Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

CloudWatcher

(1,956 posts)
4. BS
Tue Oct 15, 2019, 01:24 PM
Oct 2019

Apple's behavior here is likely less than stellar, but this video is just adding to FUD.

E.g. on my Catalina machine, the file that was reported as being 32-bit ... is 64 bit. Running "file" on it says it is x86_64 (files reported as "i386" are built for 32-bit).

bash-3.2$ cd /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/IMTranscoding.framework/XPCServices/
bash-3.2$ cd IMTranscoderAgent.xpc/Contents/MacOS/
bash-3.2$ file IMTranscoderAgent
IMTranscoderAgent: Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64

Hmm, a quick check of this file on an old 10.13 system, shows it was already 64 bit long before the switch to Catalina:

bash-3.2$ pwd
/System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/IMTranscoding.framework/XPCServices/IMTranscoderAgent.xpc/Contents/MacOS
bash-3.2$ file IMTranscoderAgent
IMTranscoderAgent: Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64
bash-3.2$ sw_vers
ProductName: Mac OS X
ProductVersion: 10.13.6
BuildVersion: 17G8030
bash-3.2$


I could speculate why someone might have an old 32-bit version of an entitlements file (piracy? malware?), but the root cause of whatever problem they were seeing is not at all what is described in this video. And the right fix is to get the 64-bit version of the file and not just delete it.

My 2-cents. But don't just believe what you see on the Internet

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Help & Search»Computer Help and Support»Apple Catalina Software U...»Reply #4