Rosetta in Leopard.

Markleshark

macrumors 603
Original poster
Aug 15, 2006
6,240
0
Carlisle, Up Norf!
Do you think Apple will include Rosetta in Leopard? I hope not, because that will greatly improve the general speed of OS X on my Intel Mac Mini, which I have been quite dissapointed with since I bought if the thruth be known, but I do understand this is because of my lack of RAM, but still I thought I would have noticed a more significant speed bump from a 800MHz G4. I hope they make it an extra installable like Classic was, that would be great, because you'd think by Leopard everyone will have switch to UB.

That do you think? Excuse me if this has been posted, I had a quick search and couldn't find anything.
 

bearbo

macrumors 68000
Jul 20, 2006
1,858
0
Markleshark said:
Do you think Apple will include Rosetta in Leopard? I hope not, because that will greatly improve the general speed of OS X on my Intel Mac Mini, which I have been quite dissapointed with since I bought if the thruth be known, but I do understand this is because of my lack of RAM, but still I thought I would have noticed a more significant speed bump from a 800MHz make G4. I hope they it an extra installable like Classic was, that would be great, because you'd think by Leopard everyone will have switch to UB.

That do you think? Excuse me if this has been posted, I had a quick search and couldn't find anything.
i dont think the presence of Rosetta in tiger can reduce your speed, provided you are not using it.
what specs of mac mini are you using? why, pray tell, would you think it's rosetta that slows down your mac mini? no, by leopard not everyone (not even close) will switch to UB, microsoft office (you use it or not) will for sure not be UB by then, and even if you can't care less about it, there are tons of ppl need it.
 

Markleshark

macrumors 603
Original poster
Aug 15, 2006
6,240
0
Carlisle, Up Norf!
Well yer, sorry, I ment using it. The Rosetta performance if dyer, but I have a 1.83 Intel Core Duo Mac Mini with 512meg of RAM (I know this is why its slow, lack of RAM)
 

bearbo

macrumors 68000
Jul 20, 2006
1,858
0
Markleshark said:
Well yer, sorry, I ment using it. The Rosetta performance if dyer, but I have a 1.83 Intel Core Duo Mac Mini with 512meg of RAM (I know this is why its slow, lack of RAM)
well, even that shouldn't be slower than a 800MHz G4.. what do you have on that G4?

and also, would you answer my question about why do you think it's Rosetta is costing your performance?
 

Markleshark

macrumors 603
Original poster
Aug 15, 2006
6,240
0
Carlisle, Up Norf!
It is deffo faster than my super eMac (Had 200gig 7200RPM HDD, 768meg of RAM) it was just that I was expecting to notice a much bigger jump. But I guess there is not much of a difference to notice when all you do it web surf, iTunes, and the likes. I'm sure if I was doing more processor intensive things I would notice.

As for why I think it is slowing down my machine, the more you install the more itis bound to slow down (I know this will be tiny, but still) but I'm not 100% sure how Rosetta works, does it start when you start a not UB program? Or is it always sitting running, waiting for you to use something that is not UB? Because if its the latter then it is bound to slow things down.
 

bearbo

macrumors 68000
Jul 20, 2006
1,858
0
Markleshark said:
It is deffo faster than my super eMac (Had 200gig 7200RPM HDD, 768meg of RAM) it was just that I was expecting to notice a much bigger jump. But I guess there is not much of a difference to notice when all you do it web surf, iTunes, and the likes. I'm sure if I was doing more processor intensive things I would notice.

As for why I think it is slowing down my machine, the more you install the more itis bound to slow down (I know this will be tiny, but still) but I'm not 100% sure how Rosetta works, does it start when you start a not UB program? Or is it always sitting running, waiting for you to use something that is not UB? Because if its the latter then it is bound to slow things down.
the only reason a not running program could slow down your computer is by occupying harddrive space when you are ALMOST out, because OS needs free harddrive space to run smoothly.. so unless you are almost out on harddrive space (say, less than 10%), it shouldn't affect you.

Rosetta does not run unless a PPC app is running, and when you quit the PPC app, the Rosetta quits.
 

Markleshark

macrumors 603
Original poster
Aug 15, 2006
6,240
0
Carlisle, Up Norf!
Ah well, I have much more than 10% of HDD space. I guess its just me, but ill upgrade the RAM and we'll see. I still thinks Rosetta as an optional extra would be a good idea tho, everything bar Photoshop I use now is UB. And im anal about HDD space. I had a 200Gig HDD in that old eMac and I wasnt happy if I had under 130Gig left, so I bought an external drive and started using that... I freak myself out with that one
 

sunfast

macrumors 68020
Oct 14, 2005
2,105
0
London
Markleshark said:
Ah well, I have much more than 10% of HDD space. I guess its just me, but ill upgrade the RAM and we'll see. I still thinks Rosetta as an optional extra would be a good idea tho, everything bar Photoshop I use now is UB. And im anal about HDD space. I had a 200Gig HDD in that old eMac and I wasnt happy if I had under 130Gig left, so I bought an external drive and started using that... I freak myself out with that one
Rosetta is MUCH better on my MacBook now it has 2GB of RAM. Was almost unusable with stock 512MB.
 

amiga

macrumors 6502
Jul 12, 2006
354
0
London.
(Nothing to do with the topic but...) Waves at Markleshark!!! :) First Cumbrian MacRumors member I've seen other than my self (even though I am living in London)
 

jsw

Moderator emeritus
Mar 16, 2004
22,910
41
Andover, MA
I can almost guarantee that Rosetta will continue to be included by default in an OS released less than a year after PPC-based Macs were sold. I suspect it will linger at least until the next major rev (10.6) and probably longer. It doesn't consume any resources unless you need to run it, so running UBs or Intel-compiles on an Intel Mac won't cause it to run.
 

Markleshark

macrumors 603
Original poster
Aug 15, 2006
6,240
0
Carlisle, Up Norf!
amiga said:
(Nothing to do with the topic but...) Waves at Markleshark!!! :) First Cumbrian MacRumors member I've seen other than my self (even though I am living in London)
*Waves* Hello. Tiz cold up here atm. hehe

Oh well, I'd have to agree with sunfast, it is dyer with the stock RAM. Shame the RAM isnt easier to upgrade in the Mini. Can't have it all tho I guess, rather annoying that it would void the warranty.
 

andrewag

macrumors 6502
Jan 11, 2005
308
0
Australia
Many people don't upgrade their software as soon as a new version is out. This is especially true in enterprise. We have just purchased Aobe/Macromedia Studio a few months back and a AU$5000 price tag for the site license and needing to do it all over just to run on Leopard would be a huge problem. Apple still need to support their older customers and not just new ones.

I expect the many consumers are also in this situation.

I find it very slow on my stock black MacBook too and if there is one thing open the computer is painful to use. For example the Microsoft update software that runs. Once I removed that the computer responded stacks better.
 

Krevnik

macrumors 68040
Sep 8, 2003
3,318
676
Rosetta is included in Leopard.

Classic is still around, even, so why would they ditch Rosetta after a single year?
 

darkcurse

macrumors 6502a
Nov 5, 2005
538
0
Sydney
It still should be in there since it ensures backwards compatibility for those programs which hasn't or won't go UB. My guess is that there will be further and further optimisations to it so that more and more stuff will work like device drivers :D
 

Krevnik

macrumors 68040
Sep 8, 2003
3,318
676
darkcurse said:
It still should be in there since it ensures backwards compatibility for those programs which hasn't or won't go UB. My guess is that there will be further and further optimisations to it so that more and more stuff will work like device drivers :D
Device drivers will never work. They are loaded and linked against the kernel. Because of this, you can't mix-and-match drivers made for x86 and PPC (since an entire process must be one or the other, and the kernel must be native). I have been doing a little work writing an Intel driver for a device that the manufacturer decided wasn't worth supporting on Intel because of this.