PDA

View Full Version : compatibility of current software w upcoming Mactels


fjs08
Nov 19, 2005, 06:00 AM
Hi,

what are the rumors about the compatibility of current software w upcoming Mactels?? Will we need to buy all new software??

I use Entourage a lot. Any rumors about that product???


Frank

Morn
Nov 19, 2005, 06:02 AM
All your old software will run with rosetta, a program to emulate the powerpc.

fjs08
Nov 19, 2005, 06:05 AM
>>ll your old software will run with rosetta, a program to emulate the powerpc<<

quickly?? Or just run?? do they expect a noticable loss of speed or will it be pretty transparent?

Frank

Morn
Nov 19, 2005, 06:11 AM
It will be transparent, you won't know it's being emulated. I heard estimates of like at 70% of the speed of pure x86 code. And I don't think you miss the speed on an office app like Entourage. Especially as first x86 mactels will probably be dual core yonah's.

Mitthrawnuruodo
Nov 19, 2005, 06:17 AM
...and more and more software are compiled for both architectures, already... :)

fps
Nov 19, 2005, 06:28 AM
Rosetta will ONLY emulate a G3 so if a program needs a G4 and hasn't been ported yet then you're out of luck. Expect a vast majority of the software to not be ported when Apple launch the 1st Intel Mac.

I think the right thing to do is to have a list of software you want to use and then try to find out whether they will be available soon as Universal Binaries (some are already). If not, can they run in G3 emulation through Rosetta or do they need at least a G4?

You can at least expect the Apple software (iLife, iWork, etc...) to be ready as Universal Binary.

Only then you know if it's worth switching right at the beginning.

Morn
Nov 19, 2005, 06:58 AM
I really don't think that's an issue, 99% of software doen't need altivec, aka a G4. There are lot of G3's to still support especially things like ibooks from just 2003. It's a non-issue that it only emulates a G3, I wouldn't bother to mention that.

Passante
Nov 19, 2005, 06:59 AM
Rosetta will ONLY emulate a G3 so if a program needs a G4 and hasn't been ported yet then you're out of luck. Expect a vast majority of the software to not be ported when Apple launch the 1st Intel Mac.

I think the right thing to do is to have a list of software you want to use and then try to find out whether they will be available soon as Universal Binaries (some are already). If not, can they run in G3 emulation through Rosetta or do they need at least a G4?

You can at least expect the Apple software (iLife, iWork, etc...) to be ready as Universal Binary.

Only then you know if it's worth switching right at the beginning.
Not quite true. Altivec is not emulated. The software will run just more slowly

Passante
Nov 19, 2005, 07:01 AM
So I run Photoshop elements frequently and parts of MS Office infrequently. I don't expect PS Elements to be ported anytime soon if at all. Adobe's anti Apple bias has been growing since the introduction of iLife

iLife, mail, Keynote and Safari take care of my needs. How about you?

Morn
Nov 19, 2005, 07:12 AM
Adobe will port photoshop, it's always been big on macs.
But programs that use altivec will nearly always have a way to run without using altivec to maintain support for G3 macs.

savar
Nov 19, 2005, 08:01 AM
It will be transparent, you won't know it's being emulated. I heard estimates of like at 70% of the speed of pure x86 code. And I don't think you miss the speed on an office app like Entourage. Especially as first x86 mactels will probably be dual core yonah's.

Plus, for most office applications, they spend a majority of their time in the OS library. The native code just runs the event loop and dispatches event handlers. I assume that PPC binaries will be able to call native libraries, thus removing a bottleneck.

fps
Nov 19, 2005, 03:14 PM
Not quite true. Altivec is not emulated. The software will run just more slowly

Ah ok my bad :o
So it's more a question about how fast these Intel procs will be able to run these progs using Rosetta then. Sounds better than I thought.
Thanks for the heads up.

Will Cheyney
Nov 19, 2005, 03:18 PM
During the 2005 WWDC keynote, Steve Jobs demonstrates Photoshop running in Rosetta on a x86 edition of MacOS X.
Check it out for yourself... You certainly wouldn't have any problems using it.

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/

pubwvj
Nov 19, 2005, 04:46 PM
All your old software will run with rosetta, a program to emulate the powerpc.

Wrong. Rosetta will not run Classic applications. It will only run applications native to MacOS X. This is a MAJOR problem as a lot of individuals and businesses have huge volumes of data that is only accessible via older applications which will NEVER be upgraded so they will not work on the MacIntel machines. Databases, billing systems, accounting, ledgers, customer records, book layouts, magazines, scientific data, manufacturing logs and a whole lot more.

I would strongly recommend that anyone with legacy applications (e.g., Classic) buy one of the latest PPC Macs like the new PowerBooks and plan on keeping it for a long time. I for one am not planning to ever buy a MacIntel if it won't run my software to access my older data. I can not simply give up access to Gigabytes of my old data. This represents decades of work. Apple is making a HUGE mistake by failing to support legacy Classic applications.

Secondly, write Apple (http://www.apple.com/macosx/feedback/) and tell them you need support for Classic or youre not buying new hardware or software from them.

killmoms
Nov 19, 2005, 05:31 PM
Wrong. Rosetta will not run Classic applications. It will only run applications native to MacOS X. This is a MAJOR problem as a lot of individuals and businesses have huge volumes of data that is only accessible via older applications which will NEVER be upgraded so they will not work on the MacIntel machines. Databases, billing systems, accounting, ledgers, customer records, book layouts, magazines, scientific data, manufacturing logs and a whole lot more.

I would strongly recommend that anyone with legacy applications (e.g., Classic) buy one of the latest PPC Macs like the new PowerBooks and plan on keeping it for a long time. I for one am not planning to ever buy a MacIntel if it won't run my software to access my older data. I can not simply give up access to Gigabytes of my old data. This represents decades of work. Apple is making a HUGE mistake by failing to support legacy Classic applications.

Secondly, write Apple (http://www.apple.com/macosx/feedback/) and tell them you need support for Classic or youre not buying new hardware or software from them.
The only problem here is companies too cheap to hire programmers to write new ports of their software. MacOS 9 was declared dead three years ago, and there hasn't been a single Mac sold that BOOTS it since 2003. It's been clear that Classic has been on the list of things to phase out—even Carbon is being deprecated (if it hasn't been already in Tiger). Apple is clear that people need to get their apps to Cocoa and OS X.

Honestly, if the data is THAT important to the company, I don't see why a new app can't be developed to read it. The writing has been on the wall for YEARS that Classic was going to disappear, and it's simply a waste of Apple's time and money to continue supporting a dead system. OS 9 still has 68K code in it, for Pete's sake, running in emulation on PowerPC. To expect them to go through a 4 year old code-base to update it to be Rosetta compliant is, frankly, ridiculous. Why should they be obligated to support your obstinate refusal to move ahead? By all means, buy the last of the PPC products to support your stuff for now, but use that time to develop a Cocoa app that can deal with your data into the future. If you thought Classic was going to last in perpetuity, you need your head examined.

rosalindavenue
Nov 19, 2005, 06:05 PM
If you thought Classic was going to last in perpetuity, you need your head examined.

I don't think you are necessarily wrong, Cless, but I think you have to consider Windows users and the expectations that Windows has (have?) created. The backwards compatability of Windows is nuts-- Windows 95 apps run on XP, for example. Microsoft has almost never "broken" old apps with upgrades (the major exception being Microsoft's own Office) and users have grown accustomed to this. I suspect (but I'm not a programmer so I can't say for sure) that this commitment backwards compatibility has something to do with the bugginess and limitations of Windows. Windows users can and do think that their apps and data will last in perpetuity; they have so far.

pubwvj
Nov 19, 2005, 06:09 PM
The only problem [with the lack of Classic applications getting upgraded for OSX] is companies too cheap to hire programmers to write new ports of their software.

WRONG. A lot of software vendors are out of business. Or are you too young to realize that. Then there are the applications that get terminated. Vendors, including big ones like Adobe and even Apple, simply cease to support software sometimes. You have your music in iTunes. Do you really believe Apple is going to support iTunes forever? Get real. You think you are safe because you have your music files in MP3. But, have you ever bought from the iTunes store? Those files have DRM protection. If you move your files to a new machine and new software you may not be able to use them. Imagine if in ten years Apple no longer supports iTunes or it's particular version of DRM MP3 files. You and your thousands of songs are out of luck. Bugger.

Get real.

Morn
Nov 19, 2005, 06:50 PM
Classic?:confused: Sure, I bet you want prodos legecy support next.:D Ohh and don't forget microsoft basic and integer basic.:rolleyes: But really if a software is discontinued, a company should make the effort to replace it with software that will do the same thing.
And I doubt the itunes store is just going to go away one day. But that is a different problem, people expect to buy their music and keep it for the rest of their lives.
And also, the legecy on windows is pretty amazing and impressive, you can run a program written for widows version 1 and a 8086 on XP. However, microsoft has dropped support for 32bit drivers and 16bit apps in Xp 64bit edition, that certainly annoys many windows users. Microsoft is in the process of dropping support for 16bit apps, and not because they had to, but simply because it took them less effort to develope Xp 64bit edition in that way.