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

[MrNomNoms]

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.

Sorry but these peoples views represent but a very small minority of the over all user base - to quote my sister, "Power-what?" when telling her about Lion. The new user base who have started off with Intel based Mac's simply don't care - they are the future of Apple and not the people who think that some how Apple owes them a living because they 'stuck by them through thick and thin' as if it were some sort of rugby club you've stuck with even after losing games every weekend for the last 10 years.

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?

What make/model is the scanner and how old is it? If your hardware vendor can't even be bothered to provide a driver for it then it is a clear message to me that purchasing off that said company in the future isn't a smart idea.

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.

There is a size penalty because for PPC support to be provided PPC support needs to be compiled into the various libraries and other executables that exist - there is a reason why the various libraries have i386/x86-64/PPC code all compiled into it on Snow Leopard, because the PPC application links against the PPC code in the libraries and when it is running it is translated into x86 at run time - so to run it still needs the PPC support in the libraries themselves. I've already explain this issue numerous times in the thread and the likes of you keep deliberately ignoring the explanation in favour of going on a tirade about how you feel 'let down' by Apple. You may not like the explanation given but those are the facts - either deal with them or get over it.

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.

And guess what - I used KindWords on my Amiga for many years before moving and I was adamant to keep with my Amiga because I couldn't find something exactly like what I was used to. I eventually put on my big boy pants and realised that the world was moving forward and I had to as well.

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.

So hang on, you'll throw away your PPC applications and move to an entirely new platform that'll require you to re-purchase all your old applications again? pardon my expression (that you cannot see) but I'm dumbfounded by such logic - that is like complaining about Microsoft's lack of backwards compatibility then in a storm and fit claiming you're going to move to Linux - what you're saying makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

 

[KnightWRX]

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.

No one is dropping 10.4/10.5 APIs for a time. Dropping the PPC frameworks is not at all related.

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.

When Apple decides its time to deprecate a few frameworks here and there, they will do it no matter what you or I say. They have done so a few times since 10.0. However, a lot of it still remains.

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

Until they have to write in bug fixes to that code and then Q&A has to go through all those regression tests, including PPC/Rosetta tests. If one PPC test fails because of endianess, then the bug fix has to be rewritten, even though Apple does not ship PPC machines.

All that code being written doesn't make it bug free. Fixing bugs does not require breaking API compatibility. That is where you are confused I think and not seeing it for what it is.

BTW, OS X is only very loosely based on FreeBSD. For 1, they use the Mach Kernel from Carnegie Mellon (which is a whole different University than Berkeley). 2nd, they use mostly a GNU userland. All their GUI is home-made. Their Cocoa frameworks are just an extended version of NeXTSTEP's work. Their init system is based on launchd instead of FreeBSD's init.

Are there even similarities ? Might be a few userland tools that are from BSD, who knows anymore.

 

[roadbloc]

People can't have it both ways. Very latest os and technology, but wanting to run five year old software.

Windows 7 can manage it. The majority of *nix OS's can as well.

 

[KnightWRX]

Windows 7 can manage it.

Windows 7 also just runs Windows XP in a VM to manage it. Maybe Apple should just implement a similar system where Snow Leopard runs in a VM to run Rosetta.

The majority of *nix OS's can as well.

The funny part is just yesterday I had a problem with an IBM software package on a Itanium HP-UX box. It worked fine, but a borked upgrade left ARIES not functionning properly and the IBM software won't start anymore.

ARIES is a PA-RISC emulator for HP-UX running on the latest OS that only runs on Itanium boxes. Sounds familiar ? Wonder where Apple got the idea for Rosetta... Of course, the major difference is that the money we pay HP for this OS would probably give you a couple of Mac Pros. And the hardware would probably buy you a house or 2.

However, this is one of the first time I've seen this (before I even knew about Macs/Rosetta). Unix is mostly portable at the code level. You build/install for 1 architecture and code is written in a way that makes this possible over a wide range of architectures. It doesn't mean your MIPS elf binary will run on x86 Linux though.

 

[roadbloc]

Windows 7 also just runs Windows XP in a VM to manage it. Maybe Apple should just implement a similar system where Snow Leopard runs in a VM to run Rosetta.

I have never had to use XP Mode in all my time of using Windows 7. In fact, I don't think I know anyone who has. Windows 95 Apps such as Quake 2 run absolutly spot on as they did when I first got them without the need for any "hacks" or developer updates.

 

[AidenShaw]

What make/model is the scanner and how old is it? If your hardware vendor can't even be bothered to provide a driver for it then it is a clear message to me that purchasing off that said company in the future isn't a smart idea.

Don't you mean

What make/model is the computer and how old is it? If your computer vendor can't even be bothered to provide an OS for it then it is a clear message to me that purchasing off that said company in the future isn't a smart idea.​

I have never had to use XP Mode in all my time of using Windows 7.

I don't use XP Mode per se, but I do keep an XP virtual machine around to run 16-bit code and some old scanner/printer drivers that haven't been updated for x64. It's been months since I've run the VM though....

 

[KnightWRX]

I have never had to use XP Mode in all my time of using Windows 7. In fact, I don't think I know anyone who has. Windows 95 Apps such as Quake 2 run absolutly spot on as they did when I first got them without the need for any "hacks" or developer updates.

Might work for Win32 apps, but try some Win16 apps for fun . Heck, I'd be surprised if they all worked perfectly, since NTVDM was already a huge kludge back in the NT 4.0 days. And DOS apps is a whole other ballgame. Even back in the Windows 95 days they were mostly badly broken and required the famous "Drop to DOS" mode or a straight boot disk.

Quake 2 uh ? What about Quake ? You know, the DOS4GW (you do know DOS4GW ? The 32 bit "DOS" that basically unloaded DOS and loaded itself as your operating environnement) based game. Not GLQuake or VQuake which are Win32 applications.

The point is, every vendor breaks backwards compatibility at some point. Some do it faster than others, but that's just the reality of life in computers. Your grading software and test generator will need to be replaced at some point, maybe you should start asking your vendor about it if it is that important to you, or maybe you should switch to a vendor that will support its products going forward.

 

[janil]

they are the future of Apple and not the people who think that some how Apple owes them a living because they 'stuck by them through thick and thin' as if it were some sort of rugby club you've stuck with even after losing games every weekend for the last 10 years.

That's quite a big assumption, isn't it? So anyone that wants to be able to occasionally run an older OS X application -- one that happens to be PPC -- thinks that Apple owes them a living?

Will you be taking the same stance in a few years if Apple switches to ARM and then drops Intel support?

There is a size penalty because for PPC support to be provided PPC support needs to be compiled into the various libraries and other executables that exist -

Those binaries can be stripped of PPC code -- I see no reason to have the code installed unless Rosetta (or similar support) is going to be used.

You can do that now if you want to save a little bit of disk space.

Apple could simply provide virtualized support for 10.5/10.6, too... and then it is simply

And guess what - I used KindWords on my Amiga for many years before moving and I was adamant to keep with my Amiga because I couldn't find something exactly like what I was used to.

That's completely different. Different operating systems. Different manufacturers. It's like expecting Android apps to work on the iPhone. This is saying that iOS 5 came out , breaking a lot of apps that worked in iOS 4.

I don't see your point, unless it is name calling.

So hang on, you'll throw away your PPC applications and move to an entirely new platform that'll require you to re-purchase all your old applications again?

The software will need to be repurchased anyway for some people. Would you stay with a platform that quickly drops support for anything you buy today -- and risk being put in the same situation a few years from now-- or would you learn from your mistake and switch to a platform that values compatibility a bit more?

What's sad is that Apple could easily keep support if they wished to do so -- at a tiny cost... a blip in EPS.. compared to their profits or cash reserves -- and they chose not to do so. I love using OS X and Macs, too. So it's a sad day to realize that I'll probably need to move on at some point.

 

[roadbloc]

Quake 2 uh ? What about Quake ?

Quake is a DOS apllication and therefore needs Dosbox to open. However 16bit apps work grand on 32bit Windows 7.

So yes, I admit, DOS apps need emulation to work on Windows. Happy? Them apps are over 15 years old which is understandable. Just over 5 years with no actual way of running them without keeping Snow Leopard or Leopard isn't.

 

[KnightWRX]

Quake is a DOS apllication and therefore needs Dosbox to open. However 16bit apps work grand on 32bit Windows 7.

Seeing how Win16 apps have never worked grand on 32 bit versions of Windows, this is quite the claim. Again, NTVDM was never up to par. It worked in some cases. It was a huge kludge. It still is.

And the Windows XP virtualization is also used for some Win32 apps, it is quite disingenious to claim this is not so and that "all 32 bit apps worked fine". If they did, why go through the trouble of shipping XP in a complete, virtualized form ? Why are people not upgrading to Vista and 7 and keeping XP around ?

The fact is, Vista broke some compatibility, Windows 7 offers a huge kludge to work around it. If all this was about was 16 bit apps (Win16) and DOS apps, NTVDM was plenty for those. Just actually make it work instead of "maybe it will work".

So yes, I admit, DOS apps need emulation to work on Windows. Happy?

No, you again ignore NTVDM, which is the same emulation used for DOS and Win16 apps on the 32 bit NT platform.

Them apps are over 15 years old which is understandable. Just over 5 years with no actual way of running them without keeping Snow Leopard or Leopard isn't.

This is whole dependant on the vendor. LTS (Long Term Support) is something you pay for in this industry and is usually reserved to Enterprise vendors. Apple is not an enterprise vendor and as such, they have much shorter lifespans on applications/frameworks/products. That too is understandable.

 

[AidenShaw]

Might work for Win32 apps, but try some Win16 apps for fun . Heck, I'd be surprised if they all worked perfectly, since NTVDM was already a huge kludge back in the NT 4.0 days. And DOS apps is a whole other ballgame. Even back in the Windows 95 days they were mostly badly broken and required the famous "Drop to DOS" mode or a straight boot disk.

Actually, I do use a VM for Win16/DOS apps, as I said. ("XP Mode" is simply a background virtual machine with the application window on the host desktop - like Unity on VMware and Coherence in Parallels.) I have a Win3.1 graphics application for downloading and analyzing scuba dive logs. To read the old data files, I need the old utility. (My current dive computer software is Win7 certified, of course.)

Dos/16-bit Windows apps that don't access the hardware directly work fine. DOS had no protection - some apps like ones that used serial would often "peek" and "poke" the device registers directly, without using a device driver.

I think that we have different opinions about the usefulness of NTVDM. It has one obvious limitation (no direct hardware access) which eliminates some programs, but that doesn't make it a "kludge". If you want to run DOS4GW, run DOS in a virtual machine - don't try to run an OS in an application support environment.

The point is, every vendor breaks backwards compatibility at some point. Some do it faster than others, but that's just the reality of life in computers.

There's a balance - Microsoft still supports DOS apps in Win7 x86 after 19 years. After 15 years DOS support was dropped in x64 Windows client.

Did many people use it? No, but it was kept until hardly anyone noticed when it was dropped. And you still have the options of choosing 16-bit apps instead or more than 3.25 GiB of RAM, or using XP Mode.

 

[KnightWRX]

There's a balance

Which is entirely subjective and up to the vendor, depending on the revenue they want to dedicate to it and that they think they make from it. Apple isn't in the wrong here, nor are the users. Backwards compatibility has always been about compromises and workarounds, be it on the user part (Windows 95 making you use "boot disks" or "Drop the DOS" mode) or on the vendor part (Windows NT providing NTVDM or Apple providing Classic and Rosetta).

 

[Dranix]

I
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?

Just get Vuescan...

 

[Dranix]

The software will need to be repurchased anyway for some people. Would you stay with a platform that quickly drops support for anything you buy today -- and risk being put in the same situation a few years from now-- or would you learn from your mistake and switch to a platform that values compatibility a bit more?

*Quickly*? The last PPC-Macs have been sold 5 years ago and SnowLeopard will be supported for at least for another 2 years. 7 years - you call that quick?

 

[AidenShaw]

*Quickly*? The last PPC-Macs have been sold 5 years ago and SnowLeopard will be supported for at least for another 2 years. 7 years - you call that quick?

Makes sense. And since it'll soon be 5 years since Apple sold a Core Duo system, they can drop support for 32-bit binaries completely. Everyone's had plenty of time to buy new 64-bit software.

 

[Dranix]

Lion *drops* support for 32bit Intel - in Hardware, Apps work flawless.

 

[Amdahl]

...or maybe you should switch to a vendor that will support its products going forward.

Who would have thought Apple would make Microsoft look so good.

The software will need to be repurchased anyway for some people. Would you stay with a platform that quickly drops support for anything you buy today -- and risk being put in the same situation a few years from now-- or would you learn from your mistake and switch to a platform that values compatibility a bit more?

What's sad is that Apple could easily keep support if they wished to do so -- at a tiny cost... a blip in EPS.. compared to their profits or cash reserves -- and they chose not to do so. I love using OS X and Macs, too. So it's a sad day to realize that I'll probably need to move on at some point.

Exactly!

So yes, I admit, DOS apps need emulation to work on Windows. Happy? Them apps are over 15 years old which is understandable. Just over 5 years with no actual way of running them without keeping Snow Leopard or Leopard isn't.

They(powerpc apps) aren't over 5 years old. PowerPC was a fully supported binary format until Aug 28, 2009. On that date, Snow Leopard was released and Rosetta was an optional install. I am not aware of ANY communication from Apple announcing that the PowerPC binary was 'deprecated' and was going to be removed entirely. Even if such an announcement exists, the timelines still speak for themselves.

 

[Mountain Man]

No...I just won't upgrade to Lion.

Please don't quote out of context...

So hang on, you'll throw away your PPC applications and move to an entirely new platform that'll require you to re-purchase all your old applications again? pardon my expression (that you cannot see) but I'm dumbfounded by such logic - that is like complaining about Microsoft's lack of backwards compatibility then in a storm and fit claiming you're going to move to Linux - what you're saying makes absolutely no sense what so ever.[/QUOTE]

 

[Mountain Man]

Rosetta

Why can't you keep your current Mac?

Exactly what I intend to do, sans Lion.

 

[KnightWRX]

They(powerpc apps) aren't over 5 years old. PowerPC was a fully supported binary format until Aug 28, 2009. On that date, Snow Leopard was released and Rosetta was an optional install. I am not aware of ANY communication from Apple announcing that the PowerPC binary was 'deprecated' and was going to be removed entirely. Even if such an announcement exists, the timelines still speak for themselves.

Uh ? The keynote announcing the switch from PPC to Intel was pretty much the official announcement from Apple that PPC was deprecated. If after that date as a vendor you weren't working on moving your stuff to Intel, I don't know what to say and it's not Apple's fault that you failed to keep up with the times.

Sucks for users of your product I guess.

 

[Amdahl]

Uh ? The keynote announcing the switch from PPC to Intel was pretty much the official announcement from Apple that PPC was deprecated.

Link please (or quotes at least), as I do not recall Apple saying anything of the sort. In fact, the presentation was all about Universal, continued support for PPC, and how great it was all going to be. Only when SL was near shipping, with no PPC support, did anybody start to realize Apple had no intentions of delivering on the promise. Until that time, it was reasonable to expect a normal lifetime for PPC products, just as 68k products had a very long run even after new Macs switched to PowerPC.

 

[AidenShaw]

Uh ? The keynote announcing the switch from PPC to Intel was pretty much the official announcement from Apple that PPC was deprecated.

In the same keynote, Apple announced Rosetta. However, they didn't call it a "limited time offering".

One could assume after the keynote that PPC apps were still OK, even on Intel processors.

If after that date as a vendor you weren't working on moving your stuff to Intel, I don't know what to say and it's not Apple's fault that you failed to keep up with the times.

Even if you were working "as a vendor" to do that, many of your customers were happy with the PPC apps that that had, and didn't see the need to pay to upgrade to fat binary or Intel versions.

And what about the vendors who'd gone out of business, or applications that had been EOL'd by the vendor?

Apple hurts its customers, plain and simple. The cost of supporting Rosetta has to be noise in Apple's financials.

Lion *drops* support for 32bit Intel - in Hardware, Apps work flawless.

At least for a few months, until those Core Duos hit the 5 year mark and Apple drops x86 support.

If having PPC streams in the fat binaries is such a horrible cost that Rosetta has to go - then surely getting rid of x86 streams and going to thin binaries with only x64 support will be monumental.

More and more, it looks like Microsoft's design of having separate x86 and x64 kits is a good idea.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

- PowerPC (Rosetta) emulation is no longer offered. That means if you have any PowerPC applications they won't be able to run in Mac OS X Lion. You

Yet another reason to not upgrade to Lion, I see. Sorry, but I don't want to pay Adobe a small fortune to upgrade to Photoshop CS4 (or newer) just to get Intel support when CS3 runs fine under Rosetta for my uses, at least. The same goes for Microsoft Office '04. I don't use it enough to justify a new version just because Apple decided to free up some more disk space (no other reason in the Universe to remove Rosetta other than Steve's gigantic ego).

Destroying the well laid-out spaces grid really sounds onerous as well, IMO. Good one Apple!

Also, who honestly uses Quicktime anymore? VLC is free and open source, is there anything Quicktime can do that VLC can't? Also, when I use the two, Quicktime uses more computational resources.

I don't know what it is about today's newer generations that think because they use something that everyone else in the known Universe must use it too. I have VLC here. I almost NEVER use it. My whole house audio/video system is organized around iTunes, so guess what, Holmes? That's what I use most of the time. I also use XBMC (due to compatibility with hacked AppleTV). Screw VLC. If it doesn't run all around the house, it's of no use to me. I don't normally watch videos from my desk. I watch them on a 46" plasma upstairs and a 93" LCD projector/screen combo downstairs.

 

[KnightWRX]

In the same keynote, Apple announced Rosetta. However, they didn't call it a "limited time offering".

If you thought Rosetta was announced as anything more than a stop gap measure to help migration, I don't know what to say. "Hey, let's keep working on PPC, there's Rosetta after all!" shows a great disconnect with the reality of the industry.

Just like vendors don't actively work on PA-RISC code just because ARIES is around on HP-UX.

And what about the vendors who'd gone out of business, or applications that had been EOL'd by the vendor?

You do what the rest of the industry does in that case, you look for migration paths and you stick with the older OS that works fine in the mean time, just like we kept a few HP-UX 11iv1 boxes around running on PA-RISC for stuff that just doesn't work on ARIES.

Man, such a hard concept. Lion shipping doesn't break Snow Leopard.

 

[AidenShaw]

Man, such a hard concept. Lion shipping doesn't break Snow Leopard.

For many, though, Rosetta not shipping breaks Lion.

And the benefit is....?