Why did Apple omit Rosetta?

[thadoggfather]

I don't think I use it anyways, but seems like such a step backward. Same with removing SMB3. Like, why?

I use SMB3 regularly for XBMC (and had installed it via MacPorts on 10.7 but it was a lengthy Terminal process), and why not keep compatibility still running for platforms that have been going on for ages before the Intel switch?

Most people have Intel-only apps anyways (I'm pretty sure myself included), but meh?

 

[MacDawg]

I'm having a hard time seeing how removing backward compatibility is a step backward

There is probably no good time to cut ties with the past, but technology moves on both in hardware and software

 

[Pressure]

Because time move forward?

After all, the last PPC Mac was made 6 years ago.

If the developer did not bother making a native Intel application yet I fear it wouldn't be anything to invest in.

Yes yes, I know about Quicken

 

[maflynn]

Its consistent with apple's approach. They gave developers years to move their software to the intel platform, sadly some have not. You cannot really blame apple they had to pull the plug at some point.

 

[mark28]

I'm having a hard time seeing how removing backward compatibility is a step backward

There is probably no good time to cut ties with the past, but technology moves on both in hardware and software

Like software compatibility?

A lot of software isn't working on Lion anymore. And I doubt it's going to be ported just because of Lion if it's too much work.

With SL I can run everything, with Lion I can't. That is a step backward.

 

[maflynn]

Like software compatibility?

A lot of software isn't working on Lion anymore. And I doubt it's going to be ported just because of Lion.

But is that Apple's fault when developers have not updated their programs and are relying on PPC code instead of the intel platform. Apple announced the transition to intel in 2005 and the first intel Macs were in 2006. That's 5 years ago. Clearly developers had plenty of opportunity to update their apps in 5 years

 

[mark28]

But is that Apple's fault when developers have not updated their programs and are relying on PPC code instead of the intel platform. Apple announced the transition to intel in 2005 and the first intel Macs were in 2006. That's 5 years ago. Clearly developers had plenty of opportunity to update their apps in 5 years

But what's the point of cutting the PCC support? We got 1 tb hard drive in 2011 so the extra space the code takes is no issue.

 

[maflynn]

The point is that apple doesn't need to continue to support PPC layers/apps within their operating system. Why build in support for something that hasn't existed in 6 years. Clearly the majority of the software no longer requires rosetta and why should apple continue to coddle lazy developers by supporting rosetta indefinitely.

 

[mark28]

The point is that apple doesn't need to continue to support PPC layers/apps within their operating system. Why build in support for something that hasn't existed in 6 years. Clearly the majority of the software no longer requires rosetta and why should apple continue to coddle lazy developers by supporting rosetta indefinitely.

Well, it was already there in the code from SL, so why remove it if doesn't require any work to have PPC support in Lion?

It's like removing iWeb from Lion just because not many people use it anymore, but it doesn't require any work to have it in Lion?

 

[maflynn]

Well, it was already there in the code from SL, so why remove it if doesn't require any work to have PPC support in Lion?

Not to sound harsh but they stopped including it because its time. Apple has a history of dropping support on legacy items that don't serve much of a purpose.

The same thing occurred with classic (OS9) apple dropped that from OSX and people were stating similar arguments as you were but realistically OSX was the future why include the old OS 5 years after the release of OSX. The same thing here, why include support for PPC platform that hasn't been sold by apple in 5 or 6 years

 

[iHateMacs]

What about developers that have gone out of business?

I have a piece of perfectly good hardware that relies on a software written for PPC machines.

Luckily there was a windows version too which I have to use under Parallels but if there wasn't one it would mean my hardware would be scrap.

 

[sananda]

What about developers that have gone out of business?

I have a piece of perfectly good hardware that relies on a software written for PPC machines.

Luckily there was a windows version too which I have to use under Parallels but if there wasn't one it would mean my hardware would be scrap.

There's the option of staying on Snow Leopard.

 

[firestarter]

Well, it was already there in the code from SL, so why remove it if doesn't require any work to have PPC support in Lion?

It's like removing iWeb from Lion just because not many people use it anymore, but it doesn't require any work to have it in Lion?

You're wrong.

Support costs money. Rosetta would need re-testing and fixing for every new piece of hardware and every new OS. Just keeping it isn't 'free' at all.

One of Apple's great advantages over Microsoft is the limited range of hardware and limited combinations of software they need to test against. Microsoft's testing costs alone must be astronomical.

 

[thadoggfather]

There's the option of staying on Snow Leopard.

Apple should allow you the option on newer machines like the 2011 Air between SL and Lion. Like, as in, you can run it, without problems.

Otherwise, people might be eyeballing the new hardware but some new Lion features are deal breakers.

 

[Steve's Barber]

I don't think I use it anyways, but seems like such a step backward. Same with removing SMB3. Like, why?

Simply put... when you only command less than 10% of the total market AND within that market the enterprise segment is practically zero... you can exorcise bastard code like it never existed. Few will notice or even care. (As is the case with Lion now).

Microsoft could never get away with this.

 

[miles01110]

Apple should allow you the option on newer machines like the 2011 Air between SL and Lion. Like, as in, you can run it, without problems.

Otherwise, people might be eyeballing the new hardware but some new Lion features are deal breakers.

Most people that are eyeballing Lion don't care (or even know) about Rosetta. You seem to think that the rest of the market shares your requirement for Rosetta. The vast majority of it does not.

 

[hayesk]

Well, it was already there in the code from SL, so why remove it if doesn't require any work to have PPC support in Lion?

It's like removing iWeb from Lion just because not many people use it anymore, but it doesn't require any work to have it in Lion?

Do you really think an emulation layer that provides seamless integration with the OS is as easy to support and maintain as a standalone application? There are a lot of under-the-hood changes in Lion. Updating Rosetta was likely a large task.

 

[AdrianK]

Mac App Store is likely to be one of the main places new users will look for software, so the chance of a user coming across PPC only software is far more limited.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Apple should allow you the option on newer machines like the 2011 Air between SL and Lion. Like, as in, you can run it, without problems.

Otherwise, people might be eyeballing the new hardware but some new Lion features are deal breakers.

Quite simply that's complete bollocks.

Why would you want to run ancient software on a shiny new Mac? If you're upgrading your hardware you should bring the software into line.

 

[WardC]

I am just upset about this because you can no longer run AppleWorks.

AppleWorks was the closest thing to a real works App that Apple had since ClarisWorks. There is nothing like it...it was a great, full-featured app with a wonderful word processor that was powerful and easy-to-use. Pages cannot really match it or take its place.

This forces me to convert all of my AppleWorks stuff to Office 2011 if I want to operate in Lion, because I can't open AppleWorks files in Lion. It is really a bummer.

 

[Steve's Barber]

I am just upset about this because you can no longer run AppleWorks.

Sometimes I miss MS-DOS but really... I thought *I* was the king at resisting change. I humbly yield that title.

Simply put... when you only command less than 10% of the total market AND within that market the enterprise segment is practically zero... you can exorcise bastard code like it never existed. Few will notice or even care. (As is the case with Lion now).

Microsoft could never get away with this.

Oops. I hit a nerve with all the neggers here. Don't know why it hurts so much to know OSX users are the minority.

 

[mark28]

Simply put... when you only command less than 10% of the total market AND within that market the enterprise segment is practically zero... you can exorcise bastard code like it never existed. Few will notice or even care. (As is the case with Lion now).

Microsoft could never get away with this.

Practically 0%?

How many people bought a Mac for music production?

The Jam Packs that comes with Logic Pro, fail to install because it needs PPC support. This is just an example of why your 0% claim is wrong.

( I heard there is some workaround for it, but I haven't tried it yet )

 

[Biolizard]

If you continue to allow old applications to run on new systems, these are going to start dragging down the user experience. Apple is really pushing recent OS X features like Full Screen Apps, Versions, Sandboxing, Core Animation and more that need to be implemented by developers before they have any effect in an application. Old PPC apps won't have this functionality and it's a blot on what Apple considers its very attractive, elegant and highly functional platform.

At some point you have to call it a day; look how hard it's been to move some software houses from Carbon to Cocoa, and when Carbon's deprecation was announced it had been around for the best part of a decade alongside Cocoa. It was also made clear from the start that Carbon was just to help bridge the gap between OS 9 and X, and that the preferred method of building apps was Cocoa. Did people listen and move their apps towards Cocoa over time? Not Microsoft and Adobe at least. Not until they were forced to.

Fact is, if an app hasn't been made Intel by now, it never will be, and it's not going to be able to take advantage of new OS X features. It doesn't deserve to be part of the current OS X ecosystem, in Apple's eyes, and I can't say I entirely disagree. If there's a market for it, PPC apps that have no future will be replaced with alternatives, especially with the advent of the Mac App Store.

 

[robgendreau]

I've heard there were licensing issues with Rosetta.

And remember that no one is forcing you to upgrade. Anyone complaining about this particular issue with Lion is trying to have their cake and eat it too: they want the speed, efficiency and new features of new system software but also to run legacy software that has been abandoned, or are just too cheap to upgrade.

If SL works don't upgrade. If you want a mix buy a cheap HD and boot into SL when you need to or want to. Sheesh.

 

[colourfastt]

Obviously all the fanboys are home users and have never run a business.