Mac OS X Lion: Drops PowerPC Emulation, Adds QuickTime Pro Features, Much More

[KnightWRX]

Anyone whining about fuel prices, don't use it. Anyone whining about rising interest, don't take loans. Anyone whining about the government, move out of the country.

Anyone whining about genuine criticism, get better arguments.

The thing is, with all your examples, there's just no other way around it. I need fuel, but fuel is getting more expensive. There's no alternative there besides changing your whole workflow (use public transit or walk instead of your car, changing your whole itinerary and commute time).

However, running Lion or running Snow Leopard, why does it matter ? If your current workflow works on Snow Leopard and not on Lion, then you're not changing anything by staying with Snow Leopard. That's the key difference here.

The OS is not what you use, it's the application. The OS is simply a gateway to what is really important in a computer : Data and a way to manipulate it. If for you that means Snow Leopard is it, then it is it. If you can get away with Lion to do your stuff, go right ahead.

People need to stop thinking of OSes as the reason to use the computer and start realising it's just a tool. Heck, people clinging to old PPC apps should also realise that they are just tools to access Data. If they can access that Data in supported ways, then they should if they want to go forward with upgrades to their tools. Otherwise, do like the entire populace of computer users has done for quite some time : Don't upgrade.

 

[MrNomNoms]

Context is important. Look at what manu quoted.

I have read the context, here is the first comment:

2. Dropping Rosetta is not connected AT ALL to Apple's "going forward" policy. It will not complicate their code, it will not bloat the system. It can be an optional install, like it was in Leopard, like it is in Snow Leopard. It is a self-contained app.

To which the follow up was as follows:

Keep dreaming, Rosetta does not use any frameworks or APIs, is just a self-contained C app similar to a 'Hello World' app. That is why we can just copy over the binary from a SL installation to a Lion one or at worst copy the installer and run it.

Both of them are wrong - where am I incorrect in my post? how about reading the conversation instead of making half-baked replies.

 

[twoodcc]

i think i might have 1 powerpc app, so that's not a big deal for me. looking forward to Lion now!

 

[Stiksi]

So you basically want a technology company to progress and release ever new improved technology while simultaneously never breaking legacy software that was not even compiled for the CPU architecture you now own?

There's a cost to doing that. And it is a cost that is shared by every user.

There are two views.

The first is to slash and burn, destroy backward compatibility at every step and leave the stragglers to die in the wilderness. The development is focussed on current new users and every effort is for their benefit.

And there is the leave-no-user-behind view. Where backwards compatibility is preserved at all cost. But the overall performance and progress of the platform is compromised by this goal.

And then there is a sensible middle ground.

C.

And the sensible middle ground is actually what I am rooting for. You might as well read the whole entry.

 

[alent1234]

So you basically want a technology company to progress and release ever new improved technology while simultaneously never breaking legacy software that was not even compiled for the CPU architecture you now own?

There's a cost to doing that. And it is a cost that is shared by every user.

There are two views.

The first is to slash and burn, destroy backward compatibility at every step and leave the stragglers to die in the wilderness. The development is focussed on current new users and every effort is for their benefit.

And there is the leave-no-user-behind view. Where backwards compatibility is preserved at all cost. But the overall performance and progress of the platform is compromised by this goal.

And then there is a sensible middle ground.

C.

there's no performance penalty for legacy compatibility except bloat. Windows 7 is around 20GB installed. Reason is that there are multiple copies of dll and other system files. if an old app makes a call to a file then the file checks the version being called for and either answers the call or directs the app to a legacy version

 

[ghostlyorb]

All my engineering friends are not expecting to like Lion.. but I think so far it's going to be good! As long as it's still MAC.. and NOT iOS.

 

[Carniphage]

there's no performance penalty for legacy compatibility except bloat. Windows 7 is around 20GB installed. Reason is that there are multiple copies of dll and other system files. if an old app makes a call to a file then the file checks the version being called for and either answers the call or directs the app to a legacy version

I think you just make a good case for why legacy compatibility is a bad idea.
There is more bloat. More code to maintain. More opportunity for breakage, more surface for security problems to attack and so on.

A sensible middle ground is a window of backward compatibility that is proportional to the lifetime of the device. For a personal computer a 5 year window seems reasonable.

C.

 

[Stiksi]

The thing is, with all your examples, there's just no other way around it. I need fuel, but fuel is getting more expensive. There's no alternative there besides changing your whole workflow (use public transit or walk instead of your car, changing your whole itinerary and commute time).

However, running Lion or running Snow Leopard, why does it matter ? If your current workflow works on Snow Leopard and not on Lion, then you're not changing anything by staying with Snow Leopard. That's the key difference here.

I know my examples aren't a direct comparison, but I think you got the point. It's not a good argument to tell people to stop whining. Stop whining about my whining! See?

It's not just me and my computer, together forever. I have to plan for things that will go wrong. My computer will die, leaving my peripherals mourning but able to go on. However, the new OS does not support them. I have to plan for when my clients upgrade their systems and I have to be able to read their files quickly and correctly.

Everything new and shiny isn't always necessary. If I threw all my devices away every three or four years, do you know how much that would tax the environment? The devices last a lot longer. I'm guessing 7-10 years of active support would go a long way to eliminate these kinds of problems. Then most of the devices will have naturally faded out. After that you can start talking about how people cling to the past. Five years is nothing.

 

[diamond.g]

Very interesting development. Expected (for Apple) but interesting nonetheless. This is one of those situations, where you hope that your existing hardware can be repaired, and that you have no need to buy new hardware. The only downside (to some folks) to the Apple platform is the inability to run an older OS on newer hardware.

 

[Stiksi]

A sensible middle ground is a window of backward compatibility that is proportional to the lifetime of the device. For a personal computer a 5 year window seems reasonable.

C.

No it's not. No personal computer is an island. Do you use a printer, a scanner perhaps? The life expectancy of some peripherals is significantly higher than a personal computer's.

 

[manu chao]

Leopard is the last version of MacOS X that runs on PowerPC. Upgrading the operating system version is a lot cheaper than replacing a computer. But upgrading a computer is still a lot cheaper than upgrading legacy software. That was the reason why people keep using Windows XP (far beyond what Microsoft wants them to do): Because upgrading legacy applications is very, very expensive.

- Snow Leopard was the last OS to support the Core Duo processors
- Leopard was the last OS to support PPC processors (G4 and G5 only)
- Tiger was the last OS to support G3s running faster than 300 MHz
- Panther was the last OS to support the "beige G3" desktop and minitower systems, as well as the PowerBook G3 Series (1998)

Every OS cuts off hardware that was last sold roughly five years before the OS release. People with G3s are stuck at Tiger, people with G4 and G5s at Leopard, people with Core Duos (and Solos) at Snow Leopard.
The only thing that is special about Leopard is that is easier to remember which machines were obsoleted by its successor since the shift to Intel was so memorable.

And having kept XP running for so long was good for people who could not afford to upgrade their hardware (incl. peripherals) or software on a regular schedule. But it also stalled any progress on the OS front for Windows users for a long time and indirectly also stalled progress by third-party software (which did not get to use any new APIs).

 

[greenmeanie]

I am in for the NEW of lion.
We don't want rosetta or the other crap.
I use the new software which is less of a security risk than the old stuff people are holding onto here.

 

[Carniphage]

No it's not. No personal computer is an island. Do you use a printer, a scanner perhaps? The life expectancy of some peripherals is significantly higher than a personal computer's.

But your computer does not explode and destroy your old peripherals when a new OS comes out. You simply have a choice. As Knight says, if it matters to you, you can stick with the old OS.

Here's a metaphor.

I'd like to enjoy all the benefits of having a new wife (lingerie model) Leonie. She is so young and attractive and all.

However, I would also like to retain my entitlement to my first-wife's inheritance. She is expecting a sizeable legacy!

C.

 

[Surreal]

I have read the context, here is the first comment:...

My point is that manu chao was making fun. (I think)

 

[manu chao]

No it's not. No personal computer is an island. Do you use a printer, a scanner perhaps? The life expectancy of some peripherals is significantly higher than a personal computer's.

And I would doubt that the life expectancy per se is higher with peripherals, I'd rather say the rate of progress for peripherals is slower than for computers, thus there is less incentive to upgrade the peripheral. This leads to two things:
(a) the manufacturers of the peripherals create incentives by not supporting their devices for too long
(b) low rate of progress leads to small technical differences between competing manufactures (very few have a significant technological edge) which in turn drives down prices and margins which agains leads to reduced support per device

And as an aside, if you use a networked PS-capable printer, you do not really need a driver (just a PPD file which describes which options the printer is offering).

 

[diamond.g]

I think you just make a good case for why legacy compatibility is a bad idea.
There is more bloat. More code to maintain. More opportunity for breakage, more surface for security problems to attack and so on.

A sensible middle ground is a window of backward compatibility that is proportional to the lifetime of the device. For a personal computer a 5 year window seems reasonable.

C.

I never understood why MS just didn't do virtualization for legacy applications (they sorta do now, but not in an elegant, seamless way). It would have been interesting to have seen Apple go that route.

 

[manu chao]

Wrong; Rosetta requires PPC support to be compiled into the binaries - the lack of PPC support compiled into the binaries with Lion means that you cannot simply just 'drag and drop' the Rosetta app from Snow Leopard to Lion.

Please, for the love of Pete - do some research, you're making my head hurt.

I guess I should have added a sarcasm tag. The 'keep dreaming' introduction was meant as an indicator that I did not agree with the poster I replied too. My post was 'describing' his dream.

 

[eyeluvmyimac]

The "new" scrollbars are just plain stupid; how can you tell if a content has scrollbars unless you rollover that content? Will we have to roolover every window to check if it is scrollable?

+1

Scrollbar can be changed in the preferences.

Thank goodness.

Has nothing to do with micromanaging, if I understand this correctly the OS will save a version/state of my document and quite the application to make memory available for some other task
......
Not sure I the user would appreciate the ability to quite an application if I need more memory rather than the OS decide for me. I do not believe computers have reached that point to decide on something of this nature.

I hate to continue the whine fest, but this isn't about dropping Rosetta.

I'm glad Apple is (at least currently) offering some of the new features and design choices as "options" as pointed out earlier in the thread, but what I'm concerned about is how long they will remain options. In Lion I presume the new features/designs will be the defaults with a preference checkbox to use the old way... and that will be around till 10.8 maybe, then in 10.8 we will have to conform to using the new stuff, regardless of how usable it is.

I hate the new scrollbars because they are ugly as sin and as someone else said above, it's a terrible design choice to not know if you have scrollable content without rolling over the scroll area.

Similar complaint for the light indicators in the dock combined with ever-running apps. I'm sure Apple will do a decent job of creating this feature, but the OS will not know when I feel the computer is running too slowly and I would want to close some apps. It will also not know if I want to leave something running for some reason. There is a reason and a purpose behind having apps "open" and "closed".

And why in the freaking world did they think bringing the launchpad and folders from the iPad were a good idea. Launchpad is the same as the Application folder stack in your dock with just a different, more obtrusive look. Now it takes up the whole screen when you want to open an app. And could they really not come up with a better way to do folders on these high-res large notebook and desktop displays? The folder icon is sufficient - though still a little ugly - on iPhones and iPads with their small screens, but on a Mac you have tons of room! Make it look a little better please, and make it a little simpler to use. It requires too many clicks to get in and out of folders.

Lastly, full-screen apps and I'm sure eventually modal windows will be coming to OS X since they are so hooked on making it into an iPad. I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've used or wanted to use an application in full screen mode in the last 6 months. This is useful for pro-style apps (Final Cut, Photoshop, etc), but I don't want to use iCal in full screen mode. I don't want to read my email in full screen mode. I typically don't want to even write a document in full screen mode. Again, there is a reason we as a society have created windows within computer interfaces that move around - we like to multitask. We use one window to help us in another. Just because you CAN make the Mac into a more powerful iPad doesn't mean you should.

The iPad has a great interface, for an all touch, handheld computer. That doesn't mean it will be a great interface in another medium. If an iPad could do everything we needed, we wouldn't need a computer. Now they want to make the Mac into a faster, stronger iPad with some of these new OS features and I'm sure that trend will continue into 10.9 and 10.10 where some of the things that are currently (in Lion) going to be options will be phased out and mandatory UI elements.

This is why I'm scared about the direction Apple is heading in with their OS and why for the first time I'm considering not upgrading to the latest OS once it is released - depending on how it looks when that date comes.

 

[Stiksi]

But your computer does not explode and destroy your old peripherals when a new OS comes out. You simply have a choice. As Knight says, if it matters to you, you can stick with the old OS.

Here's a metaphor.

I'd like to enjoy all the benefits of having a new wife (lingerie model) Leonie. She is so young and attractive and all.

However, I would also like to retain my entitlement to my first-wife's inheritance. She is expecting a sizeable legacy!

C.

New to the whole metaphor game? I've already answered that argument multiple times on this thread.

 

[Fishrrman]

"I'm sorry, but this is just beyond stupid for Apple to do this. My old games and programs won't work on their new OS, and yet the very same games and programs will work perfectly on Windows 7?"

I'd have to say that I agree.

Time marches on, and I would expect that SOMEday Apple would drop support for Rosetta, but it's too soon to do that yet.

As another poster mentioned, 10 years is a "right number" for support of legacy software -- not just 5.

Unless there were unbreachable technical gaps in melding Rosetta into Lion, it should have been retained for the time being.

Another poster suggested that folks who rely upon PowerPC-based apps and Rosetta are "on the fringe" was totally off-base. My guess is that there are many, many out there who still use Rosetta in day-to-day computing (even if they don't realize that they do).

Snow Leopard was a hit, but I sense that Lion could flounder on this issue. I, for one, will just let it pass by for the time being.

If there are enough complaints, and again, if its technically possible, we might even see Apple make amends and re-offer Rosetta.

Or, perhaps they should consider selling the Rosetta code off to a 3rd party developer. After all, Apple _did_ originally buy Rosetta from an independent developer...

 

[manu chao]

but the OS will not know when I feel the computer is running too slowly and I would want to close some apps. It will also not know if I want to leave something running for some reason. There is a reason and a purpose behind having apps "open" and "closed".

Yeah, no the OS cannot know that when I do something in the foreground app, I prefer to have the app responsive and slow down any background apps for that. And it cannot know that playing audio has priority to other computing tasks. And it also cannot know that it can swap out memory that apps have marked as inactive.

Of course the OS cannot know whether it should prioritise an Aperture export or a video encoding when both are in the background. And it cannot know whether to swap document A in application 1 or document B in application 2 when both are in the background.

 

[KnightWRX]

I know my examples aren't a direct comparison, but I think you got the point. It's not a good argument to tell people to stop whining. Stop whining about my whining! See?

There's a point where constructive criticism just turns into useless whining. I was pointing out the Rosetta crying was getting out of hands.

It's not just me and my computer, together forever. I have to plan for things that will go wrong. My computer will die, leaving my peripherals mourning but able to go on. However, the new OS does not support them. I have to plan for when my clients upgrade their systems and I have to be able to read their files quickly and correctly.

This is how the industry is unfortunately. Data in proprietary formats is what the FSF denounces and what produces vendor lock-in. Once you're locked, you're stuck at the whims of the vendor. With open data formats, it doesn't matter what your hardware/OS vendor does since you can easily migrate the data off of it if it doesn't work anymore.

Now, Apple doesn't want to drag legacy support around anymore. They want to move away from it. Why should they care and spend money if a vendor like Silicon Image doesn't want to invest in writing proper, updated software management for their RAID array ?

Your choice as a user who bought into these proprietary software solutions is to either swallow that pill and make sure you keep old hardware/OSes around or find ways to unlock your data.

Richard Stallman doesn't sound so looney now does he ?

Everything new and shiny isn't always necessary.

Exactly my point. Lion isn't necessary if your workflow currently works on Leopard/Snow Leopard/Tiger/Panther/Whatever.

If I threw all my devices away every three or four years, do you know how much that would tax the environment? The devices last a lot longer. I'm guessing 7-10 years of active support would go a long way to eliminate these kinds of problems. Then most of the devices will have naturally faded out. After that you can start talking about how people cling to the past. Five years is nothing.

LTS (Long Term Support) is not something you want to invest in as a vendor for consumer products. If you want LTS, I suggest you go for entreprise grade vendors. HP still supports us on boxes built in the 90s, running an OS from the 90s.

We haven't migrated these boxes yet because of the same issue people are faced it with here with Rosetta and Classic. We have HP PA-RISC software that doesn't work right on the emulation layer provided for IA-64 boxes.

 

[dethmaShine]

And the sensible middle ground is actually what I am rooting for. You might as well read the whole entry.

The sensible middle ground was always there; is still there: Snow Leopard.
Apple gave more than 5 years for everyone to get stuff working on Native Cocoa and now when there's no support, everyone starts to fall back.

The point is; you want new OS but you wish to stick to a software that was written a decade ago. Make a choice and move on.

And if you can't, use a VM to use SL. Simple.

 

[dethmaShine]

Thank goodness.

I hate the new scrollbars because they are ugly as sin and as someone else said above, it's a terrible design choice to not know if you have scrollable content without rolling over the scroll area.

You just understood that the scroll bar preferences can be changed and now you do it again.

 

[eyeluvmyimac]

Yeah, no the OS cannot know that when I do something in the foreground app, I prefer to have the app responsive and slow down any background apps for that. And it cannot know that playing audio has priority to other computing tasks. And it also cannot know that it can swap out memory that apps have marked as inactive.

Of course the OS cannot know whether it should prioritise an Aperture export or a video encoding when both are in the background. And it cannot know whether to swap document A in application 1 or document B in application 2 when both are in the background.

Obviously, I won't be able to convince you otherwise, but there is a difference between prioritizing/backgrounding applications and completely closing/suspending them.

On top of that, OS X and many Apple apps are also pretty RAM hungry, and even in Snow Leopard RAM management seems mediocre, at best. Although theoretically "inactive" RAM is supposedly free for the system to use, in practice the system slows down and starts using the pagefile once all of the free RAM converts to inactive RAM. This is why I had to make a cronjob that checks the size of the inactive RAM periodically, then purges it.

Obviously, the system will prioritize CPU cycles among the open tasks according to which applications are active, etc. But I know more than the OS can know about what I want to do and how I feel the system is responding. And perhaps more important (depending on how Apple executes it), I don't want applications closing/suspending whenever the OS thinks it should. I'll close it when I'm done with it. If I haven't closed it, there is a reason. I didn't just forget.