Older librairies which get bug fixes and sometimes get feature additions. Have you ever done software Q&A ? No ? Then you have no place in this conversation. Do you know what Regression testing is ? Again no ? No place in this discussion. Having PPC code littered around all the frameworks is tons of extra work for Q&A (and programmers in a sense if they introduce regression bugs).
I'm talking about making Rosetta into a virtual
emulated machine so it never needs the main libraries updated (like M$ has done for XP mode on Windows7) and you're talking about updating ancient libraries (Apple has DUMPED 100% of all PPC support with Lion. There won't be any updates to Lion for PPC anything (in fact there won't be any PPC anything in Lion) and if there are any "PPC libraries" updated somewhere, they will work just fine in an emulated PPC environment as they would on a real PPC machine. In other words, if they already have to test for a real machine, then they've tested for a virtual one as well. The goal is to emulate the PPC processor any specific associated hardware itself. The rest is running the PPC libraries (not Intel ones). If the libraries aren't updated, they don't need testing.
Want proof? Run an Amiga emulator. You don't need to update the emulator if you add a 'new' Amiga library (that say a 3rd party has added). You just add it and it works because you're emulating the Amiga hardware, not the software! The virtual Amiga inside the emulator acts just as an equivalent hardware machine would act if anything in the software is updated. If someone made AmigaOS5, it would run on an emulated Amiga just as easily as a real one so long as the hardware requirements of the virtual machine are met. Whatever OS the host computer is running has NOTHING to do with it in a boxed emulated environment (i.e. more like how Classic worked in Tiger). In other words, Apple doesn't need to maintain PPC code in the Lion libraries or have ANY CODE WHAT-SO-EVER on a machine that doesn't want the emulated environment installed if they handled it this way. Those that want it would install the emulator and its environment (similar to VMFusion or Parallels) and those that don't, won't. You would then normally install 10.5 or 10.4 PPC OS versions for a full environment or Apple could simply set it up like Wine (on Linux) does and just utilize the relative needed libraries, etc. to get a given program to run.
I think what you meant to say is that YOU don't belong in this discussion.
And it is a lot of hard drive space. Lion is a 4GB download. It's already inconvenient for many people. Are you telling us those people should be further inconvenienced because you want to stick to old software but get a new OS ? Keep the old OS around on your 130$ 3 TB drive (I'd rather get 2 2TB drives for 70$ myself, cheaper $/TB ratio right there). End of story.
I don't know WTF you're talking about. Rosetta is NOT anywhere NEAR a 4GB download and never was (even with libraries included). You throw that unrelated number up in the air to make yourself sound impressive to the clueless on here, but you don't give any actual figure for what it would take to keep Rosetta in Lion (as-is or changed into a virtual environment). The latter could use existing OS install DVD or CDs one already has to install older OS versions for a complete virtual environment and only those that WANT the PPC support would need to download anything at all in that case.
As for Lion being a download only, we'll see how popular that decision turns out to be if it truly is indeed the case. A lot of people have limited bandwidth, download limits or both. Many would prefer a DVD version. Somehow I think they will get one if they need it one way or the other.... Steve may love to say he's off discs for the press or something, but that's not a total workable reality for some yet and he just doesn't seem to get that (be it BD or now the App store only thing).
I think you're slowly start to get it, but you just refuse to accept it.
And I think you NEVER got it and probably NEVER will.
Funny how in a thread I can be the most vile Apple hater around, getting the cheerleader squad calling me troll and having the mods not cite them for their breach of the rules, and in other thread, I'm the die-hard fanboy who's blinded by his love for Steve. *sigh*.
I'm no more or less stubborn in my views that all other members.
You're either clueless, stubborn or both. And if you act like a fanboy you will be labeled as one. I said you 'turned into one' in this thread, meaning you are acting just like they act, arguing Apple's approach as if it's the only one possible.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone change their opinion following a discussion on MacRumors... or any other Internet forum for that matter. These debates are endless and pointless and just made to pass the time.
I can agree that it seems to be a waste of time to talk to YOU, yes. Others on here may actually be interested in convincing Apple to to make Rosetta a virtual environment to preserve older software. If M$ can do it, Apple certainly can too. If M$ started advertising their XP virtual machine and putting down the Mac for lacking backwards compatibility with their older software, you can bet Steve Jobs wouldn't take that sitting down. He needs a swift kick in the arse (business-wise) to make him see how short-sighted his moves are. A lot of software should be preserved for all time. That is the entire motive behind many emulators out there. Apple has the technology to do it for both OS9 and PPC just sitting there 90% complete already (between the "classic environment" OSX used to come with and Rosetta, most of the hardest work is already done). It wouldn't take much to make both run on any Mac or even PC in general virtually forever. They could certainly outsource it to someone like VMWare and they'd be happy to make a tidy profit selling to Mac users that have old games they'd like to keep running on newer machines. Given the state of emulation (and especially how much work Apple has already done in that area), there is no real excuse in 2011 for dumping older software (especially classic games) when it can be preserved for future generations to enjoy.
The Mac has little software compared to the PC already. Making it even smaller is not good business sense. I will definitely keep such things in mind in the future when considering whether to make my next machine Windows7 (or 8) or an OSX machine. I currently have software for both platforms (more invested in the PC really), so I could go either way as far as I'm concerned. I don't like the malware on Windows, but I don't like Steve Jobs playing god all the time either. I like to make my own hardware buying decisions and I like my software to have a decent shelf life (and in the case of games I might want to play again at some point, endless is preferred and endless is what I get with old games from the C64, Amiga, etc. since emulated environments (and especially open-source based ones that can be tailored to any future hardware or operating system) ensures I can always play them, even 50 years from now.
