Software running on those Macs isn't going to suddenly stop working. It would likely run for another 4-5 years without any update, but companies making such large investments would also likely not keep using "legacy" computers for a decade. They'd eventually upgrade to keep pace.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple to Phase Out Rosetta 2 Starting With macOS 28 as Intel Era Ends
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Software running on those Macs isn't going to suddenly stop working. It would likely run for another 4-5 years without any update, but companies making such large investments would also likely not keep using "legacy" computers for a decade. They'd eventually upgrade to keep pace.
Not if Apple stops compiling for x64. Then it’s just code in a Git repo inside of the UFO, locked down, never to see the light of day.
wouldn’t be as bad staying on older versions to retain support for them longer if it was supported longer but it’s max 2-3 years and gotta move off of it. This is where windows does well as a particular OS is supported for such a long time even after the new one comes out.
I don't have the technical knowledge to understand the code aspect, but why not just keep Rosetta 2 but announce that as of whatever date in 2028, Rosetta 2 will not receive any additional updates, but remain available? Let users download it like the Xcode Developer Tools—you can install it straight from Apple if you want it.
Typically ROI (and I'm using this generically encompassing tax situations too) on systems for a company like that is 3-5 years. And of course the larger companies lease. To be frank if they are not doing it that way it is really on them for a poor financial/business model and just in general with the speed in which technology advances. So not really a big deal as by the time they are unsupported by Apple (say this year + 3 more) they would be 9-10 years old. Maybe individuals are hit a bit longer, but again complaining about 9-10 years?
Which I think is very nice.
A lot of people like simply care about "using their computer to get things done" and less about having the "hot new look" that constantly abandons people not on the bleeding edge.
Anyone buying a top-tier Mac Pro is doing so because their workflows demand the fastest speeds. The Mac Pro is going on 6 years old and will be going on 7 years old when the first macOS version that doesn't support it comes out. That's incredibly old for a performance machine and any company that can afford to purchase the top tier configuration in bulk would likely have replaced them by now.
Additionally, very few workstations get upgraded to the absolute latest OS version, at least not right away. In production environments there is usually a lengthy testing process to ensure software and hardware are compatible with the new OS, and often time they'll leave the workstation on the existing OS for as long as it gets security updates - if it ain't broke don't fix it. By the time Intel Macs stop getting security updates they'll be going on eight to nine years old.
I always love how folks insist they know why other people buy things.
Any business I’ve worked with write off computers within 3-5 years, so it wouldn’t make a difference to them if the machines get 5 or 10 years of support. It’s places like that I’d imagine most Mac Pros end up.
The rest of us care, but 10 years of software support isn’t terrible. It wasn’t long ago when a three year old computer was horribly outdated.
Last edited:
Because it still needs to be tested with each new release. It almost certainly integrates tightly with the Mach kernel, too, creating problems as time goes on.
But ultimately I guess Apple is just making it clear that apps should be updated. There are still SO many apps that aren't, including many in the App Store. I wanted to start making a name-and-shame list of them, but couldn't be bothered.
The fact that MacOS will not support Intel processors really hasn't much to do with this as most people will have purchased a machine with Apple ARM processors by 2027. The real loss is in the number of applications that are no longer updated and do not have universal binaries yet are still very useful to those of us that have been using them for years.
Well they won't unless the developers are still alive and willing to rework them for ARM64.
Am I reading this correctly? It sounds to me like they are saying that macOS 26 and 27 will have full Rosetta 2 functionality, that macOS 28 will have a "subset" of Rosetta 2 that will still let it run older games, and that nothing is actually said about when/if Rosetta 2 will be removed completely.
Good, it will finally force lazy developers for Out of the Park Baseball to update their app for Silicon and stop trotting out battery hungry junk
It'll more likely just make for a bunch of abandonware.
...or software that was developed by companies that are no longer around.
I have at least one such app; it runs perfectly fine under Rosetta, but it will not ever be updated to AS.
Fully understand the logic behind dropping Intel support, but this is going to hurt. Barring some other solution that pops up in the meantime, I'll either have to stop using the app, or stop upgrading the OS.
I have at least one such app; it runs perfectly fine under Rosetta, but it will not ever be updated to AS.
Fully understand the logic behind dropping Intel support, but this is going to hurt. Barring some other solution that pops up in the meantime, I'll either have to stop using the app, or stop upgrading the OS.
Well then that's the way it goes. They've had plenty of time to get on board and update their apps.
Perhaps a virtual machine running macOS 27 will work to get a few more years out of those apps.
Note that Apple has came out and said the OS after the release year would not receive all security updates, only the most critical security updates they are bothering to backport. (Saw it on Ars Technica)