Rosetta won't run current apps!? RE:Macworld Mag

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by nichos, Jul 16, 2005.

  1. nichos macrumors 6502

    nichos

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Fl
    #1
    Hi all,
    I got macworld magazine, Aug '05 here. On page 15 they have some Q&A about the intel transition. One of the statements they make is:
    "However, according to Apple's own technical documentation, Rosetta does not support Classic apps, nor does it support apps that require the G4 or G5 processors. "
    :eek: !!!
    What does this mean? Exactly what I think? if you buy an intel mac, it won't run apps that currently require a G4+ processor? What use is this? Only applications that require a G3 will work on the intel macs?
    Please tell me I'm not reading that right.
    Thanks,
    Nick
     
  2. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #2
    FWIW, you are basically reading it correctly. Any application that will ONLY run on computers with a G4 or G5 will not run on Rosetta at this time, although that could change by the time Leopard comes out. This doesn't apply to applications that RECOMMEND a G4 or G5. Most of those are not optimized for a G4 or G5, and really just mean they need the speed. They will probably run fine. Also if apps say everything but a certain part will work on a G3, then again, it is likely everything except that part will run on Rosetta.

    If you look at MacOS apps right now, there are relatively few that *require* a G4, and I can think of almost none that require a G5. Of the few that do, many of them are Apple apps, and they're written in Cocoa to begin with, are among the easier to port to Intel binaries, have probably already been co-developed for platform independence for some time, and will likely come in Intel binaries within a week of the Mactel launch.

    So really, probably 95% of the impact consists of games that won't run on Rosetta. It shouldn't be a big deal.
     
  3. dan-o-mac macrumors 6502a

    dan-o-mac

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    #3
    :eek: Are you joking?
     
  4. supergod macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto
    #4
    Basically most of the pro Apple programs will not be able to run immediately through Rosetta on an Intel-Inside Mac. This definitely sounds like more of a problem than it is for two reasons. First, these pro apps are probably going to some of the first ones that will be ported to the Intel processor because of their popularity. And second of all, considering that most of these apps require a very high end Power Mac to run properly (especially Motion and Logic Pro), the people who own them are not likely to be switching with the first generation of Intel Macs. I know that I am going to definitely hold on to my Power Mac for at least two years after the Intel transition because as a pro machine it does the job well. I would similarly possibly supplement it with a new Pentium iBook or Powerbook so the transition is as easy as possible.

    Apple will probably not end of screwing with any of their pro-users through this transition. Its enough pressure they're putting on them to tell them that a PowerPC architecture which they have been told is the best system for their needs for all these years will be replaced with a common Intel chip, there is no way that they will jeopardize their popular suite of professional software.
     
  5. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #5
    No. I didn't say there are none. But they don't predominate, in the whole world of Apple apps. It's true that within the "pro" apps, there are relatively more than within the consumer / office ones, but as I said in that same post you quoted, and as supergod said, those are the most likely to be ported quickly and effectively to Intel binaries.

    But anyway, if your imagination is that someone with a studio of pro Apple hardware is going to be first on the bandwagon to run Mactel, that's silly for a variety of reasons that go far beyond Rosetta. Mission critical computer applications should *never* take leaps like that -- to new architectures or to new OS levels (and this is *both*) without waiting for issues to be sorted out. That's just common sense. It is no less true in this case than it is with Tiger. How many managed installs of Apple computers do you think got upgraded to Tiger en masse on the release day weekend, like all of us did? I would bet none. Because they can't get away with it like enthusiast consumers can.
     
  6. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #6
    I think we might be generating some unneeded confusion here. If I understand the situation correctly, we will only lose Classic applications and applications that specifically depend on the G4/G5. This does not necessarily include every applications that specifies a G4 or G5 processor as a minimum configuration due to horsepower requirements, but only applications that address the G4 or G5 directly, which should be very few. Performance will be an issue for applications that heavily rely on AltiVec, which will disappear, but they should still run.
     
  7. dan-o-mac macrumors 6502a

    dan-o-mac

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    #7
    OK I understand now, I'm kind of confused by all this myself. Thanks for clarifying.
     
  8. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #8
    Yeah, I think a lot of were scared and skeptical in the beginning, but Rosetta seems to exceed people's expectations. I don't think the transition will be completely bump free, but it probably won't be doomsday either....
     
  9. nichos thread starter macrumors 6502

    nichos

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Fl
    #9
    So games should be OK?
     
  10. iMeowbot macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #10
    For a rough idea of what will still work, keep in mind that iBooks still used the G3 until October 2003. With such recent machines out there without Altivec, only the most high end stuff could realistically have been written to require it.
     
  11. ravenvii macrumors 604

    ravenvii

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Location:
    Melenkurion Skyweir
    #11
    Heh, the little panicfest here is funny.

    If it runs on your iBook G3 900 MHz, then it will definitely be just fine under Rosetta.

    And I had an iBook G3 900 until a few months ago and felt no severe limitations on what software I can run (slow yes, but I can run it).

    Oh, don't go "if it runs slow, then I'm going PC!!!", yes I know you stupid panicmongers. I now need to remind you that you will be running Rosetta on lightning-fast Intels. So it'll be much, MUCH faster than a 900 MHz G3.

    Sheesh. :mad:
     
  12. gekko513 macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    #12
    Actually I think games in general will be most problematic when the switch comes.

    The games that require a G4 or G5 processor will not work with Rosetta and most of those games that have already been released will probably not be recompiled for Intel, either.

    When Intel Macs become more widespread we will probably see the opposite problem ... That many games will only be ported to work on Intel Macs.

    Games don't have the same requirements for long term support and compatibility as business critical apps, that's why I think games will be a problem.
     
  13. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    there is only one app i have ever tryed to use that did not run on my G3 and that was doom 3 (wanted to try it as a joke, maybe break the 1fps barrier) and idvd, which apple is going to port asap, if it wont run under rossetta then the developer is most definatly going to put the universal binary up as a patch.
     
  14. PaisanoMan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2003
    #14
    Technically, this is actually the whole problem with Rosetta -- it does not support AltiVec. Apps that rely on it won't run at all (unless they explicitly added "fallback" code for G3s).

    I agree with the folks who say the impact will be limited mostly to games -- commercial games, that is. Old titles, which will be even older in a year, offer little incentive for a publisher to go back and go through the trouble of ... well ... doing any work on it. It's possible that the huge titles like Doom III and perhaps even Halo will see new builds, but I wouldn't hold my breath at all.

    I had the opportunity to interact with Rosetta and the new Macs a lot at WWDC, and I must say that I don't think there's anything to fear. It works as advertised, so people, just relax. :)
     
  15. RobHague macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    #15
    Maybe this isnt seen as 'important' but ive not heard anything about the Intel Mac's compatibility with *existing* games software.

    If you have a back catalog of games, doom3/starcraft/diablo2 etc etc for the Mac are Apple just counting on the fact no one will care about playing them by the time the Mactelinsides arrive? :confused:

    This just seems such a stupid move right now, but then i guess they have reasons im ignorant of but i dont care how much better the Intel roadmap might look - that can change, lots of things can change in time. Maybe AMD will bring something out to make the Intels look quite poor two years from now... then we will have Mactels and Maclons? What if IBM bring out a really nice low power CPU etc etc..

    If they were using Intel for fabrication of a new PPC-compatible chip or something then id be 100% happier. The move to x86 bugs me still... :(


    ^ Nevermind must have missed that, doh! :eek: PaisanoMan just sort of covered it. But my last part still stands =)
     
  16. iMeowbot macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #16
    The game compatibility thing may not be as bad as it looks. I wonder how many of those titles with G4/G5 in the system requirements list it that way because of clock speed rather than Altivec.
     
  17. savar macrumors 68000

    savar

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2003
    Location:
    District of Columbia
    #17

    Okay, Rosetta for whatever reason does not emulate the necessaries for Mac OS 9 and lower applications, thus no classic.

    It also does not emulate Altivec, which represents a major difference in features between G3 and G4. The G3 doesn't have it, the G4 does. So an app that "requires" G4 probably just requires Altivec...most of these apps you'll just have to hope are recompiled for fat binary. Most apps that use Altivec, however, can downgrade to CPU vector math when Altivec isn't available...so I can't see this being a huge problem.
     
  18. abrooks macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Location:
    London, UK
    #18
    I am very glad someone brought this to the front, I was getting very annoyed reading through threads and seeing people think of Rosetta as the be all and end all, its like they thought it was there to emulate absolutely everything.

    To add to the topic, the current line of Apple Pro Apps require a G4 processor and some features require a G5, this will require Apple to recompile the apps for Universal Binaries, I hope this helps clear some of the confusion.
     
  19. iMeowbot macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #19
    Yep, but I don't think anyone is honestly concerned that Apple won't be updating their software to run on their own hardware.
     
  20. ja0912 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    #20
    Am I the only person in world who's hardware always outlives his software. The way I use computers, Rosetta is completely unnecessary.

    The transition will not affect me at all.
     

Share This Page