2.1.
Now with the new OS Tahoe 26.5.1 version, I’m getting this warning message: “Intel-based apps no longer supported.” To fix this, do I need to purchase and recompile with the latest version of Xojo?
1 Like
Which version of Xojo do you use? Compilation for ARM was added years ago. 4 - 5???
Compile it as ARM-based, which has been added in 2020r2.
Tahoe should still support Intel based apps as long as you have Rosetta installed. Rosetta won’t be phased out until MacOS 28.
Thanks everyone, now I understand the problem, now I can solve it easily, the 2020 2.1 version allows you to compile it for ARM (M1,M2, etc)
You may use the sale today to update with a discount
I think Xojo 2020 r2 was the first version to support Apple silicon. If you look on the build settings for macOS you should find a setting Architecture that allows you to choose between “intel” “arm” or “universal”.
Universal will support both intel and arm (Apple silicon) macs.
If the setting is not there you need a later version of Xojo. You likely need a later version anyway as a lot of bugs have been fixed since that version.
I find it unclear (for the moment, because I’ve not yet tried myself) whether a universal app would trigger the warning message. In other words, must a given app not contain Intel code at all or it’s just about Intel-only apps that have no ARM code?
If you use a intel-only or universal-opened with rosetta app on an Mx Mac, you will get this message as a reminder that support für intel code will end with macOS 28.
I will say so, so its size will be smaller and the first M1 is around 5 years old…
On the other hand, how many customers / users with an Intel CPU will use it ?
At last provide both like GIMP: the only example I have in mind, but they certainly are not the only one.
When, one day, Xojo will remove the Intel App generation you will simply have one line to remove / one application to remove and keep the ARM one…
A universal app will not trigger the warning message seen above. Unless you press command-I on the app in Finder and tick the checkbox to force it to run as intel.
Universal apps are effectively an intel app and an arm app glued together. They are almost double the size of one for a single architecture. The operating system decides which one to run when you double click it.
You only get the warning when you run actual intel code. It pays no notice of what is in the applications bundle.
Even after intel is no longer supported universal apps will continue to work without any warning. They are complete arm apps, just as if you built them just for arm. They are also complete intel apps, in the same way.
If you want your app to support both architectures then universal is the way to go. Very few people distribute an intel version and an arm version separately. Unless bandwidth is extremely limited for installation. There is a command line tool that can strip an architecture from a universal app.
Obviously, if the app is for personal use, and you only have arm computers, then you can just build for arm.
Running a universal app on Apple silicon does not require Rosetta to be installed.
1 Like
I disagree AND you are free to do what you want.
I do not see a reason why not following other people on the internet who provide a specific version for each target.
Now, you can force all your users to download twice the size of the application they need.
Do not forget that your application will come in the Golder Gate era: be up to date and still support users with old needs / with old computers.
I will be really unhappy if tomorrow people will start to pack 90 languages in their applications (Firefox exists in 90 languages).
Even if I pay no notice of what is in the application bundle.
I stop using Chrome when I read some of its log file from my computer; will you work with a policeman looking above your shoulder all the time ? Not me.
Of course you are free to do your way, whatever it is.
What for ? There is no need to do download an universal app nor to run it whatever hardware you have.
From the GIMP download page:
Gimp is a Linux app ported to the Mac. They typically don’t come in universal format.
Users don’t generally care, they just want it to work. That expect it to still work when they upgrade their intel machine to arm.
As for your discussion of Chrome, I’ve never used it and never would. I’m fine with Safari. This has nothing what so ever to do with universal applications. I don’t see why you even mention it. I certainly didn’t.
1 Like
I checked my customer base.
10% of the Mac registrations in the last 4 months came from inTel machines.
Universal builds aren’t going anywhere in a hurry for me…
2 Likes
Thanks, this answers my question.
Yes, I’m aware of this. My question was about the message telling an app will be unsupported in upcoming OS version: does it detect a universal app as containing Intel code and warning anyway, not about the universal app architecture.
Thanks; good to know.
I get that. But Apple could also have decided to warn about universal apps, for example because they take double space and the user may want to get an ARM-only version (or other reasons). Not likely, but I like to explore details.
In my case, I’m concerned with disk space. I bought two computers with only 256 GB of disk space, a few years ago (not both at the very same time, though), and I’m regretting my choice everyday. My main computer fluctuates between 25 GB and 8 GB of free space, because I didn’t expected XCode and Android Studio to take so much space (it was about the same period where I started to build mobile projects for my own use, so I was unaware); I’ve already moved all I could to an external disk, like the XCode app itself (so compiling for iOS needs that disk plugged-in), but the required components in ~/Library still fill up my disk.
That is to say, it’s more than ideal to have arm-only apps in the Applications folder rather than universal apps, in a setup like mine.
I remember seeing it earlier, but I expect they would break app’s signatures.
I would almost fit in this category, except there are occasional times where I would have to use my apps on an unexpected Intel computer that I have at hands 
.
1 Like
Wow, that’s painful. I got a 4TB laptop and regret that I didn’t go for the 8TB. It must be very cramped for a development machine.
Interesting point. I’ve not tried it in many years. It could well be a problem. Googles search ai suggests that it can be done, however it could be a hallucination.
You can create a build script to build each platform separately. The good news is that each is built into its own architecture specific folder, so one doesn’t overwrite the other.
Search in the internet for other examples; I have found another one and Firefox does not expose any choice to the user but display the king on user platform connected browser; but it allows you to choose a version for the platform you want (as a second choice, in a different window).
I do not care to have the last word, so I stop here.
Indeed. Being not rich, I chose to not spend the extra money for a better computer; that was a mistake. I’m considering uninstalling Android Studio, which is seldom used (at this stage, I don’t even know if it’s doable).
I can understand why Apple made the choice of preventing upgrades (speed and security), but there are clearly downsides.
Granted. Many times, Google’s AI returns out-of-date results. A quick test would be to make a copy of an app and try on it (for now, I won’t spend time searching for the command, as I have plenty of other things to do).
Yes, that’s great.