Latest Mac OS X 10.5.6 Seed; Rosetta Becomes Optional in Snow Leopard?

[kwajo.com]

Get ready for a zillion inane "the update is XXX MB on my system" posts.



Again. Seriously, haven't we been through all the arguments two or three times in the past six months?



I expect Apple will behave as it has in the past: once the new version is released, we will get only "security updates" for the old OS.



Let me guess, you don't own any PPC Macs, right? It's always OK when someone else's technology is abandoned. But as many owners of Firewire devices recently discovered, next time Apple may come after your technology. Most of the arguments advanced as to why PPC systems won't benefit from 10.6 apply equally well to early Intel machines too.

Personally I don't care (much) about Apple dropping PPC support in 10.6. What does bother me is Apple's increasing indifference to the wishes of its installed base of computer users, and the relegation of its computer products to a status secondary to its consumer electronics business.



Really? Of all the Macs I've owned over the years, the iBook G3 was the only one that went belly-up to the extent that it was not even worth it to repair - and that was after I had shipped it off once already for a new logic board.

I agree with the original poster, my old iBook G3 (key lime) is rock solid in every way. It has cracks all over the case from drops and abuse, the hinge on the screen is broken from getting run over by a car (inside a bookbag) and yet it still runs Tiger surprisingly well. I can use it with iTunes as an mp3/aac jukebox, run Word 2004, check Mail, surf with Safari, all with a machine that by most accounts is not only obsolete but should have stopped working years ago. Heck even the original battery still gives me 2-3 hours of typing (with Airport turned off), and here's the kicker: IT HAS FIREWIRE.

I'd like to see a new Macbook do that

 

[Eric S.]

If SL is one major stability overhaul, I'm all over it. Problem is, they should really enhance the stability in 10.5 as well, and that includes PPC machines.

Maybe I should put it another way: Leopard is the weakest OS X I personally used since 10.0.0. And yes, I really think the very limited 10.1 build with little features was MORE STABLE than Leopard, at least in my personal experience.

It seems to me that because Snow Leopard's changes are (reportedly) below the user interface level, people have the idea that somehow it is a maintenance or "stability" release. I don't get that; I see Apple adding a slew of OS technologies (which will mostly benefit future hardware platforms rather than current ones). To me that means a whole lot of instability, at least until the major kinks are worked out.

In my experience, Leopard has been the most stable MacOS version I have used. It may have had problems on its initial release, but I installed it on my G4 system at 10.5.1 and it has been my primary OS there since 10.5.2. Problems have been minimal - fewer than Tiger, and far fewer than earlier versions of OS X. YMMV, but I certainly don't expect Snow Leopard to offer more stability than Leopard, at least initially - the other way around in fact.

 

[PurrBall]

Leopard has been the quirkiest OS Ive used since ME, I hope SL brings it up to the speed and stability of Tiger.

 

[Eric S.]

I agree with the original poster, my old iBook G3 (key lime) is rock solid in every way. It has cracks all over the case from drops and abuse, the hinge on the screen is broken from getting run over by a car (inside a bookbag) and yet it still runs Tiger surprisingly well.

Well your experience is atypical. According to a Macintouch special report of Jan. 3, 2006, the iBook G3 was the least reliable Apple laptop ever produced, with the most repairs, especially motherboard replacements. According to them:

By affected percentage of models, the G3 iBooks were the worst by far, with more than half requiring logic board replacements. Apple created a warranty extension program for some versions, but not all. (MacInTouch readers are still reporting newly failed iBook G3s, and the warranty extension program has ended.)

The white 12" iBook G3 series became much less reliable through its first five revisions, reaching a 73% failure percentage! The last revision dropped to a 49% failure percentage — much improved over the previous model, but still unconscionably high. The problems appear to have been solved, for the most part, in the newer iBook G4 series.
...
The iBook G3, which sold quite well, had the most failures of any Apple laptop we surveyed and the failures were critical (the motherboard). Some other Mac models have had quite a few failures as well, but they generally were due to specific component problems. The iBook G3 simply appears to have been a flawed design, but it took a long time for Apple engineers to get a handle on the problem and fix it.

 

[kingtj]

A few replies from another part-time Windows user....

I agree with the facts you're stating, but not with your conclusions.

Microsoft just "follows the money". If they realize enough people are still out there who will buy licenses for OLD software of theirs, they'll keep on selling those licenses.

This isn't, however, because they want to promote "more consistency".

On the contrary, supporting such things as versions of Exchange Server that are 3 or 4 versions old is a *poor* idea. Anyone with the money (and a need) for a corporate mail and scheduling server of their own, the size and cost of Exchange, is FOOLISH to try sticking with a version as old as 5.5! (And yes, that was STILL foolish 2 years ago.) That product was developed long before people invented all the email spamming attack strategies they employ today, for starters. It simply won't give an administrator some of the tools he/she needs to combat those issues, meaning they become headaches for the users or OTHER mail server admins to deal with.

Also, Microsoft's definition of "support" for products varies. Windows XP will only get support through 2014 in "extended support" status. That means very little, really. XP users are going to miss out on ALL the new and improved technologies that get rolled into more current versions of the OS from now through 2014 -- and in many cases, software compatibility issues that arise will be "solved" by Microsoft support by telling you that "you HAVE to upgrade to a newer version of Windows to make that work". So much for real "support" there.

Sorry, but in Windows-Land we're used to more consistency than we get in OS X-land. For example, Windows XP was released in 2001 and Microsoft will support it until 2014.

I know of a company where two years ago NEW installations of Windows NT Server & Exchange 5.5 were rolled out - yes, that was ten years after the original release of NT 4, and they could still get new licenses for that platform. And yes, it makes perfect sense to do something like that when you don't want to be forced to upgrade an entire corporate environment to a new software release.

Dell also offers optional five years of warranty for all their products.

So in Windows-Land, you can expect real long term support for your purchased products.

Now it's 2008 and Apple neither supports Cheetah, Puma or Jaguar anymore. I'm not even sure if they are still providing security updates for Panther. They sold their last high-end, professional PowerPC G5 workstations in 2006 and now already drop the software support for those machines in 2009.

In Windows-Land, business customers would quickly migrate to another platform if they didn't have at least five years of support. Or to be more to the point, they wouldn't have bought from such a vendor in the first place.

By the way, in many countries those five years are the time frame over which you can deduct/write off hard- and software investments from your taxes (or whatever the English term for this is - I'm German and we call this "von der Steuer abschreiben").

 

[AidenShaw]

Also, Microsoft's definition of "support" for products varies. Windows XP will only get support through 2014 in "extended support" status. That means very little, really. XP users are going to miss out on ALL the new and improved technologies that get rolled into more current versions of the OS from now through 2014 -- and in many cases, software compatibility issues that arise will be "solved" by Microsoft support by telling you that "you HAVE to upgrade to a newer version of Windows to make that work". So much for real "support" there.

The real purpose of extended support is so that an established application (usually server) can live out its life without having to be upgraded/moved to a new OS. Primarily, this means that security and other important patches are still delivered.

It's not to provide new drivers and other hardware support for newly released servers, nor is it to keep the old OS "feature equivalent" to the new one.

For the most part, any organization will use the latest OS for new deployments.

 

[swagi]

It seems to me that because Snow Leopard's changes are (reportedly) below the user interface level, people have the idea that somehow it is a maintenance or "stability" release. I don't get that; I see Apple adding a slew of OS technologies (which will mostly benefit future hardware platforms rather than current ones). To me that means a whole lot of instability, at least until the major kinks are worked out.

In my experience, Leopard has been the most stable MacOS version I have used. It may have had problems on its initial release, but I installed it on my G4 system at 10.5.1 and it has been my primary OS there since 10.5.2. Problems have been minimal - fewer than Tiger, and far fewer than earlier versions of OS X. YMMV, but I certainly don't expect Snow Leopard to offer more stability than Leopard, at least initially - the other way around in fact.

Honestly I couldn't agree more. But based on the fact, that in spite of reading MR daily I have absolutely no clue what to expect from Apple in the next year, I may just settle for some butt-ugly Sony.

My usual plan was to wait for a Nehalem MBP, now I'm torn to wait for a Nehalem MBP with SL preinstalled. That's why I start thinking: "Why not just buy a loaded Windows machine and make the best of it?"

So, on a side note, do you have the same freaking issue that your computer unloads the tray even when there is no disk inside, when waking from sleep? Just one minor Leopard annoyance introduced on my Powerbook At least that's what I think the drive does, when it's sounding wonky on wakeup.

 

[kingtj]

Yes, but ....

I still maintain that "extended support" is just a Microsoft tool to maximize their profits, vs. serving a legitimate purpose of "concern for the customer".

Otherwise, how do you explain the huge public outcry that happened when Microsoft announced an end to full support for products like Windows '98 (arguably their most successful and liked OS), or even Windows XP? In both cases, it was clear they looked at the pros and cons from a purely profit-generating standpoint, and decided they stood to gain more than they lost by pushing people to upgrade sooner than they wanted to.

They were forced to back-pedal in both cases, although people are *still* trying to buy new machines with Windows XP instead of Vista, and finding it an increasingly difficult and frustrating task.

Realistically, at some point, your OS becomes "secure via obsolescence", without ANY support from the vendor anyway. I could install Windows 3.1 or Windows '95 on some PC today, and I highly doubt almost any of the current virus attacks would affect it, because they assume newer versions of everything!

All my point is, really, is that Apple is just a little more official about dropping support for older products. Microsoft "beats around the bush" to create the illusion that you get more "product life" from their software products. But ultimately? If you go with Apple, you generally get support for the last 2 operating system versions and you're on your own if you skip 2 upgrade cycles. With Microsoft? Same difference, except they'll take your money for a lot longer to "pretend" it's "ok" to keep using outdated versions.

The real purpose of extended support is so that an established application (usually server) can live out its life without having to be upgraded/moved to a new OS. Primarily, this means that security and other important patches are still delivered.

It's not to provide new drivers and other hardware support for newly released servers, nor is it to keep the old OS "feature equivalent" to the new one.

For the most part, any organization will use the latest OS for new deployments.

 

[Eric S.]

So, on a side note, do you have the same freaking issue that your computer unloads the tray even when there is no disk inside, when waking from sleep? Just one minor Leopard annoyance introduced on my Powerbook At least that's what I think the drive does, when it's sounding wonky on wakeup.

You mean that it makes some reset noise, not that there's a physical tray that ejects, right? Are you sure it isn't just the drive resetting? My new Macbook makes a noise like that. The cdrom on my Power Mac G4 (which has a physical tray) doesn't do anything on wakeup.

 

[3.1416]

Ya know, reading this thread just makes me miss the 68k days... things just worked.

Extension conflicts, manually allocating memory to applications, the entire UI pausing when you hold down a menu, a bug in any app able to crash the system...can't say I miss it.

but why cut off full OS updates for the people that are on Macs that are 2 years old?

Because it takes significant resources to do testing and QA for the steadily decreasing minority of PPC Macs, resources that could be much better spent improving OS X for modern Macs.

PPC isn't that far behind us and they still make great productive machines... as many people here know first hand.

Indeed. And they will still be so after Snow Leopard comes out.

The really unfortunate part about this is simply this: the people on the PPC machines are the classic Mac users in a lot of cases.

Then like me, they've gone through the 68k->PPC and OS 9->OS X transitions, so this is nothing new.

Have a heart Apple.

Apple is not a charity. And if they were, it would be better for both them and us to subsidize new Macbooks or minis, rather than spending limited development resources on obsolete hardware.

 

[sporadicMotion]

Extension conflicts, manually allocating memory to applications, the entire UI pausing when you hold down a menu, a bug in any app able to crash the system...can't say I miss it.

I still miss it. All OSes have their issues... but it still worked so wonderfully. Especially in comparison to the other options of the time... I have to admit I forgot about extension conflicts.

Because it takes significant resources to do testing and QA for the steadily decreasing minority of PPC Macs, resources that could be much better spent improving OS X for modern Macs.

I agree to an extent... PPC may be on the decrease, but not on a scale that makes it pointless to update. I just think one more update would be fair to the people who spent good money on those machines, and besides, the resources would be earned back in OS sales... yes though, they can't be supported forever.

Indeed. And they will still be so after Snow Leopard comes out.

I can't argue that, they will still have access to some great operating systems

Then like me, they've gone through the 68k->PPC and OS 9->OS X transitions, so this is nothing new.

I went through the same transitions and Apple has given a much nicer window in the past for people to buy new machines. The last 68k mac came out around '95 and yet the first ppc only os didn't come out until '99... that's 4 years. Same with OS9 to OS X, classic support was only dropped in Leopard... once again, a much longer transition.

Apple is not a charity. And if they were, it would be better for both them and us to subsidize new Macbooks or minis, rather than spending limited development resources on obsolete hardware.

I wouldn't consider machines such as a PowerMac G5 or G5 iMac to be obsolete... however, yes, they are not a charity. They are a business out to make money. I don't think it would be a waste of resourses in any way though. The nice thing about Mac users is, in a good majority of cases, they're more willing to hand over money for an OS as opposed to downloading it...

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

What is wrong with 10.5.5? it is very stable for me in my iMac

There's not much wrong with Tiger either. The question is of software compatibility. Mac developers have a way of ditching prior OS support rather quickly, IMO. I've got a PPC Mac and an Intel MBP. I'm still using Tiger on the PPC one because Leopard is noticeably slower and dropped Classic support.

 

[swagi]

You mean that it makes some reset noise, not that there's a physical tray that ejects, right? Are you sure it isn't just the drive resetting? My new Macbook makes a noise like that. The cdrom on my Power Mac G4 (which has a physical tray) doesn't do anything on wakeup.

Yes, you're right, Eric. There's no physical tray. I don't know, what the drive is doing, but I guess it's trying to eject a disk. At least I experienced my Powerbook ejecting the disk when waking up from sleep some time.

Exactly that noise/drive behaviour was introduced in Leopard. Sorry, that you can't install Tiger on your Macbook to see, if your 'drive sound' also vanishes.

 

[smartalic34]

Yes, you're right, Eric. There's no physical tray. I don't know, what the drive is doing, but I guess it's trying to eject a disk. At least I experienced my Powerbook ejecting the disk when waking up from sleep some time.

Exactly that noise/drive behaviour was introduced in Leopard. Sorry, that you can't install Tiger on your Macbook to see, if your 'drive sound' also vanishes.

all macbook pros' drives make a noise upon waking from sleep. even the tiger ones. I'm not sure of its purpose, but apple probably used leopard to update the powerbooks to behave as the MBPs had been for awhile now...

 

[jimdkc]

I, too, am disappointed that Apple is making Rosetta an optional install in Snow Leopard...

I think they should dump it altogether! Less legacy crap is a good thing.

Jim

 

[smartalic34]

I, too, am disappointed that Apple is making Rosetta an optional install in Snow Leopard...

I think they should dump it altogether! Less legacy crap is a good thing.

Jim

not that I'm one of them, but that would really screw people over who have office 2004 and dont want to upgrade...

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I, too, am disappointed that Apple is making Rosetta an optional install in Snow Leopard...

I think they should dump it altogether! Less legacy crap is a good thing.

Jim

Yeah, vastly less software to use on an already small platform is always a good thing.

 

[Bytesmiths]

i bought a ppc mac in nov 2005.

I'm pretty sure my quad G5 was purchased in April, 2006.

I don't want to stand in the way of "progress." I don't want to bitch and moan. Still, I tend to run machines a long time, and I'm disappointed. We were told the PPC was the world's first "true 64-bit processor," and now one of the reasons touted for dropping it is so we can have a "true 64-bit OS."

Q: How can you tell an Apple marketing person is lying?

A: Their lips are moving.

 

[Peace]

not that I'm one of them, but that would really screw people over who have office 2004 and dont want to upgrade...

Yeah, vastly less software to use on an already small platform is always a good thing.

Rosetta must be there as an optional install. Office 2004 and the upcoming Quicken Financial Life apps require it.

Quicken Financial Life will be a native Intel app but in order to import data from Quicken for the Mac ( PPC app ) you will need Rosetta to transcode the data to use in the Intel only app.

 

[Sambo110]

You guys realise this is from December of last year?

 

[Peace]

You guys realise this is from December of last year?

It is from last year but the topic covers 10.5.6 AND Snow Leopard.

 

[corinhorn]

Rosetta must be there as an optional install. Office 2004 and the upcoming Quicken Financial Life apps require it.

Apparently, Office 2008 requires it as well. I just tried to install 2008 on SL. Since Rosetta was not installed, Office 2008 was prevented from being installed. Lame. Looks like I'll finally be ditching Office in favor of iWork or OpenOffice.org.

 

[NJL6705]

Two things...

1st: Did 10.5.6 make Rosetta an optional install? I'm still using 10.4 and I have not heard anything further.

2nd: What is Rosetta? I've heard it called a translator and an emulator. Apple said it was not an emulator, though. I always thought they were the same thing. Whats the difference?

 

[AidenShaw]

Rosetta is an emulator, though Mac fans will deny it

2nd: What is Rosetta? I've heard it called a translator and an emulator. Apple said it was not an emulator, though. I always thought they were the same thing. Whats the difference?

The difference is only in semantics.

In English, an "emulator" is something that acts like it is something else.

Since Rosetta (actually it's a OEM deal with Transitive, not an Apple innovation) makes a PowerPC application think that it's running on a PPC CPU even though it's an Intel system, it meets the common English definition of "emulator" - Rosetta is emulating a PPC CPU.

Transitive, however, is smarter than simply emulating individual PPC instructions on an Intel platform. It looks at the PPC code stream, and dynamically "recompiles" (or "translates") it to an equivalent Intel code stream. This can be a big advantage for loops and subroutines - where the same code is repeatedly executed. With a simple ISA emulator, the PPC instructions in the loop would be emulated each cycle. With a translator, once the loop is converted to native code the loop runs at native speed.

In Apple-land, the word "emulator" is tied to the original Virtual PC product that did instruction emulation to run Intel operating systems on PowerPC systems. The performance wasn't great, so now Apple fans are quick to say "Rosetta is not an emulator" to avoid association with the poor performance of the Intel on PPC emulator.