OS X Lion to Drop 'Rosetta' Support for PowerPC Applications

[CWallace]

I'm fortunate that I think the only thing I am going to lose under Lion is my Epson scanner (since the Epson app is PPC), but I'll just use that under Windows 7 via VM (and actually gain some functionality since Epson has updated the Windows client where they haven't the Mac).

You can run SL via a VM, correct? So that should be an option for folks who must (or wish to) continue to support PPC software/hardware.

And to add on to superfula's comments, it's supporting those decades of legacy apps and APIs that contributes a good bit to the mess that is Windows' code base.

 

[AidenShaw]

Touché.

Steeve is the angle of the bowsprit in relation to a horizontal plane (in a sailing ship).

And the root of "stevedore" (pronounced "Steve adore")....

 

[Amdahl]

[sent to sjobs@apple.com]

Dear Steve,

...

Respectfully yours,
Stephen

The goal that might be achieved is getting a warning to pop up if Rosetta has been installed on Snow Leopard.

 

[firewood]

I'm intrigued - is there much PPC only software still out therE?

I've seen the daily download count for some 68K software for Mac, and it's not zero.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Surfer-speak aside, you're wrong. The functionality was introduced so people wouldn't be skittish about updating to an Intel Mac due to lack of software/chicken and the egg problem. Essentially, if your old software didn't work on Intel Macs why not jump ship to Windows if you're going to have to rebuy everything. It was never meant as a crutch for developers to use ad infinitum. It was a way for Apple to get the new hardware out to create a userbase so developers would have a market to sell the new Intel compatible software to.

You can't seriously expect developers to update old games and various software they no longer care about (or in the case of printer drivers, hardware they no longer sell). It was Steve Jobs that made the decision to move to Intel and therefore he is ultimately responsible for PPC software no longer working. No one is asking for 'infinitum' here, but some of us are still using PPC machines even, let alone a reasonable age to use older software when Windows supports software in the 10+ years department. If Steve is going to force Mac software to become obsolete in a just a few short years, he's going to start losing customers back to Windows that expect a reasonable return on their investment (not just Apple hardware, but their software libraries as well).

You're making the assumption that this is similar to how the iPad has a 2x mode to help with the product launch there. You make quite a few assumptions regarding just how much time and other resources are (not by your lack of understanding) required. Your underestimation is actually kind of shocking.

And your lack of logic is shocking as well...OK actually it isn't.

Apple put a lot of resources into making Rosetta in the first place. It takes a lot less resources to maintain it than it did to make it. I hope for their sake they've properly estimated the cost of royally cheesing off part of their user base for Steve's petty need to rid Apple of PPC entirely like it never existed after years of preaching to us how hard Intel SUCKED and how much smarter he was to use PPC instead. Now he comes across as a hypocritical blowhard who lets his billions make him think he's always right and keeps him completely out of touch with normal human beings. He probably thinks he can buy his way into immortality at this point. I couldn't care less about that man.

The simple fact is that 10.6 will still run your software that hasn't been updated for 5 year old hardware so why do you care if you can't run the latest OS? 10.6 isn't going to lose any functionality and will likely receive security updates until 10.8 if previous security updates are any indication.

This is what I mean about stupid logic. If you had actually gone through sticking with an older OS version and watching all the new software require the latest version of OSX you wouldn't even THINK about saying such stupid things. Leopard still works...you don't need Snow Leoapard. Yeah right. There's a LOT of software that already requires Snow Leopard and a lot more that won't support PPC in Leopard even if it supports Intel in Leopard and that's largely due to Apple removing PPC completely from XCode. Apple made it incredibly easy to support Universal Binaries for awhile and now they make it darn near impossible (too much bother for a small percentage of users anyway). I don't blame Adobe or Firefox. I blame Apple for killing the developer tools designed to make it simple to support. At least my PowerMac I use as a server for my whole house AV system got a lot of years use. I feel sorry for the Quad G5 owners who still have pretty powerful machines and are getting screwed up the wazoo by Apple. Try dropping $6000+ on a workstation and then having Apple start dumping support in less than 3 years in some areas and completely in 5.

And if you want to upgrade then, you might want to ask the company why they don't upgrade their software to work on hardware released within the last decade.

In the last "decade" ? Hell, OSX barely even existed a decade ago let alone Intel Macs....

This also shows that you should always buy games for Windows even if they are available for the Mac because you can be sure they will keep working in Windows for a LONG LONG time. You can't be sure a Mac game will even work in the next operating system release (I had a number of games break from Tiger to Leopard, for example so I'm glad I kept a Tiger partition around).

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

well if someone has a perfectly good working version of OS X, why should they get new versions ?

That's a very bad comparison. It costs a lot of money to upgrade Photoshop to a newer version and so you have to justify the cost. I'm not about to lay down hundreds to buy a new version if the old version still works well for me. But in the case of OSX, you either upgrade or you face the fact that most new software will not support your older version of OSX in a VERY short amount of time (unlike in Windows where XP and 98 both had support for AGES past their replacements). Steve is actually putting some people in a situation here where they will have to choose between being able to use older software or newer software. You can't have both unless you keep multiple machines around (boy would Apple love that since they can sell you more hardware!). This just doesn't happen often in Windows. Your hardware will be too slow before support for your software is abandoned. That's the way it should be. You should upgrade when the hardware no longer meets your needs, not when Apple pulls the plug on software and tells you they want more money from you....

 

[KnightWRX]

That's a very bad comparison. It costs a lot of money to upgrade Photoshop to a newer version and so you have to justify the cost.

Upgrading to newer applications that support your new OS version is part of the costs of OS upgrades. If it's too much for you, stick with what works.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Upgrading to newer applications that support your new OS version is part of the costs of OS upgrades. If it's too much for you, stick with what works.

Except that means not being able to get newer software or updates for the older operating system. One has to weigh the overall consequences. But in the case of Apple with PowerPC, it's due strictly to them dumping support for Rosetta.

For example, if I put Lion on my MBP, I have to give up M$ Office 2004. I can upgrade to a newer version or just do without (since I mostly just print labels these days with it anyway). Lion costs less than M$ Office, but keeping Snow Leopard means in a very short amount of time, other software will not be available for my machine since many developers dump older versions of the operating system VERY quickly. So it's not just the cost of Lion versus Office, but everything else to come down the road. And in the case of something like Quicken, one has a MUCH more difficult choice to make. Sadly, all of it could have been avoided by buying that software for Windows in the first place. And THAT is something everyone needs to consider in the future when buying things like games, for example. Will that Mac version work in the next OS release? Maybe, maybe not. It probably will work in the next version of Windows (based on history).

 

[revelated]

I'm running VLC on Lion DP4 right now, explain that smartypants

Ok, so they added direct Intel support. I stand corrected.

Moot point what with that full screen app issue. Running VLC without running it full screen is...well...not cricket.

 

[janil]

You can run SL via a VM, correct? So that should be an option for folks who must (or wish to) continue to support PPC software/hardware.

Apple's license does not allow for SL to be run in a virtual machine if it is not a server version of Snow Leopard. I think this is a poor choice by Apple for many reasons -- for example, development & testing.

If Apple changed this policy, that would eliminate most of the complaints and issues about dropping Rosetta support in Lion.

 

[Amdahl]

If Steve is going to force Mac software to become obsolete in a just a few short years, he's going to start losing customers back to Windows that expect a reasonable return on their investment (not just Apple hardware, but their software libraries as well).

You're right.. But Apple has clearly chosen to go the other way. They are no longer a Computer company. Windows is the place to make your long term investments, or the Open/Free operating systems.

This is also why Apple doesn't want virtualization. But getting it to work would be a pretty good solution to Apple's hostility toward customer value. It helps sidestep the lack of security updates as well.

 

[Tyr.]

Ok, so they added direct Intel support. I stand corrected.

Moot point what with that full screen app issue. Running VLC without running it full screen is...well...not cricket.

What issue ? I don't usually run VLC full screen so I tested it and it seems to work properly, unless I am missing something. I'm running VLC 1.1.10 (64-bit)

 

[KnightWRX]

Except that means not being able to get newer software or updates for the older operating system. One has to weigh the overall consequences. But in the case of Apple with PowerPC, it's due strictly to them dumping support for Rosetta.

Wait, you want to run EOL/EOS software because you're too cheap to upgrade it, but you want to do it on a supported OS ?

Logic sure knows no bounds here. You're dabbling in EOL software, there's never any guarantees it will work on future OSes.

Rosetta was removed because of the ressources it takes (both human and on each individual Mac). After 6 years in the consumer world, it makes sense. It was a crufty layer.

 

[Mac-Rumours]

Rosetta was removed because of the ressources it takes (both human and on each individual Mac). After 6 years in the consumer world, it makes sense. It was a crufty layer.

What resources? We're all running computers far more powerful than we actually need. Running Rosetta isn't exactly taxing our systems.

The only time my Mac's fan kicks in is when running games or Flash.

Some of us are running Macs professionally and are not just "consumers".

 

[Nugget]

Rosetta was removed because of the ressources it takes (both human and on each individual Mac). After 6 years in the consumer world, it makes sense. It was a crufty layer.

This is exactly correct.

People in the thread keep pointing to Windows as a role model in this regard and it's correct that Microsoft definitely has a different philosophy on the importance of backward-compatibility. That backward compatibility comes at a real, tangible expense though. I suppose it's admirable that Windows 7 will do its level best to run some ancient Windows 3.1 software you dig out, but there is a cost to that support.

Modern Windows still has crufty subroutines all over the place. It has to know how to interpret a .PIF file and that there's an NTWOW (windows on windows) library layer that can handle applications which still need 16 bit socket libraries for TCP/IP. All that backwards support comes at the cost of increased code complexity, more involved compatibility testing, and limitations on potential development innovation.

Ruthless deprecation of older technologies allows developers to produce and maintain simpler, more resilient code which is easier to test, less likely to contain bugs, and more adaptable to future evolution and enhancement.

Where's the appropriate line? Somewhere in between "ruthless" and "total backwards compatibility." I think Apple's done a fine job walking that line. PPC backwards-compatibility in the form of Rosetta has been around for half a decade now, and technically will continue to be supported (in Snow Leopard) for at least another year. That sounds reasonable to me. The architecture is a dead end, and that's not Apple's fault, and they've done as well as can be expected to smooth the unavoidable transition.

 

[maclaptop]

Time and technology marches on.

There's never an easy way to move forward without hurting someone.

That said, I find it completely disgusting and very slimy of fanboys to take this opportunity to give a hard time to those who it does impact.

Not everyone has the resources to buy expensive computers and various upgrades in this economy.

Just because it may not affect you and your newer devices, is no excuse to release your unbridled hate on those who are mourning the passing of an era.

Give it a rest, show some intelligence and compassion.

Be a decent person for once.

 

[Nugget]

Be a decent person for once.

This is totally uncalled for.

 

[Nugget]

Not everyone has the resources to buy expensive computers and various upgrades in this economy.

I don't follow this logic. If you're not paying to upgrade to Lion and you're not buying a new Apple computer then how are you affected by this decision?

 

[gnasher729]

Losing PPC support also means the end of MacTheRipper, one of the best DVD ripping tools out there.

Bugger. I think I'll have to look after my five year old MacBook a bit better then And install a stripped-down version of Snow Leopard including Mac The Ripper on a USB stick.

 

[diamond.g]

This is exactly correct.

People in the thread keep pointing to Windows as a role model in this regard and it's correct that Microsoft definitely has a different philosophy on the importance of backward-compatibility. That backward compatibility comes at a real, tangible expense though. I suppose it's admirable that Windows 7 will do its level best to run some ancient Windows 3.1 software you dig out, but there is a cost to that support.

Modern Windows still has crufty subroutines all over the place. It has to know how to interpret a .PIF file and that there's an NTWOW (windows on windows) library layer that can handle applications which still need 16 bit socket libraries for TCP/IP. All that backwards support comes at the cost of increased code complexity, more involved compatibility testing, and limitations on potential development innovation.

Ruthless deprecation of older technologies allows developers to produce and maintain simpler, more resilient code which is easier to test, less likely to contain bugs, and more adaptable to future evolution and enhancement.

Where's the appropriate line? Somewhere in between "ruthless" and "total backwards compatibility." I think Apple's done a fine job walking that line. PPC backwards-compatibility in the form of Rosetta has been around for half a decade now, and technically will continue to be supported (in Snow Leopard) for at least another year. That sounds reasonable to me. The architecture is a dead end, and that's not Apple's fault, and they've done as well as can be expected to smooth the unavoidable transition.

As far as I know anyone with 64-bit Windows 7 (which would be everyone with more than 3GB of ram, in most cases) cannot run 16-bit applications.

 

[Eidorian]

I suppose it's admirable that Windows 7 will do its level best to run some ancient Windows 3.1 software you dig out, but there is a cost to that support.

Wait, what? I draw the line at NT4. Supporting 9x is getting out of style with XP already being a decade old and people completely won over by Windows 2000 even when it was "Workstation or Server".

16-bit is long dead. There is a reason people run to VMs or DOSBox.

 

[honem]

Ok, so they added direct Intel support. I stand corrected.

Moot point what with that full screen app issue. Running VLC without running it full screen is...well...not cricket.

To be fair to you they do offer a PowerPC version.

But you need to click through to their other versions section of their website. The default download for Mac OS X is for the intel version which does not contain any PPC code at all :

08:29:55-user~$ file /Volumes/vlc-1.1.10.1/VLC.app/Contents/MacOS/VLC 
/Volumes/vlc-1.1.10.1/VLC.app/Contents/MacOS/VLC: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
/Volumes/vlc-1.1.10.1/VLC.app/Contents/MacOS/VLC (for architecture x86_64):	Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64
/Volumes/vlc-1.1.10.1/VLC.app/Contents/MacOS/VLC (for architecture i386):	Mach-O executable i386

Also for reference here's the output for a PPC app :

08:28:43-user~$ file /Disk\ and\ File\ tools/TomeViewer 
/Disk and File tools/TomeViewer: header for PowerPC PEF executable

Sorry *blush* don't have a FAT Binary sitting anywhere. Or at least I don't remember which of my apps is

I think your confusion comes from the fact that AFAIK VLC ships with the Sparkle Framework. Which does automatic updating to a new version when you open it.

So I imagined you've installed it and just let the auto updater update it. Each time you've reinstalled the OS instead of redownloading it you've used the zip you already had. Or the download link you bookmarked or something ?

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Wait, you want to run EOL/EOS software because you're too cheap to upgrade it, but you want to do it on a supported OS ?

How do I, pray tell, upgrade older games to run on Intel?

It's not just a question of having to pay for something that stops working purely do to changes Apple makes, but a lack of support for older software that has been more or less abandoned (i.e. end of run).

Logic sure knows no bounds here. You're dabbling in EOL software, there's never any guarantees it will work on future OSes.

Most games from 10 years ago can be made to run in Windows7 or Vista one way or the other. You cannot say the same for games made 5 years ago on a Mac. The logical thing to do is to not buy Mac games, but keep a Windows partition and buy all games for that platform instead. They will surely be playable longer.

This is why Apple gets a bad reputation for gaming. Not only does Apple not support the developers in the way they want to be supported (I could point to numerous cases over the years where companies asked for features or information to improve things or make their lives easier and Apple just ignores them), but they seem to be very good at breaking software from OS to OS, even when it is the same CPU (e.g. About 40% of the PPC games I have broke in some way (from glitches to flat out crashing) just moving from Tiger to Leopard. No CPU changes, just the OS. But then Leopard also made the machine slower for the first time ever and Snow Leopard made my MBP slower than under Leopard. Apple is not following a good pattern these days in several areas, not to mention they've lost interest in OSX proper and spend most of their resources on the iOS devices.

Rosetta was removed because of the ressources it takes (both human and on each individual Mac). After 6 years in the consumer world, it makes sense. It was a crufty layer.

It's not even a layer. It's a real time emulator for goodness sake. It's not even used unless you run a PPC program. It hurts nothing on an individual Mac that doesn't need it because it's not installed and it hurts a tiny bit of hard drive space on one that does need it when not running PPC software. And in case you hadn't noticed, Apple isn't exactly hurting for capital. It'd be a complete PITTANCE to keep Rosetta working. This isn't about resources. It's about Steve Jobs pushing his weight/vision around. He couldn't care less what people want and has said so before. It's all about what he wants and you can either tag along or leave. Sooner or later that attitude will get him or Apple into trouble. They are on a long surf ride right now because of the iPhone's popularity, but there's little doubt in my mind that Apple wouldn't be doing so great right now without the iPhone (if all they had was the Mac and old-school iPods).

 

[AidenShaw]

gone in Vista/Win7 x64

I suppose it's admirable that Windows 7 will do its level best to run some ancient Windows 3.1 software you dig out, but there is a cost to that support.

Modern Windows still has crufty subroutines all over the place. It has to know how to interpret a .PIF file and that there's an NTWOW (windows on windows) library layer that can handle applications which still need 16 bit socket libraries for TCP/IP.

Just to note that this is true for Win7 x86 - but Win7 x64 has no support for 16-bit programs. Same for Vista x64.

On Vista/Win7 x64 - the WOW feature runs x86 32-bit programs.

 

[IBrown]

Just to note that this is true for Win7 x86 - but Win7 x64 has no support for 16-bit programs. Same for Vista x64.

On Vista/Win7 x64 - the WOW feature runs x86 32-bit programs.

Maybe that's why MS introduced XP-Mode- a VM running XP for older software.

I run a 2010 MBP with Office 2004. Why haven't I upgraded Office? Well, the 2004 version does what I need very nicely, so why should I? There is no business reason for me to do so. I use Word, it works. I use Entourage. It does what I need. Why should I have to buy a new version just so that I can run it on the new OS? Yes, it might be two versions old, but MS are still supporting it - the last update was only a couple of months ago.

This does not happen in the Windows world - I spend all day in Windows as a developer.

What Apple are saying here is that any software over 5 years old will now not work at all on the latest OSX. You just cannot do this in the enterprise world! If you're going to stop stuff working, you need to give at least two years notice that that upgrades can be budgeted for, planned and rolled out.

Saying that, the main thing attracting me to Lion - apart from having the tip revision with the latest security updates - is the ability to re-size a window from any edge. Do I need to point out that there are kids in college that were born after Windows had this ability?