If you’re a CrossOver user on Intel or use 32-bit gaming bottles, your time is up with version 27. 64-bit bottles and Apple Silicon are now required.

Gaming on Mac has always been a bit of a wasteland, but that doesn’t stop some folks from trying. The CrossOver app for Mac brings Windows games to the platform, and it gets better with each update.

However, the latest update, CrossOver 27, will have to make some sacrifices to make development a little more streamlined. It is getting ARM64 builds for both Mac and Linux, but CrossOver 27 will only work on macOS Sonoma or newer.

It’s also limited to Apple Silicon Macs since Apple phased them out between macOS Sonoma and macOS Golden Gate.

There’s also a final warning about those who still may be using 32-bit gaming bottles. Users are urged to move their 32-bit games to 64-bit bottles, or they will no longer function.

The developer did note that this should affect a small percentage of users overall. Around 97% of CrossOver users are running macOS Sonoma or newer.

Removing legacy support will allow the development team to focus on UI and optimization for one set of computers instead of maintaining Intel-compatible systems. It also means that a new user interface will debut at some point in a future release.

If you are on an Intel machine or running an older version of macOS, the good news is that CrossOver 26 won’t suddenly combust. Simply don’t pay for the new version or attempt to upgrade and everything will work as is, hopefully.

However, note that if you do keep CrossOver 26, your games could run into compatibility issues if they are updated. Also, newer operating systems may cause problems with the older software.

Eventually, your only choice might be to finally move to Apple Silicon.

High End Vienna 2026 had no shortage of ambitious loudspeakers, six-figure electronics, and systems designed to remind everyone that “affordable high-end” is still a phrase the industry says with a straight face, but is sometimes subject to interpretation. But the ESD Acoustic Super Dragon was operating in its own category. This was not a large horn system. This was a room-dominating, field-coil sporting, Class A powered, carbon fiber, multi-way monument to what happens when subtlety is escorted from the building, dumped on Bruno-Kreisky-Platz, and told to take the U-Bahn home. “Fahrscheine, bitte!”

We had a chance to experience the Super Dragon system for our first time at the show, where ESD Acoustic staged one of the most technically extreme demonstrations at High End Vienna. The company also held an official “Super Dragon Technical Exchange + Deep Dive” press event during the show, which was appropriate, because this was not the kind of system one explains with a brochure. You need measurements, diagrams, floor reinforcement, and possibly a municipal permit.

The Super Dragon is built around a field-coil horn architecture using ten field-coil driver units, large carbon-fiber horns, Truextent beryllium diaphragms for the midrange, tweeter, and super tweeter sections, and titanium sandwich diaphragms for bass, sub-bass, and subwoofer duties. It is not a conventional passive loudspeaker blown up to absurd scale. It is a five-plus-one-way active horn system using an analog active crossover, allowing dedicated Class A amplifiers to drive individual sections directly (amps are included with purchase).

That design choice matters. The Super Dragon’s drama is not only visual, although ignoring the visual part would require a better pair of glasses. The system’s frequency response range is specified from 18 Hz to 52 kHz, with 112 dB sensitivity and crossover points at 100 Hz, 500 Hz, 2 kHz, and 8 kHz. In terms of weight, the main speaker enclosure alone is listed at 1,190 kg (2,623.5 pounds), with the subwoofer section at 442 kg (974 pounds) and the sub-bass section at 990 kg (2182.6 pounds). So yeah, that’s over 5,700 pounds of speaker gear. Apartment dwellers need not apply.

You may need to ask a few friends and the dealer to spend the day setting this up at home. You know… In your auditorium.

The Super Dragon’s driver layout includes a massive subwoofer horn covering the lowest frequencies, a low-range carbon-fiber horn, midrange and high-frequency horn sections, and a dedicated tweeter/super tweeter array. ESD uses carbon fiber extensively in the horn assemblies to reduce resonance and control mass, while the powered field-coil motor system gives the company greater control over magnetic behavior than conventional permanent-magnet designs. If “field coil” rings a bell, it may be because that’s the design used by speaker designer extraordinaire Mr. Andrew Jones himself, in his recently introduced Troubadour speakers. But let’s get back to these horns.

The supporting equipment stack was also ESD’s own, rather than a random pile of trophy electronics dragged into the room for branding purposes. The published system configuration includes the CDT-1B CD transport, DA-1B DAC, DPA-1B preamplifier, DX-1B active analog crossover, D100W-1B monoblock amplifiers, DPC-1 center power supply, Kunlun equipment supports, and ESD’s Lion-series AES, balanced, speaker, and power cables.

The electronics are not afterthoughts. The CDT-1B transport uses a Philips CD-Pro2M mechanism and a separate power supply. The DA-1B DAC supports PCM up to 768 kHz/32-bit and DSD512. The DPA-1B preamp is fully balanced with a separate power supply, while the DX-1B active crossover uses interchangeable crossover cards and provides six balanced outputs per channel. The D100W-1B monoblock is a single-ended pure Class A amplifier rated at 20 watts peak (10 watts nominal) into 8 ohms. You get one amps of these per horn, so you won’t need to go amplifier shopping too.

Pricing is where things get both fascinating, if not slightly unhinged. ESD’s standard Dragon speaker package has been listed at roughly $1.05 million, with the full Dragon System listed as starting at around $1.53 million. The special Super Dragon configuration shown at High End Vienna 2026 with its custom lacquer finish was reported to cost more than $3.6 million. That’s quite a paint job.

But how did it sound? In a word: breathtaking. The system had no trouble filling the huge ballroom with powerful dynamic sound. The demo clips we heard were mostly orchestral pieces, and the system really did capture the dynamics of a live orchestra performance, from delicate oboe soloes to powerful strikes of the bass drum and tympanis. Soundstage was huge and dynamics were without parallel. These horns were made for playing music. And that’s just what they did.

Start rubbing that Powerball ticket on your friendly neighborhood leprechaun. And in the meantime, make sure there are no cracks in your foundation.

The Bottom Line

The ESD Acoustic Super Dragon was one of the most outrageous rooms at High End Vienna 2026, but not because it was merely expensive. Expensive is easy in high-end audio. The Super Dragon was outrageous because it was unapologetically engineered as a complete ecosystem, from source to crossover to amplification to horn-loaded transducers. It was massive, excessive, impractical, and impossible to ignore.

So yes, the price is ridiculous. The size is ridiculous. The logistics are ridiculous. But the system itself was no joke. It was ESD Acoustic making a very loud argument that extreme horn loudspeaker design still has room to evolve and they’re the ones who will push it forward.

Just make sure your listening room has its own zip code.

Related Reading:

Presented by F5

Enterprise AI teams have spent years solving for compute, securing GPU allocations, negotiating cloud capacity, and benchmarking training throughput. The assumption embedded in that work is that the path between storage and compute will keep up. In production, that assumption increasingly does not hold. Real traffic introduces latency spikes, network jitter, and node degradation that controlled benchmarks fail to capture, resulting in pipelines that perform well in the lab but stall in deployment. A growing response is AI data delivery, deploying an application delivery controller (ADC) or application delivery and security platform (ADSP) in front of storage as a resilient and secure control point.

“Provisioning solves for capacity but not for delivery, and that is where the constraint now hides,” says Hunter Smit, senior manager of product marketing at F5. “Enterprises buy enough GPUs and enough storage, then assume the path between them will keep up, but AI traffic is bursty, highly concurrent, and random in its reads in ways ordinary storage networking was never built to absorb.”

The production gap benchmarks don’t show

Standard benchmark methodology compounds the problem, says Paul Pindell, principal solutions architect for technology alliances at F5.

“Benchmark testing is usually built to produce the best possible performance or security result, not the most realistic one,” he says. “With S3, latency is a known factor in degrading performance, so meaningful testing has to introduce consistent latency into the path.”

Most benchmark environments never do that, which means the performance numbers enterprises rely on for infrastructure decisions are drawn from conditions that production systems will never replicate. To test this assumption, F5 and MinIO conducted throughput testing under degraded network conditions.

“What stood out was how quickly S3 throughput falls off once you introduce latency,” Pindell says. “Even modest latency takes a real bite out of it, and as latency climbs toward long-haul distances, the degradation gets severe.”

The testing also showed latency mattered far more than jitter as a driver of throughput loss, which inverted what the team had expected going in. The upshot for enterprise architects is that S3 object storage deployments cannot be designed around clean-room assumptions; they have to be engineered for the degraded network conditions they will actually face.

The cost of fragile data paths

“In AI infrastructure, people naturally focus on GPUs because they’re the most visible and expensive resource,” says Tanu Mutreja, senior director of product management at F5. “But in production environments, GPUs generate only as much value as the data path that feeds them.”

That path runs through storage, networking, databases, security, and orchestration layers, often stitched together from multiple vendors. Customers experience none of those seams; they experience the output of the whole system.

When the data path degrades, the effects compound. GPU underutilization is the most immediate and visible symptom, but Mutreja pointed to a wider set of consequences: degraded inference performance, poor-quality AI outputs, higher egress costs from unnecessary data replication, and growing operational complexity.

“At scale, data-path efficiency becomes a strategic business lever rather than technical optimization,” she says. “When the data path is engineered well, GPUs remain productive, AI applications stay responsive and trustworthy, operations scale efficiently, and organizations maximize the return on their AI investments.”

AI workloads are structurally more exposed to these failures than traditional enterprise applications. Databases, ERP systems, and web services absorb transient storage delays through caching and buffering. AI workloads running across massively parallel GPU clusters have no equivalent protection. As Mutreja noted, even minor latency spikes or bandwidth bottlenecks can cascade across large GPU clusters, simultaneously hitting utilization, training efficiency, and the customer experience.

Treating the storage edge as a control point

For decades, storage and intelligence operated as sequential concerns in enterprise architecture: data was stored first, then analyzed downstream. Mutreja argued that this model no longer fits the demands of AI.

“Competitive advantage is determined not only by the volume of data, but also by relevance, lineage, security, and performant delivery of data,” she says. “Across the industry, from NVIDIA and AWS to enterprise storage providers, the movement is toward embedding intelligence directly into data infrastructure rather than stacking it on top.”

F5’s integration with MinIO instantiates this approach at the layer where storage and compute actually interact. As part of the F5 ADSP, BIG-IP sits in the data path, continuously monitoring the health of MinIO’s distributed storage nodes and directing requests only to those that remain available.

The operational impact of that capability becomes clear when nodes degrade, which is expected in distributed storage clusters. Without intelligent routing, clients that land on an unhealthy node must retry and may land on another degraded node, dragging down overall performance.

“F5 makes sure traffic only goes to healthy nodes, or even the least busy ones, so S3 client traffic is always processed in the most efficient way,” Pindell says.

Governance across distributed environments

The challenge grows at scale, when AI pipelines stretch across multiple locations, clouds, or edge environments.

“Once an AI pipeline crosses regions and clouds, the question stops being about performance and becomes about control,” Smit says. “You are operating under different rules in every jurisdiction, and digital sovereignty is now a design constraint. Where your data is allowed to live, who is permitted to touch it, and which borders it cannot cross now shapes the architecture before anyone talks about speed.”

That pressure is driving a visible trend of enterprises repatriating AI workloads from public cloud onto infrastructure they own and govern directly. The architecture Smit described resolves this by decoupling applications from any single storage location and placing a unified control point between them that enforces consistent policy across all of them.

“Sovereignty, resilience, and cost stop being trade-offs you manage one region at a time,” he explains. “They become a capability you run as a system.”

Storage-to-compute path as a managed control point

To solve for these issues, enterprise teams need to stop treating the storage-to-compute path as a direct connection and start treating it as a managed control point, Smit says. SecureIQLab’s independent validation of F5 BIG-IP in storage deployments has confirmed the approach delivers resilience without surrendering throughput.

“Insert a full-proxy ADC between the two, and the path becomes observable, programmable, and failure-aware, with health-based routing, quality of service, and security enforced inline,” he explains. “That single move converts data delivery from an assumption into an engineered discipline, which is what keeps GPUs fed when conditions degrade.”

Sponsored articles are content produced by a company that is either paying for the post or has a business relationship with VentureBeat, and they’re always clearly marked. For more information, contact sales@venturebeat.com.

It’s early days yet, but if you rely on vendors’ software for your RAID enclosure, you probably need to find out what their macOS 27 plans are.

We’ve had macOS 27 for all of four days at this point, and there may already be a show-stopping problem for folks that hang on to RAID enclosures. We’ve found several that just don’t work under macOS 27.

For example, I’ve got a Thunderbolt 3 LaCie 12Big enclosure that I’ve had for a while. It runs fine in Tahoe, on a Mac mini home server that I’ve had for years.

That LaCie 12Big doesn’t work at all in macOS 27. I’ve tried fresh installs of the software, different cabling, updating a Mac in place that it worked on in macOS 26, nothing works.

All of my dumb enclosures work and mount fine. SoftRAID as it stands now from OWC works fine in macOS 27 to set up a new array on those dumb enclosures.

This has happened before, of course. Talk to Drobo and Pegasus enclosure owners about when Apple changed how it handled device drivers a few years ago. It’s just worth mentioning that it’s happening again.

To get in front of this, I’m not talking about RAID arrays with DIP switches, other physical ways to configure the drives, arrays set up with Disk Utility, or Network Attached Storage devices. This is about vendors that sell enclosures that need special software to run on macOS.

Who’s at fault, and why is this happening?

I wish I had a good answer for you. Apple does like changing things, like how it’s done something with the boot selector in macOS 27. So there’s something there.

Also, macOS 27 also ships with no Intel code remaining, which could affect drivers compiled for Intel-only targets.. That may have something to do with it too.

Beta cycles are intended for developers to update their software to the new macOS. They exist for testing things like this.

But in our experience in the past, some things made by third party vendors get left behind.

Our advice as always stands. If you have mission critical hardware, this is not the time to try out the betas. And, if you’ve got enclosures that rely on older software, like my LaCie 12Big, it’s time to contact the vendor to see what’s going on.

And come up with a plan if there won’t be support in macOS 27.

It’s the latest case to raise alarms about ChatGPT’s lack of safeguards for suicidal behavior.