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

[..d..ecay]

Maybe we move to iBank

This conversation is quickly moving beyond tiring!
<SNIP>
I am not interested in rewarding a company that got it wrong ... with another purchase of their software...

I agree! Since Quicken "Essentials" for Mac was a slap in the face to any serious Quicken user, it seems to make more sense to transition to a state-of-the-art, fully supported product. One of the top contender is iBank:

http://www.iggsoftware.com/index.php​

True, they're not completely polished, yet, but they seem to be responsive and engaged with their users. I'm considering the jump myself, what with 15 years of Quicken data and the choice of either staying on a soon-to-be-unsupported platform -- or -- upgrading to the latest OS & losing my personal financial software.

 

[KnightWRX]

What facts? Blah blah blah...

Facts :

- Rosetta requires a full PPC build of every framework and library on the system, as shipped by Apple, using up space in the installer download and on the user's hard drive.

- Rosetta is more than just a simple small binary

- Every fix Apple does to a library that then must be recompiled/relinked requires not breaking PPC compatibility and requires regression testing against a suite of PPC specific tests.

I never placed a monetary value on any of this. It is however logical that removing the Q&A steps is going to save time/money to Apple. How much, who knows. Enough to make this decision worthwhile ? It seems so since they did.

Debunk those If I'm so wrong all the time now.

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? Blah blah blah I never programmed once in my life

Shipping a vulnerable system only helps malware authors. Let's say a buffer overflow bug is found in NSString. You propose Apple only fixes the Intel library and leaves the PPC library vulnerable and ship that as a supported configuration ?

Opening up all the users to a security flaw, because you want to run an old version of Quicken on a new OS ?

Ridiculous notion and very dangerous precedent to set in this industry. Security bugs will still need to be addressed in a scenario where they stop updates to the PPC side. You can't go into "code freeze". And libraries are code. Code is code. Bugs will exist no matter what kind of package it is compiled as (library or executable).

Sorry, but you are the one that whines and rants. You don't argue. blah blah blah

The only whine I did is that your posts are long and boring, making up fantasy scenarios that make no sense. I never ranted. You need to look up the definition of the word.

Focus your present anger and hate towards Intuit and other vendors that can't be made to port their software. Apple is making the right choice here as far as I'm concerned. Snow Leopard is your exit strategy if you really can't move on from PPC software.

 

[coolspot18]

Is it me, or does Apple seem to break a lot of things during each release of OSX?

Windows at least keeps applications more or less compatible between each release.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Facts :

This is getting so bleeping old it's ridiculous. You obviously just can't let it go and you MUST be right 100% of the time and so you worm your way around the discussion and go back to irrelevant topics.

- Rosetta requires a full PPC build of every framework and library on the system, as shipped by Apple, using up space in the installer download and on the user's hard drive.

Rosetta could be easily altered to run off boxed libraries, thus not requiring updates for 95% of them to function. While you may consider this some kind of massive security risk, some of us might prefer a smidgen of risk over complete and total non-functionality of said programs.

More to the point, there is ZERO difference having to keep an old Mac around running libraries that are no longer supported by Apple and running the same libraries in a virtual machine. Yet you seem to support the former, but insist the latter is simply no doable. And yet you expect ANYONE to then take your arguments seriously???

I'm sorry, but your entire argument boils down to Apple doesn't want to spend time and resources on Rosetta anymore and you back that 100%. That is why I said you have turned into a fanboy in this thread. You have no logical basis as to why Rosetta could not be continued given Apple's nearly unlimited petty cash (at over $70 BILLION the last time I checked, enough to finance an entire army and a small air force for the next few years) or easily modified to continue with a much less intervention required on Apple's part OR to hand the emulation engine off to someone like VMWare that could then in a very short time virtualize PPC OSX for those that need it (essentially their product internally can already virtualize it; translating PPC code is the only other thing to add, which the Rosetta ENGINE would provide along with Apple's licensing to allow it).

Those are all FACTS (they CAN be done; they are not impossible. Yes they are only possibilities, but they are REAL ones). They do debunk your absurd arguments that Apple can't be 'bothered' to support Rosetta because it's too much space and too much money. Your 'arguments' have not provided ANY evidence of either. Pointing to a 4GB Lion install doesn't show any evidence that Rosetta takes up too much space what-so-ever. I don't see any figures from you on that. But I say it's got to be a pittance compared to Lion itself. Your argument that it would cost Apple too much in the way of money or resources is based on what, exactly? It's based on NOTHING since you have not provided ANY figures what-so-ever to back those claims.

So what does your supposed "argument" boil down to again? It boils down to assertions that Apple has neither the time, money or resources to maintain Rosetta as-is or convert it into an emulated virtual environment (several avenues they could take there from virtual machine like Windows7 does for XP or a stand-alone emulated virtual machine like any number of 3rd party emulators do. Instead of addressing those possibilities, you'd rather balk and claim I'm "whining" or "ranting" instead, which is 100% BULLCRAP. But that's what arrogant people do when they have no legs to stand on. They make crap up.

Shipping a vulnerable system only helps malware authors. Let's say a buffer overflow bug is found in NSString. You propose Apple only fixes the Intel library and leaves the PPC library vulnerable and ship that as a supported configuration ?

There is NO functional difference between keeping and old machine with that vulnerability in the library that Apple has ABANDONED than having the SAME library in a virtual machine on a newer machine under emulation.

Apple can simply put a disclaimer on a final stand-alone version of Rosetta that says no support is given or implied by using this software. Use at your own risk. The TYPE of software most would use with it are a few utilities and apps like Quicken and old games. No one is going to use PPC browsers or other modern/newer software on an Intel machine. There would be NO POINT.

Opening up all the users to a security flaw, because you want to run an old version of Quicken on a new OS ?

All users? LOL. Any vulnerabilities in old PPC libraries would be present only on machines running PPC programs through Rosetta. Again, this is no different than running a dedicated PPC computer with the same programs. Either way Apple is not going to support those PPC libraries any longer. Any user not using such a modified stand-alone version of Rosetta would not even have the old PPC libraries on their machine.

Ridiculous notion and very dangerous precedent to set in this industry.

The only ridiculous notions around here are coming from you, sir.

That's like saying VMWare is setting a dangerous precedent by allowing you to install other operating systems that may have bugs or malware on them. It's like saying you might get in a car accident if you go driving today. There's always risks, but some are acceptable risks. Anyone that doesn't want that risk wouldn't install the modified Rosetta I'm talking about. It would be self-contained like any other emulator or virtual machine. It could even be set to not be allowed to write files outside its closed environment (set directories) and thus could not easily harm any part of the rest of the system. If you don't have it installed, it can't do anything.

Security bugs will still need to be addressed in a scenario where they stop updates to the PPC side. You can't go into "code freeze". And libraries are code. Code is code. Bugs will exist no matter what kind of package it is compiled as (library or executable).

WTF do you think Apple has done with Tiger, Panther, OS9, etc.? They are in "code freeze". They are NO LONGER SUPPORTED BY APPLE.

The only whine I did is that your posts are long and boring, making up fantasy scenarios that make no sense. I never ranted. You need to look up the definition of the word.

What would you call a bunch of pointless replies to posts you consider 'boring' no less; have you ever even CONSIDERED just not reading or replying to them if they are so boring??? Sheesh. I'm sure you right that Apple WILL NOT do ANYTHING with Rosetta but dump support for it. That doesn't mean there are not things they COULD do with it (which is what I've been discussing). It seems to me you are in a whole different conversation than the one I'm in.

Focus your present anger and hate towards Intuit and other vendors that can't be made to port their software. Apple is making the right choice here as far as I'm concerned. Snow Leopard is your exit strategy if you really can't move on from PPC software.

Yes, as far as YOU are concerned. Fine. You've given your OPINION. Some of us think that opinion is wrong. Let us have our own opinions without you getting in our faces and telling us how dumb we all are. You've made your choice to turn to the Apple side. Good day and good riddance. I have no desire to reply to any more of your posts. They are a waste of my time on my day off.

Is it me, or does Apple seem to break a lot of things during each release of OSX?

Windows at least keeps applications more or less compatible between each release.

No, it's not just you. Apple doesn't care what they break. They believe the developers should fix their programs to work with the new version of the OS, not the other way around. They will even do things like announce 64-bit Carbon support and then one day just change their minds a year or two later and too bad for all the work any developer has done in the mean time. They provide no real time-lines and very little information about the future direction of the Mac. They don't often cooperate with developers (e.g. game developers have asked Apple for better support for years with OSX and Apple couldn't care less most of the time).

This is all because Apple makes most of their money (at least in the past; the 30% money share thing with the App stores seems to be changing that) from selling hardware, not software. So until people stop buying Macs entirely because they're sick of Apple breaking software and what not, they will just keep doing it. Steve Jobs has already said that he makes his decisions based on his "vision" for the future, not what customers want, request, etc.

 

[MorphingDragon]

^^^

Apple could implement FreeBSD Jails in Mac OSX, and inside a jail have a PPC emulator and the old libraries. That way old insecure software could be run sandboxed, safely away form the Main OS. You would just need a secure way to transfer files to and from the sandbox.

(I say could because I'm not entirely sure how jails work)

---

You can't please everyone, you're going to be too fast for someone or slow for someone else.

PPC couldn't of been dumped fast enough IMO. PPC should've stayed in the server space and specialised applications where it's at its prime. Developers can live in the muck from their own poor planning, choosing to develop only PPC apps (Carbon or Cocoa) knowing that Apple was going to drop support in a blink of an eye.

 

[KnightWRX]

Rosetta could be easily altered to run off boxed libraries...

Apple could this, Apple could that, Apple can, Apple should, Apple doesn't want to spend money. Dropping PPC support = 0$. Doing everything else you propose = >0$. Hard concept to grasp I know.

There is NO functional difference between keeping and old machine with that vulnerability in the library that Apple has ABANDONED...

While to the user there may be "no difference", there is one to Apple : Responsibility. By letting the user make the choice of running old unsupported software on old unsupported operating systems, Apple is not responsible for the security of the system and is not imputable of compromises if they happen.

Again, it boils down to : Dropping PPC support = 0$. Doing anything else you propose : >0$.

You have as much choice of ignoring my posts. You keep replying to me. Ignore me if you don't like it, but the facts are the facts. PPC support in the form of Rosetta has an attached cost and for Apple, it just became logical to drop it. Like you should.

On a whole other topic : Why do you keep on banging out these walls of texts everytime someone says something you don't like (which is... every time you post a reply on Macrumors). They are long, boring and usually quite off-topic or completely irrelevant to the discussion and only serve to drown any shred of logical argument you might have in some anger filled propaganda that makes people dismiss you as some kind of forum rager.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Apple could this, Apple could that, Apple can, Apple should, Apple doesn't want to spend money. Dropping PPC support = 0$. Doing everything else you propose = >0$. Hard concept to grasp I know.

Gee, for someone that frequents a RUMOR forum, one might think you'd be used to that concept by now.

While to the user there may be "no difference", there is one to Apple : Responsibility. By letting the user make the choice of running old unsupported software on old unsupported operating systems, Apple is not responsible for the security of the system and is not imputable of compromises if they happen.

Again, you say 1+1 = 0.

Apple 'lets' users run out-of-date Macs too in order to run old software. How irresponsible of them! They should put a clause in their license agreement to automatically destroy all Macs after their support ceases.

LOL. Your posts are so ridiculous I just have to laugh. You've essentially admitted what I propose is possible and yet keep falling down to the fact it might cost Apple a few dollars to implement it so we're all better off just losing all software made before 2005. Yes, sir, that's a really sound argument you've got there.

Again, it boils down to : Dropping PPC support = 0$. Doing anything else you propose : >0$.

Once again you point out that a company with >$70 BILLION in cash reserves can't afford to do anything that costs more than $0 to preserve their user base and keep them from going back to Windows for lack of legacy software library support. What a GREAT argument.

You have as much choice of ignoring my posts. You keep replying to me.

I can't help myself. I see walls of absurdity and just feel the need to correct them so hapless users aren't fooled by your mountains of BS.

Most of the posts I've seen (other than by you) are not happy to lose the ability to run software older than 2005 on a Mac. But you seem to think you speak for everyone including Steve Jobs so keep spreading the BS.

Ignore me if you don't like it, but the facts are the facts.

Yes, it's a fact your posts are absurd.

On a whole other topic : Why do you keep on banging out these walls of texts everytime someone says something you don't like (which is... every time you post a reply on Macrumors).

I could ask you the same question, but then unlike you, I already know the answer.

They are long, boring and usually quite off-topic or completely irrelevant to the discussion and only serve to drown any shred of logical argument you might have in some anger filled propaganda that makes people dismiss you as some kind of forum rager.

Wow, a thinly veiled insult trying SO HARD to insult me directly yet riding the thin line between flame and just acting like a child.

 

[davidg4781]

Ahh, forget it. I'm switching back to Windows XP.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Gee, for someone that frequents a RUMOR forum, one might think you'd be used to that concept by now.



Again, you say 1+1 = 0.

Apple 'lets' users run out-of-date Macs too in order to run old software. How irresponsible of them! They should put a clause in their license agreement to automatically destroy all Macs after their support ceases.

LOL. Your posts are so ridiculous I just have to laugh. You've essentially admitted what I propose is possible and yet keep falling down to the fact it might cost Apple a few dollars to implement it so we're all better off just losing all software made before 2005. Yes, sir, that's a really sound argument you've got there.



Once again you point out that a company with >$70 BILLION in cash reserves can't afford to do anything that costs more than $0 to preserve their user base and keep them from going back to Windows for lack of legacy software library support. What a GREAT argument.

So you refuse to admit the possibility that Apple needs to cut off support for PPC eventually regardless of how much money they have?

Money is not the only deciding power with such things, Apple likes to have smaller development teams and having to upkeep the old PPC libraries requires a lot of man power (a lot more than you think). Even Adobe has got 100% Intel versions of its software now, there is no reason for Intuit and others to lag behind so...

Also:

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

So you refuse to admit the possibility that Apple needs to cut off support for PPC eventually regardless of how much money they have?

I think I already said they could offer a stand-alone virtual machine emulator for older operating systems software. It wouldn't require much updating once adapted. I have these for the Amiga, C64, etc. They could also sell the core Rosetta emulation engine to VMWare, etc. and let them do it. I already discussed all this. Ask Microsoft if they thought it was a waste of money to create an XP virtual machine for Windows7. Nearly all the software made in the past decade will run on a Windows7 machine one way or the other and much of the late '90s stuff will run as well.

Money is not the only deciding power with such things, Apple likes to have smaller development teams and having to upkeep the old PPC libraries requires a lot of man power (a lot more than you think).

I think Apple can afford to hire more people, but Steve likes his choke-hold on control and so would rather abandon things rather than give some authority to others to manage things (I wish he'd hand the whole Mac division over to someone else; it's clear he has neither the time nor desire to maintain the Mac and core OSX at the level it deserves to be kept at. Yes, iPhones are cool, but OSX shouldn't continually suffer because of it.

Even Adobe has got 100% Intel versions of its software now, there is no reason for Intuit and others to lag behind so...

A complete lack of users on the Mac platform? And you can't expect game makers to update their games to Intel. Most are just conversions by a 3rd party company anyway and made very little to begin with, let alone when they're out of date. But if you bought the Windows version, you can keep playing it (frankly it's easier to convert the Windows version with something like Cider or Wine instead at this point).

 

[MorphingDragon]

I think I already said they could offer a stand-alone virtual machine emulator for older operating systems software. It wouldn't require much updating once adapted. I have these for the Amiga, C64, etc. They could also sell the core Rosetta emulation engine to VMWare, etc. and let them do it. I already discussed all this.

An emulator is no better than what we have now. All the OS and hardware hooks would still need to be constantly maintained. It would be better to just virtualize Mac OSX 10.6 if you need it so much, which you can do already with VMWare Fusion v3.

A purely software emulator would not be suitable to replace what Rosetta does, it would crawl. The only reason why you have 100% software emulation with the Amiga and C64 platforms is because the performance difference between then and now is so extreme.

VMWare don't do cross-architecture emulation/translation. They do x86 VMs.

Ask Microsoft if they thought it was a waste of money to create an XP virtual machine for Windows7. Nearly all the software made in the past decade will run on a Windows7 machine one way or the other and much of the late '90s stuff will run as well.

Rosetta =/= Windows XP mode. Rosetta does a lot more than a virtual machine. Windows XP mode is just a virtual machine, it is Virtual PC in a "Unity" mode, like VMWare Fusion or Virtual Box. It costed Microsoft pennies to implement.

I think Apple can afford to hire more people, but Steve likes his choke-hold on control and so would rather abandon things rather than give some authority to others to manage things (I wish he'd hand the whole Mac division over to someone else; it's clear he has neither the time nor desire to maintain the Mac and core OSX at the level it deserves to be kept at. Yes, iPhones are cool, but OSX shouldn't continually suffer because of it.

Each development method has its advantages and disadvantages. With larger teams you end up with the redundancies and disparities of larger teams, like what's happening at Microsoft.

Also, Lion has got lots of things done to it that haven't been announced publicly that you need to be a developer to see.

A complete lack of users on the Mac platform?

********.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

An emulator is no better than what we have now.

The Rosetta engine already is an emulator. It emulates the PPC CPU code.

All the OS and hardware hooks would still need to be constantly maintained.

Not true if you use depreciated libraries (no point in updating the latest since there is essentially no new PPC software outside browser conversions, etc.) This is basically just sand-boxing the whole emulator into a virtual machine plus using the already working PPC emulation engine.

It would be better to just virtualize Mac OSX 10.6 if you need it so much, which you can do already with VMWare Fusion v3.

That could be done, but it's not legal with current licensing agreements with Apple for anything but OSX server.

A purely software emulator would not be suitable to replace what Rosetta does, it would crawl. The only reason why you have 100% software

Why would it crawl? Rosetta is already a software emulation dude. There's no hardware emulation going on there. The PPC CPU is emulated on an Intel processor. The rest could be handled by a virtual machine.

VMWare don't do cross-architecture emulation/translation. They do x86 VMs.

Which is why they (or someone else) would need Apple's Rosetta emulation engine to make it work.

Rosetta =/= Windows XP mode. Rosetta does a lot more than a virtual machine. Windows XP mode is just a virtual machine, it is Virtual PC in a "Unity" mode, like VMWare Fusion or Virtual Box. It costed Microsoft pennies to implement.

And Apple already invested in the Rosetta emulation engine. It's done. It's finished. It doesn't cost them anything to develop more than they already have in the past. Virtualizing PPC is as simple as plugging the Rosetta engine into the virtual machine (i.e. it's just a cut-down virtual machine like VMWare already does but with PPC emulation engine handling CPU translation). Thus, it would behave just like XP only with the added emulation layer (which again already exists in the Rosetta engine). All libraries are already frozen/abandoned and so you don't need to update it to handle newer libraries. Just sand-box it with the old ones. If security is really a concern, the file access could be limited to the sand-box environment with strict control methods to insert/remove software from within it.

********.

Just how many Quicken users do think the Mac has compared to Windows? If it were comparable, Intuit would have never let Quicken for Mac stagnate all this time.

 

[MorphingDragon]

The Rosetta engine already is an emulator. It emulates the PPC CPU code.

Wrong. Rosetta translates PPC machine code into x86 machine code. It is not an emulator.

Not true if you use depreciated libraries (no point in updating the latest since there is essentially no new PPC software outside browser conversions, etc.) This is basically just sand-boxing the whole emulator into a virtual machine plus using the already working PPC emulation engine.

This has nothing to do with the PPC Cocoa and Carbon libraries. To use a PPC emulator at any usable speed, you would need hardware assisted emulation. Apple would need to update the emulation engine for each major hardware revision and Mac OSX update. It doesn't solve anything.

That could be done, but it's not legal with current licensing agreements with Apple for anything but OSX server.

Then use OSX server if running your old applications is really important to you. Its compatible with all your software that runs on regular Snow Leopard.

Why would it crawl? Rosetta is already a software emulation dude. There's no hardware emulation going on there. The PPC CPU is emulated on an Intel processor. The rest could be handled by a virtual machine.

Rosetta is a translation engine, it emulates nothing.

Rosetta - > Translates PPC machine code to x86 Machine Code on the fly.

PPC Emulator (EG: PearPC) -> Reproduces a PPC CPU, including the internal components. Reproduces the Memory, Memory Subsystem and MMU. Reproduces the I/O devices in a Von-Neumann BUS architecture fashion. Everything must be processed by the host CPU, even wait cycles.

Which is why they (or someone else) would need Apple's Rosetta emulation engine to make it work.

Except VMWare wouldn't know how to develop or maintain it. They make x86 virtual machine hypervisors, they would need to hire a lot of extra staff; A costly endeavour for what will be a small cliental.

And Apple already invested in the Rosetta emulation engine. It's done. It's finished. It doesn't cost them anything to develop more than they already have in the past. Virtualizing PPC is as simple as plugging the Rosetta engine into the virtual machine (i.e. it's just a cut-down virtual machine like VMWare already does but with PPC emulation engine handling CPU translation). Thus, it would behave just like XP only with the added emulation layer (which again already exists in the Rosetta engine). All libraries are already frozen/abandoned and so you don't need to update it to handle newer libraries. Just sand-box it with the old ones. If security is really a concern, the file access could be limited to the sand-box environment with strict control methods to insert/remove software from within it.

Sigh...

Just how many Quicken users do think the Mac has compared to Windows? If it were comparable, Intuit would have never let Quicken for Mac stagnate all this time.

No excuses, whatsoever. You either support your products or get the flak you deserve as a ****** company with a ****** product. They had 10 years to change to Cocoa and 5 to change away from PPC to avoid this. Even enterprise-grade software gets updated faster than that.

 

[AidenShaw]

Wrong. Rosetta translates PPC machine code into x86 machine code. It is not an emulator.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Transitive is an emulator that works by translating a program into the instruction set to be emulated.

If you're running a program compiled for machine language X on a system running on a system with machine language Y - you have to emulate X in order to run the program on machine Y.

You can emulate each "X" instruction in isolation (the old "Virtual PC" approach"), or you can translate (and optimize) the "X" instruction stream into an equivalent "Y" stream (the Transitive approach).

In both cases you're emulating the original "X" stream.

Along the way, opportunities may come up to replace a call to an "X" system function with an already translated (or native) "Y" system function.

 

[AidenShaw]

Sigh...

Image

A funny image.

Question though - if the car is upside down, is it right-hand drive or wrong-hand drive?

 

[davidg4781]

<snip>


Sigh...

Image



<snip>

How do they keep their drinks and fries from falling onto the top of the car? Or I guess they're not allowed to eat/drink while driving?

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Wrong. Rosetta translates PPC machine code into x86 machine code. It is not an emulator.

You apparently don't know what an emulator is (Translating PPC instructions to Intel ones is THE definition of CPU emulation!) You seem to think something isn't 'emulation' unless it emulates the entire system, but that's simply not true. Emulation applies to every component of a given system. Real time (or rather Just In Time) emulation engines are the hardest emulation engines to create. I've seen M.A.M.E. emulations of certain arcade machines go 3-4x faster with a JIT CPU engine added to the emulation and make no mistake, the CPU is the largest single component in a given system to emulate.

In Rosetta's case, Apple has a CPU emulation that is tied into the same operating system for Intel as it is for PPC and thus emulation of the rest of the system hasn't been needed. A virtual machine sandboxes another copy of the OS or an older version or even a completely different operating system within the main system (this is what VMWare does). Given Apple's work on Rosetta, it wouldn't take much to combine their CPU emulation engine with VMware's virtualization. The combination would mean you'd have a virtual PPC Mac running within the main OS. It could run nearly as fast as Rosetta could run on its own in previous OS versions.

PearPC, OTOH emulates an entire PPC machine and it has an inferior CPU emulation. More to the point it's designed to run OS7/8/9, not OSX and so EVERYTHING has to be emulated (there was no version of those operating systems ever released with support for Intel processors so everything has to be emulated, not just the CPU instructions).

Apple would need to update the emulation engine for each major hardware revision and Mac OSX update. It doesn't solve anything.

That is not necessarily true at all. I haven't had to update E-UAE or Vice to get them to run in Snow Leopard over Leopard or even on my PPC machine from Tiger to Leopard. What you're saying is that ALL apps must be updated to run on a new version of the operating system since there is no real difference between an emulator and any other app in that regard. It's just not true. Something may or may not break. It depends on what is changed in the OS.

Then use OSX server if running your old applications is really important to you. Its compatible with all your software that runs on regular Snow Leopard.

Have you checked on the price of OSX server lately? It's not a very good solution (i.e. $499). I might as well keep my PPC Mac around instead.

Rosetta is a translation engine, it emulates nothing.

Except VMWare wouldn't know how to develop or maintain it. They make x86 virtual machine hypervisors, they would need to hire a lot of extra staff; A costly endeavour for what will be a small cliental.

Amazing how you know what VMWare knows and doesn't know. Hire some emulation programmers (there are enough floating around out there for 3rd party free projects like Mame, UAE, Vice, etc. that it wouldn't be hard). Besides, Apple already did the hard part in creating the CPU engine and made it work with the main OS. All VMWare (or Apple) would have to do is sandbox the setup with and older set of libraries. That doesn't require much emulation experience at all. The authors of WINE don't emulate an entire Windows machine and yet they manage to run Windows programs. Imagine that.

No excuses, whatsoever. You either support your products or get the flak you deserve as a ****** company with a ****** product. They had 10 years to change to Cocoa and 5 to change away from PPC to avoid this. Even enterprise-grade software gets updated faster than that.

No excuses?

You don't know much about running a business either, I take it. If the number of users didn't matter, the Mac would have just as much software as Windows. But then we've got Steve Jobs single-handedly wiping out half the software library from the past decade with Lion.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Transitive is an emulator that works by translating a program into the instruction set to be emulated.

If you're running a program compiled for machine language X on a system running on a system with machine language Y - you have to emulate X in order to run the program on machine Y.

You can emulate each "X" instruction in isolation (the old "Virtual PC" approach"), or you can translate (and optimize) the "X" instruction stream into an equivalent "Y" stream (the Transitive approach).

In both cases you're emulating the original "X" stream.

Along the way, opportunities may come up to replace a call to an "X" system function with an already translated (or native) "Y" system function.

I thought Magnum was speaking about simple Emulation. Well at least that what it seems like to me from his posts, or it could be because its stuck in my head from the last 2 weeks of study. Rosetta isn't classed as a simple emulator.

Binary translation differs somewhat to from simple emulation. It doesn't attempt to use the standard (read -> decode -> execute) loop and does something which could be compared to JIT compiling.

A funny image.

Question though - if the car is upside down, is it right-hand drive or wrong-hand drive?

You drive with your feet.

No excuses?

You don't know much about running a business either, I take it. If the number of users didn't matter, the Mac would have just as much software as Windows. But then we've got Steve Jobs single-handedly wiping out half the software library from the past decade with Lion.

Never-mind, I thought you were talking about simple emulation. At least that's what it seemed like.

Why would I need to be good at running a business? If a business can't cater to a customer they previously could, they have lost a customer and gained any repercussions of that customer leaving.

 

[jdeitch]

Quicken + CrossOver

Rather than add Rosetta to the Mac version of Quicken, perhaps they should see if they can integrate CrossOver with the PC version of Quicken. Although there are some problems with graphics and help screens, it does work pretty well and we'd get a full-featured Quicken. Admittedly, it would be a kluge, but so is Rosetta + Quicken.

-Jay

 

[..d..ecay]

The latest news, direct from Intuit

Here's the text of an email I received today from Intuit on this topic; the link for "click here" is added below:

Dear Valued Quicken Customer,

Apple(R) is scheduled to release a new operating system this summer (Lion Mac OS X 10.7). If you are using Quicken(R) for Mac 2005, 2006, or 2007 and ARE considering upgrading to this new operating system, please click here to see how it could impact your Quicken Mac product.

If you do not plan on upgrading to the new operating system or are using Quicken Essentials for Mac, please disregard this message.

If you have any questions, please visit our Quicken Mac Q&A.

Sincerely,

Aaron Forth
GM, Personal Finance
Intuit Inc.

IMPORTANT: If you are currently using Quicken Essentials for Mac, please disregard this message. Your software will be compatible with the new Mac OS.

click here link:
http://quicken.intuit.com/support/articles/getting-started/upgrading-and-conversion/8207.html

Damn. Hope we can get the folks at IGG Software (creators of iBank, the best hope for a current, supported Quicken replacement at this time) to step up and add online bill pay to the next release of iBank. Add that feature and fix a couple of other minor issues I've read about, and I'll be ready to switch horses.

 

[duheb]

Left Quicken after 14 years...

I bought my first Mac in May 2011 and tried IBank4, Moneywell, Moneydance, and settled on SEE Finance. Seems to be the best option for my needs.

 

[killerbee79]

I'm officially stuck on Snow Leopard, and my current MBP since future machines will have Lion. I've demoed iBank4, SEE Finance, Moneydance, etc.... any app I could find.

iBank4 has the most promise. I liked everything about it except the reports. If it had decent reports with specific detail customization I'd use it in a heartbeat. But in its current form, no way is it worth $60.

Why does all the above mentioned apps have reports that absolutely suck.

I don't get it. Either the reports are very limited overall or are very very limited in customization and specifics or both. The investment reports in iBank4 rounds everything to the nearest percentage. It needs to go out 2 decimal places. It can't even generate a simple personal rate of return which include commissions in the calculation. In fact it leaves out commissions in everything giving one a very inaccurate picture of their investment returns. I can't even generate a simple report showing balances in accounts over a specified time frame. That is so basic for crying out loud!!!

It's like these app developers want to make something look pretty but can't do any math..... So frustrating for a consumer like me.

 

[..d..ecay]

Make sure to

I'm officially stuck on Snow Leopard, and my current MBP since future machines will have Lion. I've demoed iBank4, SEE Finance, Moneydance, etc.... any app I could find.

iBank4 has the most promise. I liked everything about it except the reports. If it had decent reports with specific detail customization I'd use it in a heartbeat. But in its current form, no way is it worth $60.

Why does all the above mentioned apps have reports that absolutely suck.

I don't get it. Either the reports are very limited overall or are very very limited in customization and specifics or both. The investment reports in iBank4 rounds everything to the nearest percentage. <SNIP>

killerbee79 -

I agree with you completely, but the folks that need to hear it are the devs at IGG Software! Have you submitted your thoughts to them, either via email or in their forums? If not, please do - they seem to monitor their boards quite a bit and that's the best way we can get them to tune up their software. Currently, the Big 3 complaints I've heard w/iBank4 are lack of online bill pay, lame reports, and their budgeting method needs refinement. Sound familiar? I hope you'll consider sending all your suggestions directly to them.

Thanks!

 

[killerbee79]

killerbee79 -

I agree with you completely, but the folks that need to hear it are the devs at IGG Software! Have you submitted your thoughts to them, either via email or in their forums? If not, please do - they seem to monitor their boards quite a bit and that's the best way we can get them to tune up their software. Currently, the Big 3 complaints I've heard w/iBank4 are lack of online bill pay, lame reports, and their budgeting method needs refinement. Sound familiar? I hope you'll consider sending all your suggestions directly to them.

Thanks!

I have sent the developers of iBank4 my thoughts on their reports like I mentioned above. But honestly I don't expect them to make the changes I seek. If they do, watch, they put it in a new release (iBank5) and force you to pay for the new program like new.

I just like spreading my frustrations about this mess around

 

[..d..ecay]

...If they do, watch, they put it in a new release (iBank5) and force you to pay for the new program like new...

OK, but that's no different from Intuit, really. If you're a new user, you'll buy iBank5 brand new, no discount and no need for one. That's your entrance fee.

But, I'll bet that IGG, like most good software companies, will offer existing users a discount to upgrade to the latest & greatest. That's a very viable model for both parties, since you get their newest creation at a discount, they retain a customer while getting a partial taste for their efforts, and you're on the most recent, fully supported product. I call that a win-win, yes?