Yep. They unceremoniously dropped the first Rosetta without warning, destroying a lot of investment into applications. Even though it could have been left in place as an option for those who were willing to use the few MB of disk space it took.
That would have meant developers would have continued to drag their feet. Sorry, at some point you have to force their hand. It's not as if they weren't given MORE than ample time to make the transition.
That would have meant developers would have continued to drag their feet. Sorry, at some point you have to force their hand.
Only when you can't offer a compelling inducement without force. And that's Apple's position; at the time at which they switched from PPC to x86, the PPC processors were still about as fast as the x86 processors. And it cost a metric assload of money to buy a new intel Macintosh, because Macs are expensive. (Whether they are overpriced is left as an exercise for the reader.) When Apple transitioned from 68k to PowerPC, the PowerPC was a massive performance improvement over any 68k processor available. Even
For the most part those devs who would bother already had.
I have a cheesegrater running Mojave. I'd love to replace it with say a mini, but because I rely on a couple of applications -- for which I have not found replacements -- that were never compiled into 64 bit binaries I'm stuck.
What you're saying is basically "What do you mean you've never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven's sake, mankind, it's only four light years away, you know. I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to take an interest in l
Yep. They unceremoniously dropped the first Rosetta without warning, destroying a lot of investment into applications. Even though it could have been left in place as an option for those who were willing to use the few MB of disk space it took.
They dropped the original Rosetta so fast for a few reasons:
1. To push certain major software publishers, notably Adobe and Avid (and to a lesser extent, Microsoft), to release Mac Intel-Native versions of key Applications (Photoshop, Illustrator, ProTools and MS Office, to name a few). This was immentized by the second reason, below.
2. Performance, or rather lack thereof. The biggest barrier to decent performance for Rosetta was also the one that could never be satisfactorily fixed: Endianess. PowerPC (G5,
I have no idea what GP and parent are talking about... Rosetta still works fine on Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger and Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard. I think this is PEBKAC, that irresistible urge many users have to update their production machines without thinking. If your rig works, and you are not affected by the bugs they fix, and you do not expect to use the new features (this is the tradeoff), then please let me give you some advice: DON'T UPGRADE. If your stuff works without being on the bleeding edge, so what? Stay the
You run into the situation where some new application only runs on a newer OS version, but that OS version _deliberately_ breaks support for older software which was working just fine.
You run into the situation where some new application only runs on a newer OS version, but that OS version _deliberately_ breaks support for older software which was working just fine.
Thanks for not beating me up for being annoyed, thanks for ignoring that. You're a pro.
The problem I see with that is "some new application." That's the problem that you don't think it is, i that it isn't a problem. Now, I wouldn't say there will never be any brand new innovation in software that rises to "killerapp." But they're going to be fewer and fewer and farther and father between. Everything has been done that can be done by now. I hate this idiom, but there is more than one way to skin a cat. UNI
Computers "thunk" endianness more than you realize. The internet is big endian, while Intel and most ARM platforms are little-endian. Flipping endianness is cheap and hardware accelerated.
Computers "thunk" endianness more than you realize. The internet is big endian, while Intel and most ARM platforms are little-endian. Flipping endianness is cheap and hardware accelerated.
Speaking as someone who has converted major Intel applications to PowerPC and thereby dealt with a mismatch of endianness...
In current Mac apps the endian mismatch between the internet and the app is largely irrelevant, it has already been addressed. The fact that the new architecture (ARM) matches the previous architecture (Intel) makes the porting process so much simpler. And if Rosetta2 works as advertised so simple in some cases that it will be automated.
So, they did the only thing they could reasonably do: End Rosetta-support after only 1 major revision of OS X.
Rosetta was an optional install on the OS install disk all the way til 10.7 and that came out in 2011, i.e 5 years after the initial 2006 release. That makes it a total of three major versions with support for it (10.4, 10.5 and 10.6) which I personally think is a quite reasonable lifespan. If I'm not mistaken it didn't even become an optional install until 10.6.
Opinions may obviously differ here, but I personally skipped 10.7, which gave me a total of 6 years of support.
Sure, they didn't put up much of a fanfare that they were dropping Rosetta, originally released with the first Intel macs in 2006, but they didn't end support for it until MacOSX 10.7 in 2011.
Maybe you think 5 years isn't enough support, but having used MacOSX as my primary OS back then the few applications that I used that were still PPC compatible were all universal binaries, which AFAIK still work today. Most of the complaints I saw about it back then were from people who were using old versions of Ph
I had no issues with Rosetta. The new machines were fast so there was no issue with slow down. By the time Roseta was taken out, in 10.7 I believe, I had moved to the current apps.
The move is due to the same issues as before. Speed, heat issues, power. You recall that Apple Apple made the Same monstrosity Mac back at the end of the iBM days that they made last year. Back then it was because the IBM chip required liquid cooling.
MS is good at getting an OS to work on any piece of junk that falls off the ba
You need to improve your understanding what docker is / how docker works. You can even run docker containers on RaspberryPi. Docker on MacOS was always running in a VM and the containers did so, of course, too. There is no reason why you wouldn’t be able to run docker containers on some ARM-Linux using the macOS hypervisor or other virtualization solutions if available.
I think what you meant to say: docker on Linux running on Intel. We’ll see if that is actually necessary and if there will be solut
Things in Docker containers are just jailed processes running on the host. There's more to it than that, but that's the essence of it.
You will not be running x86-64 docker containers on ARM docker without Apple doing some serious magic with that container and everything inside of it. And, Docker runs in a VM on Mac because the XNU kernel doesn't have hooks necessary for Docker to properly jail processes. Rather than wait for Apple to deliver some implementation of that which was acceptable, they chose to
Docker for desktop.... seriously.
Windows Home doesnâ(TM)t even have virtualisation and do canâ(TM)t even do docker.
No one is running desktop apps using docker except the most fringe people spinning their own home servers.
Docker on the mac has always been terrible due to the need for VirtualBox.
I would think sensible people would use ARM containers instead of amd64, where possible. The platform-dependence of docker containers has always been a weakness, but while we were all on amd64 it wasn't quite so apparent. Hopefully this might have benefits beyond the Mac, such as an increasing prevalence of ARM Linux systems, with the consequent improvement in containers for non-amd64 platforms.
We'll see what happens when they work out an OEM license for Windows 10 arm (which has x86 support, albeit a bit pokey, and is supposed to have x64 support at then end of this year).
It's not scary it just makes macs useless if you need to dual boot. I do not know how many people this will affect but I suspect there are more than a few mac users who dual boot into Windows to play games even if they do not technically need Windows to run work apps.
Look at the bright side - with ARM Macs I'm sure I'll get more of my missing Steam games back... Who am I kidding? It'll just get worse now that I lose my entire Steam Library, instead of a mere 85-90% of it.
Ah, well things elsewhere may be a bit different. Tons of SW apps will now stop supporting current Intel versions and force users to get paid updates to the ARM versions. Adobe and Microsoft with their SaaS probably regret missing this gravy train, unlike the last time.
Youâ(TM)re not losing any applications _now_. You _may_ lose applications if you buy a new ARM Mac and throw your old Intel Mac away. But then application developers should have no problems recompiling for ARM.
Just re-purchase all your applications, lol. It's only money.
There is no repurchase necessary on App Store apps. Apple has made available to developers the tools for recompiling the applications for ARM. The App Store will have both Intel and ARM binaries for apps that are currently being sold. If you upgrade to a new Mac and have the App Store reinstall apps it will use the appropriate binaries for the new Mac, Intel or ARM.
And for apps that are not currently being sold the App Store fallback seems to be an automated conversion from Intel to ARM via Rosetta2.
"for years to come" (Score:5, Interesting)
translation: you have 2 years
Re:"for years to come" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"for years to come" (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm so sorry those mean people took your punch cards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would have meant developers would have continued to drag their feet. Sorry, at some point you have to force their hand.
Only when you can't offer a compelling inducement without force. And that's Apple's position; at the time at which they switched from PPC to x86, the PPC processors were still about as fast as the x86 processors. And it cost a metric assload of money to buy a new intel Macintosh, because Macs are expensive. (Whether they are overpriced is left as an exercise for the reader.) When Apple transitioned from 68k to PowerPC, the PowerPC was a massive performance improvement over any 68k processor available. Even
Re: (Score:1)
Only when you can't offer a compelling inducement without force. And that's Apple's position; at the time at which they switched from PPC to x86
How's your G5 laptop holding up?
Re: (Score:1)
For the most part those devs who would bother already had.
I have a cheesegrater running Mojave. I'd love to replace it with say a mini, but because I rely on a couple of applications -- for which I have not found replacements -- that were never compiled into 64 bit binaries I'm stuck.
What you're saying is basically "What do you mean you've never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven's sake, mankind, it's only four light years away, you know. I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to take an interest in l
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep. They unceremoniously dropped the first Rosetta without warning, destroying a lot of investment into applications. Even though it could have been left in place as an option for those who were willing to use the few MB of disk space it took.
They dropped the original Rosetta so fast for a few reasons:
1. To push certain major software publishers, notably Adobe and Avid (and to a lesser extent, Microsoft), to release Mac Intel-Native versions of key Applications (Photoshop, Illustrator, ProTools and MS Office, to name a few). This was immentized by the second reason, below.
2. Performance, or rather lack thereof. The biggest barrier to decent performance for Rosetta was also the one that could never be satisfactorily fixed: Endianess. PowerPC (G5,
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what GP and parent are talking about... Rosetta still works fine on Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger and Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard. I think this is PEBKAC, that irresistible urge many users have to update their production machines without thinking. If your rig works, and you are not affected by the bugs they fix, and you do not expect to use the new features (this is the tradeoff), then please let me give you some advice: DON'T UPGRADE. If your stuff works without being on the bleeding edge, so what? Stay the
Re:"for years to come" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You run into the situation where some new application only runs on a newer OS version, but that OS version _deliberately_ breaks support for older software which was working just fine.
Thanks for not beating me up for being annoyed, thanks for ignoring that. You're a pro.
The problem I see with that is "some new application." That's the problem that you don't think it is, i that it isn't a problem. Now, I wouldn't say there will never be any brand new innovation in software that rises to "killerapp." But they're going to be fewer and fewer and farther and father between. Everything has been done that can be done by now. I hate this idiom, but there is more than one way to skin a cat. UNI
Re: (Score:3)
Computers "thunk" endianness more than you realize. The internet is big endian, while Intel and most ARM platforms are little-endian. Flipping endianness is cheap and hardware accelerated.
Maintaining endianness makes life much simpler (Score:2)
Computers "thunk" endianness more than you realize. The internet is big endian, while Intel and most ARM platforms are little-endian. Flipping endianness is cheap and hardware accelerated.
Speaking as someone who has converted major Intel applications to PowerPC and thereby dealt with a mismatch of endianness ...
In current Mac apps the endian mismatch between the internet and the app is largely irrelevant, it has already been addressed. The fact that the new architecture (ARM) matches the previous architecture (Intel) makes the porting process so much simpler. And if Rosetta2 works as advertised so simple in some cases that it will be automated.
If you are switching architectures you are
Re: (Score:2)
So, they did the only thing they could reasonably do: End Rosetta-support after only 1 major revision of OS X.
Rosetta was an optional install on the OS install disk all the way til 10.7 and that came out in 2011, i.e 5 years after the initial 2006 release. That makes it a total of three major versions with support for it (10.4, 10.5 and 10.6) which I personally think is a quite reasonable lifespan. If I'm not mistaken it didn't even become an optional install until 10.6.
Opinions may obviously differ here, but I personally skipped 10.7, which gave me a total of 6 years of support.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you think 5 years isn't enough support, but having used MacOSX as my primary OS back then the few applications that I used that were still PPC compatible were all universal binaries, which AFAIK still work today. Most of the complaints I saw about it back then were from people who were using old versions of Ph
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"for years to come" (Score:5, Insightful)
I had no issues with Rosetta.
Try run it now.
I had moved to the current apps.
Lucky you. Must be nice to be in a position where you can simply buy new software, where all vendors are still around and everything is current.
Re: "for years to come" (Score:2)
Buy? You don't buy a perpetual software license anymore in many cases. You just rent a license to use it that month.
Perpetual rent society.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You need to improve your understanding what docker is / how docker works.
You can even run docker containers on RaspberryPi.
Docker on MacOS was always running in a VM and the containers did so, of course, too.
There is no reason why you wouldn’t be able to run docker containers on some ARM-Linux using the macOS hypervisor or other virtualization solutions if available.
I think what you meant to say: docker on Linux running on Intel. We’ll see if that is actually necessary and if there will be solut
Re: (Score:3)
Things in Docker containers are just jailed processes running on the host. There's more to it than that, but that's the essence of it.
You will not be running x86-64 docker containers on ARM docker without Apple doing some serious magic with that container and everything inside of it. And, Docker runs in a VM on Mac because the XNU kernel doesn't have hooks necessary for Docker to properly jail processes. Rather than wait for Apple to deliver some implementation of that which was acceptable, they chose to
Re: "for years to come" (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Docker on the mac has always been terrible due to the need for VirtualBox.
I would think sensible people would use ARM containers instead of amd64, where possible. The platform-dependence of docker containers has always been a weakness, but while we were all on amd64 it wasn't quite so apparent. Hopefully this might have benefits beyond the Mac, such as an increasing prevalence of ARM Linux systems, with the consequent improvement in containers for non-amd64 platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
Or use docker.
They specifically mentioned Docker support in the Keynote. Start watching (and listening) at 1:26:02.
Re: (Score:2)
...and no time at all if you dual boot Windows.
We'll see what happens when they work out an OEM license for Windows 10 arm (which has x86 support, albeit a bit pokey, and is supposed to have x64 support at then end of this year).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
translation: you have 2 years
Look at the bright side - with ARM Macs I'm sure I'll get more of my missing Steam games back... Who am I kidding? It'll just get worse now that I lose my entire Steam Library, instead of a mere 85-90% of it.
Ah, well things elsewhere may be a bit different. Tons of SW apps will now stop supporting current Intel versions and force users to get paid updates to the ARM versions. Adobe and Microsoft with their SaaS probably regret missing this gravy train, unlike the last time.
The PPC to Intel transition was
Re: "for years to come" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm perfectly aware of this.
However, running a "lame duck" operating system is not something I relish doing, as support tends to whither away and patches tend to stop coming.
No repurchase necessary on App Store (Score:2)
Just re-purchase all your applications, lol. It's only money.
There is no repurchase necessary on App Store apps. Apple has made available to developers the tools for recompiling the applications for ARM. The App Store will have both Intel and ARM binaries for apps that are currently being sold. If you upgrade to a new Mac and have the App Store reinstall apps it will use the appropriate binaries for the new Mac, Intel or ARM.
And for apps that are not currently being sold the App Store fallback seems to be an automated conversion from Intel to ARM via Rosetta2.