Rosetta: Will we walk in one day, do a point update, and get Rosetta deleted?
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Oh god, not this again.
En Garde!
Originally posted by Kickaha
Oh god, not this again.
Slow news day.
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.
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?
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.