Quicken 2007 May Run on OS X Lion, Even With Rosetta Dead

[MorphingDragon]

Again, the point is the attempt to compare the maximum O-O-T-B size of a Windows system with the size of the Apple OSX kit.

As an admin, I find it much more useful to have maximum size quoted so that I can plan, than to have nothing. This is especially true if you're doing a clean installation on a different partition.

(This argument is going nowhere - as you said you're only here to harass me. Ciao.)

The original "statement" was nothing and any meaning was fabricated by the reader. I was only trying to rationalize to you why Apple would omit such information. (Legal, esp. in NZ/AUS)

As an Admin the full size would mean nothing to me, especially when the full size can go into ranges of ridiculousness (50GB+). I would much rather a small applet or table that estimates the amount of disk space used based on configuration and included the min/max size limits.

I didn't say I was only here to harass you, again fabricated by the reader.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

But the minimum size of each install will change if Lion is indeed upgrade only. There is a potential to gain hard rive space (ignoring the rescue partition) because of the stripped out cruft of things like PPC. Legally I would find it hard to properly state a size without incomplete data or qualifiers.

If the user is going to run on that 4gig needed for Lion and think that having 20-30 gigs free for Windows 7 is going to be a problem then then the user is going problem then the user has other problems to worry about and will be having other major system issues.

You should always at at least 10-15% of your hard drive free at all times. That means assuming 200gig hard drive that is 20-30 gigs free at min and with 500 gigs+ becoming common even less of an issue. Hard drive space is cheap.

Reason for that 10% floor of free space is no matter what your OS performance starts taking some major damage when you drop below that point.

Personally I find comparing Apple numbers to Microsoft numbers weak at best. Chances are Apple is going to need much closer to MS numbers when it is all said and done.

 

[MorphingDragon]

If the user is going to run on that 4gig needed for Lion and think that having 20-30 gigs free for Windows 7 is going to be a problem then then the user is going problem then the user has other problems to worry about and will be having other major system issues.

You should always at at least 10-15% of your hard drive free at all times. That means assuming 200gig hard drive that is 20-30 gigs free at min and with 500 gigs+ becoming common even less of an issue. Hard drive space is cheap.

Reason for that 10% floor of free space is no matter what your OS performance starts taking some major damage when you drop below that point.

Personally I find comparing Apple numbers to Microsoft numbers weak at best. Chances are Apple is going to need much closer to MS numbers when it is all said and done.

I know all that, but legal matters don't seem to follow logic. If no specific number is given, Apple can easily wriggle out of any stupendously stupid legal issues.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I know all that, but legal matters don't seem to follow logic. If no specific number is given, Apple can easily wriggle out of any stupendously stupid legal issues.

yep. To me it is yet another example of classic marketing BS from Apple. They can "claim" how little room Lion takes up compared to Windows 7 yet at the end of the day they really take up the same amount of room. I would not be surprised in the least to find out that on a normal install (including update) it takes up 15-20 gigs of space just like windows 7 requires.

Got to love marketing no matter where you go no matter what company marketing is full of BS and 1% truths.

 

[davida1]

I'm stopping you right there. If you don't fix bugs in the "older" librairies, you might be shipping a system with code paths that can lead to privilege escalation bugs, denial of service bugs or other nasties. As long as Apple ships the librairies on the system, they have to update and maintain them. Otherwise, they run the risk of making OS X vulnerable. What you are suggesting is a very serious security flaw waiting to happen. You can't just ship "frozen" code unless it's TeX and you're called Donald Knuth.

So there's no going around it. Either you remove the offending builds, or you keep on working on them, Q&Aing them and basically support them.

Not to mention, again, that stripping said librairies reduces the size of the OS on disk and as a download, which is for now the only way to get the OS. It's a plus for the user (who's downloading and storing it on his disk) and it's a plus for Apple (who now can stop doing Q&A, bug fixes, and having to be careful not to break compatibility when doing so).

Keep on ranting and wall of texting... I doubt at this point there's very many people getting to the end of your posts.

Have you considered that Apple will be maintaining 10.6 (and therefore these libraries) for a long time? Mac OS X is modular, and to do minimal maintenance on a library with a static API and feature set is, well, minimal. Most of the Q&A is automated. APIs are nearly always backward-compatible, and if you really want to know, just look at the list of deprecated APIs/calls in Snow leper.

To be balanced (unlike above post), there will come a day when Apple stops maintaining Snow Leper, and would they then stop maintaining Rosetta in Lion?

If users download the bulk of Rosetta separately, then I think the additional disk space for non-Rosetta users would be minimal. But, I don't know the amount, and apparently no one else has even a ballpark number for this.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Have you considered that Apple will be maintaining 10.6 (and therefore these libraries) for a long time? Mac OS X is modular, and to do minimal maintenance on a library with a static API and feature set is, well, minimal. Most of the Q&A is automated. APIs are nearly always backward-compatible, and if you really want to know, just look at the list of deprecated APIs/calls in Snow leper.

To be balanced (unlike above post), there will come a day when Apple stops maintaining Snow Leper, and would they then stop maintaining Rosetta in Lion?

If users download the bulk of Rosetta separately, then I think the additional disk space for non-Rosetta users would be minimal. But, I don't know the amount, and apparently no one else has even a ballpark number for this.

one problem. Apple really does not maintain its older OS. Pretty much as soon as a new OS is release all you will see for older OS is security fixes at best. Apple pretty much done with SL. Microsoft does real maintenance and patches for their OS but Apple on the other hand not so much.

 

[AidenShaw]

As an admin, I find it much more useful to have maximum size quoted so that I can plan, than to have nothing. This is especially true if you're doing a clean installation on a different partition.

For what it's worth, a Win7 x64 installation comes in at 11.2 GiB. Add the paging and hibernate file to that, and you're still way under 20 GiB.

I didn't say I was only here to harass you, again fabricated by the reader.

Oh really? I didn't fabricate this post:

You're the on who said it, I was only calling you out on it like the little B**ch that I am. Plus being a thorn in your side is like crack to me.

 

[KnightWRX]

Have you considered that Apple will be maintaining 10.6 (and therefore these libraries) for a long time?

Define long time. Snow Leopard is a LTS version ? It will remain in support longer than Lion ? Of course not. Snow Leopard will reach EOL/EOS before Lion does, hence Apple will get to drop PPC for good earlier than Lion's EOL/EOS.

And frankly, what does it change ? So what if the line is 10.8... 10.9... all the same 3rd party vendors will still be dragging their feet (Intuit, looking at you!) if you don't force some obsolescence.

Users are not left without options. Like you say, Apple will be maintaining 10.6, so what's the beef ? You want to run old software, you run the old OS. It's just how it goes.

Mac OS X is modular, and to do minimal maintenance on a library with a static API and feature set is, well, minimal. Most of the Q&A is automated. APIs are nearly always backward-compatible, and if you really want to know, just look at the list of deprecated APIs/calls in Snow leper.

Modularity has nothing to do with it. The PPC frameworks and librairies are not deprecated at all. They are the same Cocoa frameworks and Carbon frameworks that people use to write Intel software. Sure you don't do a full build of all of them when you fix one, it's not one huge monolithic librairie. But, you still have to keep in mind that you can't just "code freeze" the PPC stuff and hope to ship a secure system.

As long as Apple remains current with these, they have to make sure not to break PPC backwards compatibility if they ship it, and they have to provide bug fixes on both architectures, especially security bugs.

Q&A might be automated (a lot of IT/programming is), but it still requires humans to do. More time that is spent in PPC regression tests, less that is spent in new features and frameworks.

To be balanced (unlike above post), there will come a day when Apple stops maintaining Snow Leper, and would they then stop maintaining Rosetta in Lion?

So I'm not balanced then ? Because I'm saying things you don't want to hear, I'm somehow heavily biased ?

Again,

 

[davida1]

so i'm not balanced then ? Because i'm saying things you don't want to hear, i'm somehow heavily biased ?

q.e.d.

 

[AidenShaw]

error

For what it's worth, a Win7 x64 installation comes in at 11.2 GiB. Add the paging and hibernate file to that, and you're still way under 20 GiB.

I double-checked, and it's only 7.6 GiB for Win7 Ultimate x64.

Many components in the side-by-side directories are really links. My first check walked the filesystem, so linked files were counted multiple times.

Looking at the volume properties showed much less space in use.

 

[FluJunkie]

Even when Quicken *did* have full OS support, it was a poorly coded problems. Nothing on my machine, including things *I* write, has given me as much hassle over the lifetime of my computer as Quicken has.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

things that crashed and burned on Vista were from even farther back. We are talking pre windows 95 or it was using hooks from before that time. Both things should of been removed a long time after. Largest thing is if it runs x86 (32 bit code) it is going to work just fine. I can still run the original DOOM on my computer now days. Does not use any fancy hooks that would cause it to be blocked and it is x86 32bit code.

Good luck trying to run that on a Mac.

I can run Doom on my PowerMac in Tiger still. It runs like crap unless you're actually in OS9, though.

- You cannot arguing enough of POOR business planning.

I'll assume you're referring to Apple here since it is Apple that continually gives ZERO notice to software developers about ANY of its future plans and regularly dumps support for things at the last second with no notice at all and sometimes even no announcements. Things just suddenly stop working. But e-mail Steve and he'll send "yep" back to you. That's really professional behavior on Apple's part. It's why they're still and utter joke on the enterprise front. Even Steve knows it and it's why he decided to just pull their rack mount server. NO ONE is using it. It's supported like CRAP. All of Steve's 20 programmers are too buys making iOS 6 right now to work on ANYTHING else. And he won't hire more since he has to do an ultra-background check and have personally known each of them since they were 5 years old or else he feels he may not have enough control over them.

Windows 7 system requirements
If you want to run Windows 7 on your PC, here's what it takes:

1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)

16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)

DVD/CD authoring requires a compatible optical drive

Windows XP Mode requires an additional 1 GB of RAM and an additional 15 GB of available hard disk space.

Hot darn, my very first Windows based PC from 1999 can run Windows7! Woohoo! It's a 1GHz PIII with 1GB ram and 80GB of HD space.

My first Mac from 2005 cannot run Snow Leopard even (let alone Lion) because Steve said PPC Macs suck hard.

I'm stopping you right there.

God knows I wish you'd stop.

But I finally realized why your posts on any subject are so arrogant, condescending and yet also usually wrong and seem to demonstrate time and time again that you cannot read English very well because you're always mis-quoting or otherwise putting words in people's mouths, etc. That is to say that I finally noticed where you're from.

one problem. Apple really does not maintain its older OS. Pretty much as soon as a new OS is release all you will see for older OS is security fixes at best. Apple pretty much done with SL. Microsoft does real maintenance and patches for their OS but Apple on the other hand not so much.

This is, unfortunately, entirely true. I cannot think of a time that Apple released an update other than security for OSX once the next version is out. Microsoft can and does support legacy OS versions for quite some time. The core of the problem is that Apple has ZERO interest in doing software updates to begin with. To Apple, software is largely a means to an end and little else. That is to say its sole purpose is to sell hardware. That's where Apple makes the (pardon the pun) lion's share of its profits, not software, so they have little incentive to support anything very well, really. Is why they threw OSX to the dogs in favor of pushing iOS as fast as possible as they realize they can bring out new models every year and re-sell the same 30 million phones ALL OVER AGAIN. Sorry, but we dropped support for iPhone 4 with iOS 6 so you'll have to buy a new phone! Cha-ching!

 

[KnightWRX]

But I finally realized why your posts on any subject are ...also usually wrong

Please feel free to debunk them instead of attacking my location.

If I'm so wrong all the time, it shouldn't be hard to prove my points wrong now should it ?

 

[AidenShaw]

As an Admin the full size would mean nothing to me, especially when the full size can go into ranges of ridiculousness (50GB+).

I just re-read this - and I'm curious as to which boxes one needs to check during an Apple OSX installation to create a 50 GB+ system from a 4GB kit or DVD....

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Please feel free to debunk them instead of attacking my location.

If I'm so wrong all the time, it shouldn't be hard to prove my points wrong now should it ?

I was joking dude. You can't tell attacks from rants from jokes. Sheesh.

In any case, I did debunk all your arguments. You apparently cannot comprehend them and so you just attack my posts with pointless claims of rants and other nonsense instead of actual logic. You claim Apple CANNOT do what Microsoft has already done for XP and virtualize PPC support. They can't do this because the libraries are old? WTF? I guess that means I cannot run my old Amiga programs on an Amiga emulator because the libraries are old and might have vulnerabilities that Commodore won't fix! Yes, not running something at all is MUCH BETTER than running something with a known risk. Oh wait. Apple doesn't do security updates for Tiger. Does that mean we shouldn't run it?

 

[KnightWRX]

In any case, I did debunk all your arguments.

No, you didn't. You tried to provide workarounds that Apple could offer. You did not debunk the facts I presented.

You claim Apple CANNOT do what Microsoft has already done for XP and virtualize PPC support.

Microsoft still supports Windows XP. Kind of goes against what Apple is trying to achieve here.

They can't do this because the libraries are old? WTF?

Again, they aren't. The Cocoa frameworks are the same, PPC or Intel. Any fixes to the Intel side must not break the PPC side. Any security patches applied to the Intel side must also be applied to the PPC side if the same vulnerability exists there. Otherwise, Apple is shipping a known broken and insecure system.

I guess that means I cannot run my old Amiga programs on an Amiga emulator because the libraries are old and might have vulnerabilities that Commodore won't fix!

Commodore doesn't ship your Amiga emulator, nor is it one of their supported configurations.

Get it now ? All you've done is rant and whine and tried to come up with non-sensical scenarios. The cold hard facts are before us : Apple decided 10.6 was the end of the line for PPC installations, they decided 10.7 was end of the line for PPC builds. If you want an "emulator" based off "the old libraries", feel free to build one yourself as an open source project or as a shareware program or as a full blown commercial effort, Apple is done.

It's easy to find 100 scenarios that "could" work when you're not the pockets paying to implement them.

 

[Fraaaa]

I'll assume you're referring to Apple here since it is Apple that continually gives ZERO notice to software developers about ANY of its future plans and regularly dumps support for things at the last second with no notice at all and sometimes even no announcements. Things just suddenly stop working. But e-mail Steve and he'll send "yep" back to you. That's really professional behavior on Apple's part. It's why they're still and utter joke on the enterprise front. Even Steve knows it and it's why he decided to just pull their rack mount server. NO ONE is using it. It's supported like CRAP. All of Steve's 20 programmers are too buys making iOS 6 right now to work on ANYTHING else. And he won't hire more since he has to do an ultra-background check and have personally known each of them since they were 5 years old or else he feels he may not have enough control over them.

No, I meant those companies that relied on Carbon APIs even though Apple stated that they should move overtime on Cocoa and gave them 10 years to do so. Carbon and Classic were supported only for easy transition from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. Apple did state their plan to developers and was to move to Cocoa and that we are going to have OS X for the next 20 years.

 

[AidenShaw]

...and that we are going to have OS X for the next 20 years.

They said that about 12 years ago, so only 8 years left.

 

[Fraaaa]

They said that about 12 years ago, so only 8 years left.

OS X was released on March 2001, so we got 10 years.

About Apple not supporting old OS. Was last update for Mac OS 9 on 2009?

 

[AidenShaw]

OS X was released on March 2001, so we got 10 years.

About Apple not supporting old OS. Was last update for Mac OS 9 on 2009?

Hera was released in March 1999, and Kodiak in September 2000. I wasn't able to find the date on Jobs' "20 year" speech.

In any event, we're at least half-way through it.

...and Apple OS 9.2.2 was October 2008 - but that's kind of nonsense if you compare it to Microsoft's monthly patch kits for XP.

 

[MorphingDragon]

I just re-read this - and I'm curious as to which boxes one needs to check during an Apple OSX installation to create a 50 GB+ system from a 4GB kit or DVD....

I thought we were speaking generally - not just about OSX. Would it be useful if RedHat or Lexis Nexus told you only that a "full install" of a particular software takes up 40GB when most installs only install a partial amount of features.

In smaller, simpler installs, a table would automatically scale to a min/max size.

Oh really? I didn't fabricate this post:

No, but that post didn't say I was only here to harass you.

 

[res1233]

Try SEE Finance. They seem to be dedicated to mac development seeing as it's a 64-bit binary, which implies Cocoa, and thus will be maintainable in the long-term (unless something changes). It has most of the features quicken has too, and can import from it.

 

[KnightWRX]

About Apple not supporting old OS. Was last update for Mac OS 9 on 2009?

...and Apple OS 9.2.2 was October 2008

Hum... no it wasn't :

http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1293?viewlocale=en_US

December 5th, 2001. Apple does not really have any LTS versions of their OSes.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

No, you didn't. You tried to provide workarounds that Apple could offer. You did not debunk the facts I presented.

What facts? All I see are your claims that it would cost Apple a fortune to include little-old Rosetta with Lion and oh it would take too much space to include it and those on poor dial-up would have to download a whole extra 20MB in addition the 4GB that Apple already REQUIRES for EVERYONE (no disc distribution that I've seen so far for Lion). Instead of pointing that ridiculous requirement out, you go on and on about how Rosetta is just too much for poor little Apple's meager resources to include. Forget about software libraries, folks. The Mac might as well have no existed before 2005 since nothing older than that can possibly run in Lion and beyond. Oh well. Buy more hardware and buy new software. That's the new Mac legacy.

Commodore doesn't ship your Amiga emulator, nor is it one of their supported configurations.

So what? What makes you think libraries are the insecure aspects of OSX to begin with, let alone old libraries for limited use PPC code? Who exactly is going to write malware for those old libraries if they are used in a virtual machine or emulator environment? The truth is you just reach for straws...ANY straws to try and make yourself sound like you're right. In fact, I cannot think of a single person in my entire life that I've seen that feels the need to be 'right' more than you (and I've seen quite a few in my lifetime). The idea of a forum is to discuss ideas, not play 'This is how it is and you're wrong'. Grow up already.

Get it now ? All you've done is rant and whine

Sorry, but you are the one that whines and rants. You don't argue. You just accuse people of whining and ranting and that seems to be your whole argument (anyone can look back through your posts on the past 3 pages and see you accuse me of 'ranting' and 'whining' while I present my arguments and your 'arguments' are nothing more than accusations of me whining and ranting. It's funny. Name-calling means you already lost the argument. That means you've lost it about a half dozen times already because bringing up the 'whining and ranting' card is getting old.

You sound like a little kid to me in this thread. How old are you?

 

[Akorn240!!]

This conversation is quickly moving beyond tiring!

Intuit and Apple can play tennis and keep the ball bouncing back and forth. Intuit did not get it right after 2007, why think they care about getting it right for Lion?

One suggested alternative is buy and install a windows VM and then buy and install the latest windows Quicken. If people need to do it, good success.

For me, I am asking why pay for and install a VM on my Mac so I can (again) buy a new copy of Quicken (and this time for windows) when Intuit let us down with the new version after 2007? I am not interested in rewarding a company that got it wrong (and still hasn't produced and delivered an alternative to make it right from 2007) with another purchase of their software...