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

[nelmat]

I've got several fairly expensive apps (PowerPC apps) that I use in my work, and they serve me well. I have no need for them to be updated. They don't offer any new features that I need or want. Assuming Lion will be priced at $129, that's a drop in the bucket compared to what my total cost would be.

So, Apple, tell me again why I would want to "upgrade" to Lion?

You probably don't, and no one is forcing you.

People can't have it both ways. Very latest os and technology, but wanting to run five year old software. That's a LONG time in tech terms. If this is about running a business, then you shouldn't be doing so on five year old tech. If your software of choice isn't being kept up to date, then the software developer is at fault, not apple. If the legacy software is supported, where is the pressure for these software companies to keep up with the times.

We need to move forward, not hang around for lazy companies who can't be bothered to keep up with technology.

You want to run legacy software, do it in a legacy environment.

Lion looks awesome. Bring it on!

 

[nelmat]

I just found a reason not to like Lion (the lack of PPC support).

I understand we need to evolve, but why not support PPC will it make such a dent?)

Also, dashboard without overlaping the screen? (I use it a lot by and for instance the calculator, if I can't see what's on the screen beneath I will have to jump back and forward from screen to dashboard).

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?

Nope, scrollbars are set in system preferences, along with a classic look for mail and address bar for those who don't want computer interfaces to progress.

 

[nelmat]

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

And by giving a transition period of several years, apple ave done exactly this. The hardware hasn't been produced for five years now, but the software is still supported.

Any company that relies on tech and had an upgrade or renewal cycle of more than five years is in trouble. And in any case, no one is being forced to upgrade. You stick to your gramophone records, I'll enjoy 4096 hd content on a fully 64 bit computing system.

 

[BobMcBob]

Nooo! I need Rosetta! I still have powerpc apps!

Too bad. I will not be able to use Mac OS X Lion for a long time. :-(

Long live Snow Leopard!! I will probably stick with 10.6 for a couple years. I guess I will skip Lion and wait to get the next one, 10.8 Cougar.

Snow leopards are cooler than lions anyway.

 

[MrNomNoms]

"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...

How about reading peoples posts instead of bloviating; I've already addressed the reason *WHY* Rosetta has been removed:

Rosetta requires PPC support to be compiled into the binaries - the lack of PPC support compiled into the binaries with Lion.....

Add to that 4.1 will be required for AppStore submissions for Lion which moves from GCC to CLANG/LLVM and the lack of PPC support within CLANG/LLVM means Apple aren't going to add support to CLANG/LLVM of a dying platform (PPC).

I think most people want it for old apps they have not new ones.

How about READING the post; the binaries, the libraries, applications and all the dependencies for an PPC application themselves MUST have PPC binary compiled into the code itself, that is why when you go 'file <file>" on Snow Leopard there is PowerPC code still in the libraries and various parts of the operating system that third party applications rely upon. The PPC application links against PPC code in the libraries and is then converted into x86 at run time - that is how it works, they don't suddenly convert the executable in the application to x86 then re-direct all the PowerPC library calls to the x86 code sitting in the libraries. The PPC emulation is dependent upon PPC code being in the various libraries that applications rely upon.

Jesus H Christ, do some reading and research!

 

[KnightWRX]

...and since you keep repeating and repeating the same thing, I'll repeat myself. I can get a Commodore 64 or an Altair 8800 by your logic, because they still work.

If you need one of those to run some obscure proprietary piece of software to access some data, yes, by all means you should get one that works.

You don't seem to understand practicality. I don't care that Tiger and Leopard and my old TI Calculator still work. They're not of much use when something comes out that does what they did and more.

Seems to me Lion doesn't do what Snow Leopard did for you and more. It does less actually from your ranting. I think you need to think about what you just typed here, it makes no sense.

Does Lion do more or less ?

I can stick with Snow Leopard and Office '08 forever, but I just don't want to. At some point, it'll just makes no sense. Get it yet?

Then at that point you can upgrade both OS X and Office at the same time. Get it yet ?

My point is, again, falling on deaf ears. You don't keep something forever just because it works. I want to upgrade, and there should be no interference in that process, whether it be going from Mac OS 10.6 to 10.7 or a Kenmore to a Frigidaire.

There is no interference. Unless you mean from 3rd parties not updating their proprietary apps with undocumented file formats. Apple is not interfering with your upgrades at all. You can walk into the Apple store and buy the OS anytime, as soon as you're ready to move to it.

Any other gripes you should take up with the vendors of your software packages that are seemingly locking you into old versions. It is the responsibility of those vendors to update their software or provide export mechanisms to unlock your data.

Again, Richard Stallman not sounding too bad now is he ?

 

[Amdahl]

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.

You're trying to be sarcastic, but you are exactly right. OS X and the Frameworks are portable code. It runs on PPC, x86, x64, and ARM. It requires checking only one box in XCode in order to generate user-mode code(which PPC libraries are) for the other platforms.

There was an argument for dropping PPC support in Snow Leopard that 'some' resources were required to continue to boot on PPC, and that was true. The argument for dropping Rosetta isn't there, because ZERO resources are required, and that is almost literally correct. Obviously, some Q&A is necessary. But the software engineering effort is next to zero. Go watch Steve Jobs quotes from the intro of Intel XCode support, if you don't want to believe me. You just check one box.

The only cost to Apple is some licensing of Rosetta(QuickTransit), which is nothing in the grand scheme of things. They do these things just to keep you spending. Not to reach some never-achieved nirvana.

Then you are using software that has been abandoned by the developer. These things can break with any software update. Even a point update could kill them at any moment, even a security update.

Only if Apple screws up. Frameworks have Version control, and any change that would result in differing behavior due to an API change is supposed to be masked by this method. Haven't you noticed there is very little 'DLL-hell' in OS X? Funny how 'fragile' OS X suddenly gets when justifications need to be made for Apple deep-sixing their own products.

Then you can all show us how it is just working fine on Lion.

That would actually be pretty feasible, except it is very likely that Apple will be stripping out support from the program loader for PPC binaries, and it probably wouldn't be very simple to hack back in. But I actually don't rule it out; Darwin is open source, and that might make it possible. There is also a question as to whether Apple would intentionally mutate the system calls to prevent the Snow Leopard PPC libraries from working correctly on Lion. Running SL in a VM is probably the better approach, known to work.

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.

Wrong. Rosetta is only a 3MB optional binary. It actually depends on the PPC libraries which are already installed on every machine at all times. Those will not be present in Lion.

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.

There is no extra effort required until they drop support for Mac OS X apps that were compiled for OS X 10.5. Since the PPC libraries are the same as the 10.5 libraries, there is no extra effort required, as they are the SAME cross-platform code.

Since 10.4 and 10.5 Intel apps are still supported, the sensible ground in this case is leaving Rosetta in.

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...

Apple never owned it. They just licensed it from Transitive. IBM owns it now. I believe they use it to let their POWER servers on AIX run x86 Linux code without recompiling.

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

Because then you wouldn't need to Buy New Stuff.

 

[crazykid888]

No more PowerPc support means no more Diablo 2
Hopefully D3 will be out earlier than the end of this year!!

 

[KnightWRX]

Obviously, some Q&A is necessary.

Obviously, Q&A isn't free, and since Apple has stopped selling PPC machines quite a while ago, it makes sense that they don't want to pay for it anymore.

 

[Amdahl]

Obviously, Q&A isn't free, and since Apple has stopped selling PPC machines quite a while ago, it makes sense that they don't want to pay for it anymore.

Well, if they can't hack the computer biz, they need to get out and focus on toys.

As I explained above, there is no justification for dropping Rosetta until they also drop support for Intel OS X apps that run on 10.4 and 10.5.

 

[unwinded]

Dunno why Apple wants to can PPC. I know it's obsolete but there is technically no reason that it can't run it. I mean, iOS runs on ARM which is different architecture. I know they just want to abandon PPC but still, it's silly. Whatever....

 

[janil]

Add to that 4.1 will be required for AppStore submissions for Lion which moves from GCC to CLANG/LLVM and the lack of PPC support within CLANG/LLVM means Apple aren't going to add support to CLANG/LLVM of a dying platform (PPC).

Why does this mean that Rosetta support needs to be dropped? It doesn't. It does mean that Apple would need to refactor PPC support a bit differently in the OS, similar in fashion to what Microsoft does with Windows and side-by-side DLLs (I'm assuming that Lion still uses Mach-O for its executable format) Yes, this would be a non-trivial project. But it would only have be done one time, and once complete, could be carried onto new versions of the OS.

Personally, I wouldn't care much about Apple dropping PPC support if Apple started supporting the use of OS X client in virtual machines, and those virtual machines with hardware accelerated graphics. But Apple, in its wisdom, prohibits that in its EULA.

Apple *could* have kept PPC application support if they wished to do so-- LLVM support or not.

 

[MrNomNoms]

Why does this mean that Rosetta support needs to be dropped? It doesn't. It does mean that Apple would need to refactor PPC support a bit differently in the OS, similar in fashion to what Microsoft does with Windows and side-by-side DLLs (I'm assuming that Lion still uses Mach-O for its executable format) Yes, this would be a non-trivial project. But it would only have be done one time, and once complete, could be carried onto new versions of the OS.

Personally, I wouldn't care much about Apple dropping PPC support if Apple started supporting the use of OS X client in virtual machines, and those virtual machines with hardware accelerated graphics. But Apple, in its wisdom, prohibits that in its EULA.

Apple *could* have kept PPC application support if they wished to do so-- LLVM support or not.

Yes, and it would require them to invest money into a new way of doing something for an architecture that is dying - if I were Apple I would support Snow Leopard for another 3 years. That would give end users enough time to move from PPC applications to x86 without having to provide a huge investment setting up this hypothetical new way of providing PPC binary support without PPC binary code being included in the system binaries themselves.

The net result of the PPC support and code dropped has been the size of binaries dropping to 2/3rds the original size. I don't know about you but I'm pretty damn happy if my total installation size drops because all the binaries are no longer carrying around useless PPC code simply to facilitate the providing of backwards compatibility.

Now the people I do feel sorry for are the 32bit CPU users who purchased their computer and now finding that Lion no longer supports their computer - those people I feel sorry for. Those with PPC binaries I have no sympathy for what so ever. If a lowly shift manager like me can afford to update my software from PPC to x86 then I'm sure people running businesses and earning considerably more than I do can do likewise.

 

[AidenShaw]

Yes, and it would require them to invest money into a new way of doing something for an architecture that is dying...

And it would mean that Apple listened to the needs of their long-time customers.

The teenagers buying Itoys don't care about PPC, so Apple gives it the shove...

 

[softpanther]

Cant wait to get my paws on that lion

 

[AnonMac50]

I'm going to join the Developer account soon. I want to know is there a feedback section (that may decide wether I join or not). If there is, could developers who want Rosetta back please send feedback to Apple to tell them that they should return Rosetta to Lion? Thanks.

AnonMac50

 

[KnightWRX]

As I explained above, there is no justification for dropping Rosetta until they also drop support for Intel OS X apps that run on 10.4 and 10.5.

That makes no sense whatsoever. That would require a rewrite of every framework in OS X to drop support for apps that run on 10.4 and 10.5 (heck, even 10.0, 10.1 as some frameworks are still compatible with those releases, even though not on Intel obviously).

As long as you target only frameworks available on 10.4 Intel, your binary will always work.

PPC support requires extra Q&A and is not just an extra check box in Xcode, especially not for library/framework code where Endianness issues might arise. Remember, PPC is big endian, Intel is little endian.

 

[sarge]

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.

When I upgraded to Leopard I discovered I the printer drivers weren't available for 10.6 It was more than a year before I could use my $800 inkjet w/o going back to my tiger setup. Clearly the manufacturer, in my case Epson, was accountable for this but it illustrates a major frustration we all experience from time to time. Vendors need to be more responsive in updating their products and not leave clients in the lurch -product support is factoring more and more into my purchase decisions.

 

[Amdahl]

That makes no sense whatsoever. That would require a rewrite of every framework in OS X to drop support for apps that run on 10.4 and 10.5 (heck, even 10.0, 10.1 as some frameworks are still compatible with those releases, even though not on Intel obviously).

Exactly my point. It makes no sense to drop PPC Frameworks that are already written for 10.4&10.5 APIs, just as it makes no sense to drop Intel Frameworks that are already written for 10.4&10.5 APIs, because they are the same. Universal.

As long as you target only frameworks available on 10.4 Intel, your binary will always work.

You mean until Apple decides it doesn't want apps written for 10.4 or 10.5 to work. Then you'll come on here and tell us how much work it was to keep it working.

PPC support requires extra Q&A and is not just an extra check box in Xcode, especially not for library/framework code where Endianness issues might arise. Remember, PPC is big endian, Intel is little endian.

The code is already written. The endianness issues were already addressed. OS X is written to be portable.

FreeBSD (upon which large parts of OS Xare based) deals with this issue very easily. With each major release, there may be changes to the libraries. These changes might break binary apps that were compiled for a previous major release. Instead of being 'stuck in the past,' they make the changes, and then have an optional install of previous libraries. In this way, a new FreeBSD system can be as minimal as possible, and yet you can still run binary code going back decades by simply installing the previous library package. It requires very little effort on the part of FreeBSD to do this, because all it requires is compiling the previous code that is already there. FreeBSD runs on a handful of platforms, Linux runs on dozens, NetBSD runs on dozens. It is NOT HARD to do when your code is portable, as OS X is.

The reason for not doing it is just to suck money out of wallets.

 

[janil]

Yes, and it would require them to invest money into a new way of doing something for an architecture that is dying

It's not an investment in a dying architecture -- no one is buying new PPC Macs these days. It's an investment to support the OS X software library. Like the drivers for my Canon scanner, and several other things. You might not care about running Neverwinter Nights, or one of thousands of applications that were never ported over to Intel, but many people do. Look at this thread for proof.

if I were Apple I would support Snow Leopard for another 3 years. That would give end users enough time to move from PPC applications to x86.

Most of these applications will never move over, for many reasons.

I have a perfectly fine scanner that won't work for me under 10.7 because it relies on PPC code. Sadly, the best solution is to access it using vmware fusion and windows if I upgrade to 10.7. And if I need to do more and more in Windows, what is the point of having a Mac, anyway?

The net result of the PPC support and code dropped has been the size of binaries dropping to 2/3rds the original size. I don't know about you but I'm pretty damn happy if my total installation size drops because all the binaries

There doesn't have to be a size penalty -- it's an optional install and if you run all Intel applications you don't need to install support for it.

It's a moot point, anyway, because Apple made a decision that obsoletes a fair chunk of the software I purchased. They have a habit of doing this, so I'm not surprised. But why should anyone invest in an ecosystem where things are as short lived as they are on OS X right now? Apple never did this with 68k support on a Mac.. you could run 68k programs until the last days of Mac OS 9.2.

Sometimes I miss the days of system 7. Computers were fun at that time.

Those with PPC binaries I have no sympathy for what so ever. If a lowly shift manager like me can afford to update my software from PPC to x86 then

It's not a monetary issue-- many people discussing the issue have advanced degrees in computer science.

There's some software that won't ever be ported to Intel, and it has nothing to do with a willingness to pay for the software.

 

[Mountain Man]

I won't be upgrading to Lion

I'm a teacher and two of my essential everyday programs are PPC-based; my grade book software and my test generator. Plus I use Quicken 2007 and refuse to "upgrade" to "Essentials" and it's reduced functionality. What would Lion possibly offer that is going to make up for these losses?

I used to respond to people who said that PCs were better by saying that "I want a tool, not a hobby." If Apple does indeed do away with PPC support, my tool will be severely blunted and I will be pushed towards having to jump to a PC. Yuk, but I've got work to get done.

 

[Terminal.app]

Can we please stop whining about PowerPC already? Seems like every time Apple releases a new OS, the PowerPC whiners jump in to clog up every thread with their whining.

I'm not trying to imply that I'm totally OK with Apple's strategy of planned obsolescence, but be realistic here: even if Apple still supported PPC and released Lion for PPC, what can you actually do with a 6 year old PowerMac besides browse the Internet and listen to music? I doubt any PowerMac is still usable here in 2011 for anything beyond the aforementioned browsing and music, which it can do just fine with Tiger.

If you want Apple's shiny new OS, then cave in and give them more money. You know you want to.

 

[iEdd]

1. You missed the point entirely. This is not about running Lion on a PPC Mac.

2. Snow Leopard already dropped support for being installed on a PPC Mac.

 

[Hotfudge]

I will stick to Snow Leopard

I see no real advantages for me to upgrade to Lion. I can't speak for anyone else but I feel a lot of features have been removed from Lion that I use, for the sake of change. I need Rosetta for my HP scanner to work, love FrontRow with movie trailers, love the ability to drag an image off a webpage onto the desktop (now you have to right-click to save), hate the new grey icons in mail and Finder, hate Dashboard (now without eye-candy ripple effect) no longer displays over your desktop (I use this a lot for dictionary, thesaurus and calculator and being able to see your desktop underneath is important!), full screen apps are not practical and the new scroll bars with reverse scrolling does not work with all apps - Adobe Photoshop CS5 does but Microsoft Office 2011 doesn't. The only feature I like is the auto-save with Versions, but again only apps written to take advantage of this feature will work and I have a good backup statergy anyway so im not really missing anything here. Launchpad is jouvanile and why on earth is the Library folder now hidden????

It too much loss for too little gain. I will buy the iPad2 but will stick to my Desktop OS working like a desktop OS should and not as an iOS mobile device.

 

[Fraaaa]

I'm a teacher and two of my essential everyday programs are PPC-based; my grade book software and my test generator. Plus I use Quicken 2007 and refuse to "upgrade" to "Essentials" and it's reduced functionality. What would Lion possibly offer that is going to make up for these losses?

I used to respond to people who said that PCs were better by saying that "I want a tool, not a hobby." If Apple does indeed do away with PPC support, my tool will be severely blunted and I will be pushed towards having to jump to a PC. Yuk, but I've got work to get done.

Why can't you keep your current Mac?