Bring back the Platinum look! Some widgets, like tabs which have close buttons on them, would need to be tweaked, but everything else can stay the same. Obviously, the icons would have a modern look, but otherwise, it is Platinum all the way!Classic was OS 9 support, and yes, that went away with Leopard.
Rosetta is support for OS X applications that can only run on G3/G4/G5 processors.
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.
Mac OS X Lion: Drops PowerPC Emulation, Adds QuickTime Pro Features, Much More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why not? I have currently 4
Snow Leopard for my normal work (750GB)
Snow Leopard for legacy apps (64GB)
Lion for development-tests (64GB)
Windows7 for games (320GB)
I still have PPC games and programs that I use on my Powerbook (see sig). Looks like I'll be keeping my Powerbook G4 around a lot longer than otherwise anticipated when I finally do get a new computer.
To everyone complaining about Rosetta (or the lack thereof),
At what point in time would it be acceptable to you for Apple to drop PPC support? 2 more years, 5? What would you have done then?
The fact is, you knew it would be dropped sooner or later. 5 years is more than generous IMO. If Snow Leopard is serving you well, hang on to it just like those PPC apps.
At what point in time would it be acceptable to you for Apple to drop PPC support? 2 more years, 5? What would you have done then?
The fact is, you knew it would be dropped sooner or later. 5 years is more than generous IMO. If Snow Leopard is serving you well, hang on to it just like those PPC apps.
Sometimes its hard to let go of older technology.
Things like OS9, powerpc chips and windows had a good run. Time to retire them though.
Things like OS9, powerpc chips and windows had a good run. Time to retire them though.
The question isn't "When we should be expected to drop Power P.C. support?" so much as it is "Why should we be expected to drop it?" Rosetta integrates very nicely with the system, so if there aren't any incompatibilities or conflicts and remains relatively low maintenance we should keep it. Granted, licensing fees aren't necessarily what I'd consider low maintenance but that's besides the point.
It'd be nice if there was a reasonably detailed explanation for the inconvenience that illustrates just how we're moving forward with this. With hardware support, I realize you'd preferably optimize the code. With software that simply runs in the background unnoticed and undisturbed, I don't see a reason.
If that's true, then why couldn't we just use the translator or one like it to whip up an x86 binary that would run on Lion?
Last edited:
goMac said:
gnasher729 said:
You're both right. goMac is right in regard to user-mode libraries(Frameworks); PPC versions are installed by the OS. gnasher is right on the system side: PPC apps(and supporting libraries, like Cocoa/Carbon) call the x86 kernel. There is no PPC happening in the kernel.
I'm glad to see another wave of Apple fans realizing what Apple meant when they said they were dropping 'Computer' from the name.
On a practical note, figuring out how to run OS X in VMWare Fusion or Virtual Box is really a good idea. Any USB devices would work perfectly via USB pass-thru to the virtualized OS. Apple doesn't like that, because it prevents them from killing the value of their products.
I agree with the sentiment, but in reality what happens is you use OS X as your toy, and Windows for work and add-on investment.gnasher729 said:
Last edited:
That's what it looks like to me. Maybe Transitive could launch Rosetta as a separate product for those who need it though? On the App store, for Apple to take their 30% of course
Lots of people do. I prefer it over VLC. It looks better and on my computer is snappier and doesn't hang when I quit it (VLC does this for around 15ish seconds). Of course I still have VLC for the odd file that won't play in Quicktime (99% of the videos on my hard drive are in .m4v thanks to Handbrake).
Impossible for whom?
You are absolutely correct. It's not impossible for Apple to maintain backwards compatibility - to PPC and even back to Classic (OS9) if they want.
They don't want. Apple values simplicity over backwards compatibility. Microsoft values backwards compatibility over everything, including simplicity.
Apple (mainly Steve) implements simplicity by throwing away parts of the operating system that either: 1) a "small" percent of people use ("small" gets defined by Steve; or 2) there's a "better" way ("better" gets defined by Steve).
Why can't an OS run Lion, Rosetta, and Classic? Even partial versions would be ok, perhaps partitioning? I find it hard to believe Apple is incapable of doing this, in fact, I find it to be a downright lie.I want to be able to put in a game from 1990 and play it, I don't see why this is now impossible.
You are absolutely correct. It's not impossible for Apple to maintain backwards compatibility - to PPC and even back to Classic (OS9) if they want.
They don't want. Apple values simplicity over backwards compatibility. Microsoft values backwards compatibility over everything, including simplicity.
Apple (mainly Steve) implements simplicity by throwing away parts of the operating system that either: 1) a "small" percent of people use ("small" gets defined by Steve; or 2) there's a "better" way ("better" gets defined by Steve).
This is completely illogical. There is no need for Apple to drop rosetta support. The fact is that there are many games which were never updated for intel. This is for a variety of reasons: developers aren't in business, source code is gone, game was just too old to develop anymore. Apple doesn't have to support individual applications. Rosetta worked fine just leaving it alone. The fact is that they didn't have to remove it.
Your last point makes no sense. You won't be able to run Snow Leopard on future computers.
But that's really the last straw for me. I'm not buying another computer from them.
There are a lot of apps that have no upgrade-- apps that may be useful. I know I'll miss NWN and a few other apps I have. It's enough for me not to switch to 10.7 for me.
What this means is that I (and others that rely on PPC-only applications) won't be able to upgrade to newer hardware after Lion is released...
It doesn't convert the entire app or anything, it's done dynamically where sections of code are converted on the fly. It's nothing that can be saved to be used later.
--Eric
And let them continue to do that until the only software that runs is software purchased from the Mac App Store, and nothing else. That would be the leanest of all.
How would you like to live in that world?
Like many others here, I have a substantial investment in software that is PPC based. Much of that software has no update to Intel, which would mean needing to find a replacement that could do something similar and then learning to work with that in place of my older software. Then there are apps that simply cannot be replaced. Now, if Apple had an honest and legitimate reason (i.e. technical reason) for no longer supporting Rosetta (there was an honest technical reason for ending support for Classic, for example, when they moved to Intel processors), then I could at least be tolerant of the choice and know that by the next time I upgraded my hardware I would have to make sure that I had mostly migrated to entirely Intel compliant software. That's what I did with my Classic apps.
Now all of that being said, what do you suppose the possibilities are of someone figuring out how to hack Rosetta into Lion are, if Apple continues down the foolhardy path of ending Rosetta?
Now all of that being said, what do you suppose the possibilities are of someone figuring out how to hack Rosetta into Lion are, if Apple continues down the foolhardy path of ending Rosetta?
It's called iOS and according to this forum, people cannot imagine anything better. At least not as long as their credit cards aren't maxed out.
Really? "Irrelevant"? Please call up Silicon Image and tell them that, since their SteelVine Manager software for MANY different RAID units is still PowerPC-only.
Both of my two 2x1TB RAID1 mirrored RAIDs use their software. You're basically talking about almost all of my external storage here. And I have NO control over this situation. I'd love to snap my fingers and make them come out with a Universal Binary instead. I'm not holding my breath, let's put it that way.
I'm sure others are in the same boat as me. Dropping Core and Core Duo support to justify 64-bit-only is bad enough - dropping Rosetta is just plain out of spite.
C'mon this is Apple. They've been doing this for the whole century. Are you all THAT surprised?
Mac OS X is based EXACTLY on throwing to the bin every single outdated piece of everything, and bringing support for the latest iterations of the as-closed-as-they-can hardware.
Do you really think Apple could make such a perfect OS keeping all the backwards compatibility and being open to any kind of hardware as Microsoft does?
There MUST be some drawbacks here, this is not a fairy tale, but software engineering. If you want to run applications from the 90s buy a PC and realize what this story is all about.
Mac OS X is based EXACTLY on throwing to the bin every single outdated piece of everything, and bringing support for the latest iterations of the as-closed-as-they-can hardware.
Do you really think Apple could make such a perfect OS keeping all the backwards compatibility and being open to any kind of hardware as Microsoft does?
There MUST be some drawbacks here, this is not a fairy tale, but software engineering. If you want to run applications from the 90s buy a PC and realize what this story is all about.
If Rosetta is such a low-maintenance application, adjusting SheepShaver to run on Lion should also be a simple task. And copying the Rosetta binary over to Lion should essentially also just work.
And Rosetta certainly is not more dependent on frameworks and APIs than other apps like TextWrangler. Thus 'porting' Rosetta over to Lion will not require any considerations when modifying frameworks and APIs in Lion.
Is Apple making any money by not supplying Rosetta anymore? Are we buying new Macs that only run Lion (or buy Lion separately) if we have apps that do not run under Lion?
Certainly no. On the contrary, Apple is losing money by people holding back on upgrades (and by resentment building up). Their decision to not support Rosetta anymore thus bring them other financial benefits, lower development costs and a better OS (by not having to support legacy APIs etc.). But as you say, these must be negligible maintenance cost and the real reason is that Apple just wants to impose its worldview that PPC app are simply not chic anymore.