Rosetta: Will we walk in one day, do a point update, and get Rosetta deleted?

[aplnub]

Once Office and Adobe have made the switch I can see Apple saying goodbye to rosetta and deleting it quitely in a point release.

Apple lets on like you better get moving and they intend to push newer software and that means that Rosetta on Intel is bye-bye at some point.

I bet it doesn't make it in Leopard.

What do you think?

That sure would spur software sales for a bit.

[Kickaha]

Nope, don't see it.

Heck, if you have a machine with an OS9 installation and Classic, upgrading to 10.4 didn't *delete* it, even though it isn't *included*...

Apple has not, historically, *deleted* technologies from someone's drive - they just don't *ship* them anymore.

So no, this is just FUD.

[Mr. Me]

Originally posted by aplnub
Once Office and Adobe have made the switch I can see Apple saying goodbye to rosetta and deleting it quitely in a point release.

Apple lets on like you better get moving and they intend to push newer software and that means that Rosetta on Intel is bye-bye at some point.

I bet it doesn't make it in Leopard.

What do you think?

That sure would spur software sales for a bit. What is it with you people? There is absolutely no reason to elminate Rosetta and every reason to keep it. Apple never removed the 68k emulator from MacOS 9/Classic. It switched from the 680x0 processor in 1993--13 years ago. Apple is only in the initial stages of its Intel transition. Come back in 13 years and ask your question again.

[aplnub]

Didn't Steve make a comment that it wouldn't be around for long (or maybe implied this) in one of his keynotes?

[Kickaha]

Originally posted by aplnub
Didn't Steve make a comment that it wouldn't be around for long in one of his keynotes?

Er, no, not that I can recall. I think you're confusing it with the Death of OS9 speech.

[iPeon]

Originally posted by aplnub
Apple lets on like you better get moving and they intend to push newer software and that means that Rosetta on Intel is bye-bye at some point.


How do you interpret from this the death of Rosetta? What Apple is saying is that they are implementing the switch to Intel ASAP hence the developers should get their apps ready ASAP as well. Rosetta will stay for those odd apps that aren't making the transition, just like any other transition as others have already pointed out.

[jumpyspider]

I've always suspected that the switch wasn't primarily about a move Intel so much as a move to having a processor-independent OS.

The Rosetta technolgy would obviously be an important part of the process to achieve this.

Apple have been held back and tripped up enough in the past to know now that they can't put all their eggs in one (or even two) basket/s when it comes to relying on hardware vendors to come up with the goods.

I mean, if you can't rely on IBM, who can you rely on?

[Mr. Me]

Originally posted by jumpyspider
I've always suspected that the switch wasn't primarily about a move Intel so much as a move to having a processor-independent OS.

The Rosetta technolgy would obviously be an important part of the process to achieve this.

Apple have been held back and tripped up enough in the past to know now that they can't put all their eggs in one (or even two) basket/s when it comes to relying on hardware vendors to come up with the goods.

I mean, if you can't rely on IBM, who can you rely on? You are most insightful. This are exactly my take on Apple's Intel transition. It is the another step in Apple's removing processor-dependence from its OS and applications. When this is done, Apple will be able to move its OS to whichever processor best satisfies its needs.

[Chucker]

Whereby "whichever processor" means "PowerPC or x86". ;)

Universal Binaries are not truly universal in that sense; they only account for two architectures (plus various sub-architectures, such as 64-bit PowerPC).

However, Apple's efforts in the LLVM direction may soon make this all moot. :)

[Mr. Me]

Originally posted by Chucker
Whereby "whichever processor" means "PowerPC or x86". ;)

.... For now, yes. However, we all know that Intel has been trying to replace the x86 for more than a decade. If one day it is sucessful, Apple will be prepared. If IBM gets back in the game; if Sun gets its act together; if .... The infrastructure that Apple is building now will enable it to take advantage of any eventuality.

[TednDi]

I would also point out that rosetta and the processor independence that is achieved through the universal binaries will find its way into devices that will be much smaller and at least as powerful as the cutting edge of mac technology today.

Why chuck out something that is working and working well. Rosetta will only run faster as the chip speeds improve and provide a wider software base.

Yes, Apple want us all to be running UB's. But, on the orphan software, rosetta should be fine or better looking forward.

Today's macs are tomorrows handhelds or smartphones or whatever.

Rosetta will be here for a long time.

You might however see it go when we hit Os 11 whenever that may be or whatever that is.

[aplnub]

Originally posted by Mr. Me
You are most insightful. This are exactly my take on Apple's Intel transition. It is the another step in Apple's removing processor-dependence from its OS and applications. When this is done, Apple will be able to move its OS to whichever processor best satisfies its needs.

While processor independece sounds good and gives me the giggles, won't you always have to have a Rosetta laying around to make the change? Consumers, including myself, don't want to have to ask if this program is UB, PPC, or Intel. It is a hassle already for me since I have 4 PPC's and 1 Core Duo.

[Chucker]

Originally posted by Mr. Me
For now, yes.

No, forever. Universal Binaries are two architectures. No more, no less.

The framework for the universal binary feature has been in there for years, also in NeXTstep, and even in Mac OS Classic (FAT binaries), but Universal Binaries as currently marketed by Apple are simply limited to two platforms.

If Apple is to move to another architecture, this entire game begins again. Again, software will need to be ported, and again, Apple will need/want to provide an emulator.

However, we all know that Intel has been trying to replace the x86 for more than a decade. If one day it is sucessful, Apple will be prepared.

How, exactly, will Apple be prepared?

If IBM gets back in the game; if Sun gets its act together

SPARC is dead. MIPS is dead. Alpha is dead.

Itanium is pretty much dead.

Face it, only PowerPC and x86 are left for now. (And ARM.)

In the far future, that may change, but Apple won't be prepared any more than others are, and this Intel transition does not help Apple be prepared in any way whatsoever.

The infrastructure that Apple is building now will enable it to take advantage of any eventuality.

You're gonna have to lay off the buzzword bingo and come up with some less vague statements if you want a serious discussion.

What you're probably trying to say is that Universal Binaries will help Mac users (and Apple) reach a more architecture-agnostic platform. That, however, is not the case.

[Kickaha]

Oh god, not this again.

[Chucker]

Originally posted by Kickaha
Oh god, not this again.

En Garde!

[Kickaha]

No, my forehead just healed from the last wall I beat it against, I'm not getting into this one again.

[Chucker]

*tries to combine a crying face with a "pretty please with sugar on top" expression* :)

[TednDi]

Originally posted by Kickaha
Oh god, not this again.


Slow news day.

;)

[CosmoNut]

I see no reason why Apple would ever have cause to remove Rosetta from its OS unless there is another platform change in the future -- which is highly unlikely.

If you are running Universal or Intel-only apps on an Intel Mac, Rosetta will just sit dormant and not weigh down your system. If, on the off chance you install a PowerPC-coded app, Rosetta will then go to work whenever you run the app.

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

Originally posted by Kickaha
Nope, don't see it.

Heck, if you have a machine with an OS9 installation and Classic, upgrading to 10.4 didn't *delete* it, even though it isn't *included*...

Apple has not, historically, *deleted* technologies from someone's drive - they just don't *ship* them anymore.

So no, this is just FUD.
Do we have to bring up the infamous iTunes update up, which wiped the users drive? ;)

[elron]

How do you reconcile these two statements?

Originally posted by Chucker
No, forever. Universal Binaries are two architectures. No more, no less.Originally posted by Chucker
but Universal Binaries as currently marketed by Apple are simply limited to two platforms.
First you claim that Universal Binaries = PPC + x86, always and forever. Next you say "as currently marketed" implying that it can be changed. I'm not saying that I think Apple is going to switch to another architecture any time soon, but I imagine if they did decide to, the definiton of Universal Binary would change.

[Chucker]

The trouble is with the term "Universal", implying "this runs on any possible Mac". (Of course, if we're going to be dipshits, we're going to point out that it doesn't run on 68k Macs, but that's another matter entirely.)

If a new-architecture Mac is to come again at some point, they would have to change the definition of "Universal", and all of a sudden you'd be stuck with "Universal, err, only not quite" and "Universal, this time fo' real, dawg" binaries. Many of the first type will eventually be updated, but some won't, and will be stuck not actually being universal any more.

[Kickaha]

Originally posted by Chucker
The trouble is with the term "Universal", implying "this runs on any possible Mac". (Of course, if we're going to be dipshits, we're going to point out that it doesn't run on 68k Macs, but that's another matter entirely.)

If a new-architecture Mac is to come again at some point, they would have to change the definition of "Universal", and all of a sudden you'd be stuck with "Universal, err, only not quite" and "Universal, this time fo' real, dawg" binaries. Many of the first type will eventually be updated, but some won't, and will be stuck not actually being universal any more.


RAWR! KICK SMASH!!!

*thwap thwap thwap thwap*

Universal Binary refers to the technologies that have been put into place to ensure platform agnostic apps moving forward, it does not in any way denote an existential nor philosophical absolute truism regarding the semantic value of the word 'universal'.

And dat's da fact, Jack.

:P

[Chucker]

Originally posted by Kickaha
RAWR! KICK SMASH!!!

*thwap thwap thwap thwap*

Universal Binary refers to the technologies that have been put into place to ensure platform agnostic apps moving forward, it does not in any way denote an existential nor philosophical absolute truism regarding the semantic value of the word 'universal'.

And dat's da fact, Jack.

:P

And your point is? It doesn't remove the confusion in any way.

You're going to have binaries advertised as Universal that won't run on the new native platform, and you're going to have binaries advertised as Universal that will.

There's a problem. And the term "Fat" binaries didn't have it, because it wasn't as confusing.

And dat's da fact, Jack.

:P

[Mr. Me]

Originally posted by Chucker
And your point is? It doesn't remove the confusion in any way.

.... Who's confused? Univeral Binaries support all Macintoshes that were introduced less than five years ago. Some Macintosh computers that were introduced in 1999 are supported. This universe is sufficiently well-defined to avoid confusion for all but those who insist on being confused. Apple never claimed to support all Macintoshes ever sold. Apple never promised to support any computers other than its own.

[Flounder]

Originally posted by Chucker
And your point is? It doesn't remove the confusion in any way.

You're going to have binaries advertised as Universal that won't run on the new native platform, and you're going to have binaries advertised as Universal that will.

There's a problem. And the term "Fat" binaries didn't have it, because it wasn't as confusing.

And dat's da fact, Jack.

:P

Fat binaries is more confusing, because you didn't know what the heck it meant, and regular people don't relate to it in any way. I sure as heck didn't know what they were.

There is nothing confusing about universal, and I'll go out on a limb here and say no problems will ever come of it.

[Chucker]

Originally posted by Mr. Me
Who's confused? Univeral Binaries support all Macintoshes that were introduced less than five years ago. Some Macintosh computers that were introduced in 1999 are supported. This universe is sufficiently well-defined to avoid confusion for all but those who insist on being confused. Apple never claimed to support all Macintoshes ever sold. Apple never promised to support any computers other than its own.

I suppose you missed the bit where I was quite clearly not talking about the current situation with PowerPCs and Intels, but about a future hypothetical and unlikely situation with PowerPCs, Intels and $NEW_ARCHITECTURE (e.g. Itanium).

I find that particularly odd since you were the one who brought up Itanium.

[Chucker]

Originally posted by Flounder
Fat binaries is more confusing, because you didn't know what the heck it meant, and regular people don't relate to it in any way. I sure as heck didn't know what they were.

There is nothing confusing about universal, and I'll go out on a limb here and say no problems will ever come of it.

And I fully agree that in the current situation, Universal Binary is the far superior, clearer, more marketable term.

I was exclusively discussing a hypothetical situation. I'm saddened to see that that is so hard to comprehend.

[BoeManE]

Originally posted by Chucker
If Apple is to move to another architecture, this entire game begins again. Again, software will need to be ported, and again, Apple will need/want to provide an emulator.

I don't think so... Once developers are using XCode, and are able to compile their apps as universal binaries, adding a third platform won't require a rewrite, but a re-compile with a new version of XCode that supports the extra platform(s).

The reason most software now requires the developer to make changes to the code is because these apps are not using the correct API calls, using legacy code, etc.

I'm pretty sure that if you have an app that is 100% cocoa, that it will compile as a universal binary without any changes at all. Once this rewrite is done, apple can add support for any platform they like.

If Intel wants to move on from x86, this is their number one chance. Apple will use X86 as long as it's viable and then they have the option of slowly migrating to the next big-architecture that Intel develop to replace X86 with. I don't see MS having the same option, so it should be very interesting in a few years time.

At this rate WinTel will still be waiting for Vista to be released, and it'll be "just around the corner" :devil:

[Chucker]

Originally posted by BoeManE
I don't think so... Once developers are using XCode, and are able to compile their apps as universal binaries, adding a third platform won't require a rewrite, but a re-compile with a new version of XCode that supports the extra platform(s).

So what happens to legacy software of the time? To obscure hardware drivers? To companies that are too dumb, once again, to realize that Apple won't be "bankrupt any time soon anyway"?

I'm pretty sure that if you have an app that is 100% cocoa, that it will compile as a universal binary without any changes at all.

Erm.

I really thought we put this myth of "Carbon is but a transitional API" behind.

[Flounder]

Originally posted by Chucker
And I fully agree that in the current situation, Universal Binary is the far superior, clearer, more marketable term.

I was exclusively discussing a hypothetical situation. I'm saddened to see that that is so hard to comprehend.

I understood you perfectley well. I'm saying I find it very unlikely that, should your hypothetical situation come to fruition, that there would be any confusion.

I'm saddened that this is so hard to comprehend as well ;)

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Chucker

I really thought we put this myth of "Carbon is but a transitional API" behind.

Well, come on. OS X has a Sekrit API that Cocoa uses to be 100% portable. Just like Java! Write it once - run it anywhere.

Or something like that.

[Chucker]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Well, come on. OS X has a Sekrit API that Cocoa uses to be 100% portable. Just like Java! Write it once - run it anywhere.

Or something like that.

Also, compiling in Cocoa sets HIDDEN_FLAG_FLAWLESS_APPLICATION_THAT_NEVER_CRASHE S to true.

Notice that you can only read and set this flag with a debug build.

:)