Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

BurpetheadX · Jun 8, 2005, 12:52 PM

So we know, and have seen PPC software running on an Intel machine using Rosetta. This is great for the transition time of a couple years.

However, what about running Intel software on the PPC machines? This will certainly be needed for the future, when software begins to be Intel-only. It could be thought of as another kind of "Classic" enviornment.

If Apple was able to make PPC to Intel conversions (amazing!), can't they do it the opposite way around?

If they made a reverse-Rosetta, I would be completely comfortable with the transition, because all software would run on both machines no problem. This coupled with the universal binaries, would make a seamless and transparent switch to the new machines...

Ghoser777 · Jun 8, 2005, 12:56 PM

Why would they want to do that? Apple wants you to buy new hardware. It sounds like for some time applications are going to be made as universal binaries. The only question is going to be when is the time that Apple starts encouraging developers to make binaries that only run on x86... A reverse rosetta, assuming it worked properly would not encourage people to buy new computers, so I doubt we'll see it.

TETENAL · Jun 8, 2005, 01:00 PM

Software in the future will not be "Intel-only". Software in the future will be built as universal binary for both PowerPC and Intel. A "Reverse-Rosetta" is not necessary.

MacManMikeOSX · Jun 8, 2005, 01:09 PM

If you believe that all future software will be a unibin, then you're an idiot. Once the switch is completely over developers will want to optimize code to use intel specific operations on the processors. So yes maybe textedit will run on you PPC in the future but games and advanced apps will not. Anyone like to bet? It was the same way with the 68k arch. little stuff worked but no one wanted to optimize advanced applications for the dead processor.

paul w · Jun 8, 2005, 01:33 PM

I watched the keynote and neither Adobe or Mac's rep mentioned the words universal binary. Just binary or version for the future platform.

I thought it was interesting since steve and theo the mathematica had just gone on about how easy it was to make this universal binary.

Anyway for everything else there's Virtual PC. Blech..

Millennium · Jun 8, 2005, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Software in the future will not be "Intel-only". Software in the future will be built as universal binary for both PowerPC and Intel.

That's what Apple said when the move to PowerPC happened, and yet fat binaries (which is what these multiprocessor binaries were called at the time) were almost never used. For that matter, when NeXTStep/OPENSTEP switched to Intel and Sun (from 680x0), they said the same thing; this universal binary concept is not new.

It won't happen. Why Steve should think it will happen this time, when the concept has twice failed to pan out, is beyond me.

Chuckit · Jun 8, 2005, 02:14 PM

I watched the keynote, and neither Adobe nor Microsoft said that their next versions wouldn't wipe everything off your hard drive. OMFG THEY'RE WRITING VIRUSES!!!!!

Seriously, what is with all this "They never said..." crap? There's any number of things they didn't say. They didn't write their speeches to include the specific keywords you were looking for. It doesn't mean anything either way.

Angus_D · Jun 8, 2005, 02:32 PM

Games probably won't work with Rosetta anyway, so what makes you think that they'd work with a reverse-Rosetta?

BurpetheadX · Jun 8, 2005, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by Ghoser777

Why would they want to do that? Apple wants you to buy new hardware. It sounds like for some time applications are going to be made as universal binaries. The only question is going to be when is the time that Apple starts encouraging developers to make binaries that only run on x86... A reverse rosetta, assuming it worked properly would not encourage people to buy new computers, so I doubt we'll see it.

I think Apple should make you purchace new hardware by discontinuing support for future OS versions (like the Beige G3, original iMacs, and Lombards). Not by the inability to run software.

Krypton · Jun 8, 2005, 02:33 PM

Transitive, who are behind Rosetta say that their product would allow you to run Mactel apps on older PPC machines - but Apple may persuade them to not make this tech readily available.

TETENAL · Jun 8, 2005, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

It won't happen.

As long as Mac OS runs on PowerPC developers will compile their applications as universal binaries. It's a minimal effort to create universal binaries. Why should developers give up that market?

Big Mac · Jun 8, 2005, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

As long as Mac OS runs on PowerPC developers will compile their applications as universal binaries. It's a minimal effort to create universal binaries. Why should developers give up that market?

Additional QA and support for one. Companies can't just hit a "compile for" button and be done with it; they will need to test their new code on Macs as long as they plan to support them. Universal binaries will most likely only be around in the short term. As Millennium said, if history is any indication we'll begin seeing Mactel-only binaries quicker than many of you anticipate.

mitchell_pgh · Jun 8, 2005, 03:09 PM

Adobe... for a while... didn't say much about a native version of Photoshop for OS X (way back in 1998-1999. But they did.

I think they are going to be even more happy now that they aren't writing PPC code when they could be focusing 100% of their attention on x86 code.

Big Mac · Jun 8, 2005, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

Adobe... for a while... didn't say much about a native version of Photoshop for OS X (way back in 1998-1999. But they did.

I think they are going to be even more happy now that they aren't writing PPC code when they could be focusing 100% of their attention on x86 code.

Yeah, mitchell, that's the whole point of this thread.

TETENAL · Jun 8, 2005, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Additional QA and support for one. Companies can't just hit a "compile for" button and be done with it.

Sure there is some effort involved to keep it running on PowerPC, but on the other hand there is the large market. Sure, by the end of 2007 the transition to Intel based Macs is planned to be completed by Apple, but what does that mean for the user base? 15%? 25% on Intel? There's still 75% of the users on PowerPC. And it would be foolish to exclude oneself from that market.

Uncle Skeleton · Jun 8, 2005, 03:38 PM

With all the talk of fat binaries, what are the chances that it would be possible to make one binary that runs on Windows, Mactel and MacPPC?

TETENAL · Jun 8, 2005, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

With all the talk of fat binaries, what are the chances that it would be possible to make one binary that runs on Windows, Mactel and MacPPC?

0%.

Big Mac · Jun 8, 2005, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

0%.

Well, there was EOF for Windows, so if there is a Cocoa for Windows Skeleton's scenario isn't completely improbable.

Chuckit · Jun 8, 2005, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Well, there was EOF for Windows, so if there is a Cocoa for Windows Skeleton's scenario isn't completely improbable.

Even if there's a Cocoa for Windows, that's a far cry from being able to make one binary that runs on all three.

Millennium · Jun 8, 2005, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Even if there's a Cocoa for Windows, that's a far cry from being able to make one binary that runs on all three.

Cocoa for Windows has existed -sort of- as long as OSX (longer, if you count the OPENSTEP days). It's distributed as part of the Windows release of WebObjects. The reason I say "sort of" is that as of WebObjects 5.0, it was only Cocoa/Java, since Objective-C support was removed in WebObjects 5.0. However, it did (and still does) exist in that form.

Big Mac · Jun 8, 2005, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Cocoa for Windows has existed -sort of- as long as OSX (longer, if you count the OPENSTEP days). It's distributed as part of the Windows release of WebObjects. The reason I say "sort of" is that as of WebObjects 5.0, it was only Cocoa/Java, since Objective-C support was removed in WebObjects 5.0. However, it did (and still does) exist in that form.

I don't want to derail the thread, but why in the world would Apple eliminate Objective-C from the WO package?

Millennium · Jun 9, 2005, 04:37 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I don't want to derail the thread, but why in the world would Apple eliminate Objective-C from the WO package?

This was back in the days when Apple Wanted You To Use Java. Objective-C was considered legacy for both WebObjects and OSX, with Cocoa/Java being the wave of the future. Developers didn't much like this idea, and Apple ended up backing down, but the damage had already been done as far as WebObjects was concerned. They haven't released a new version of WebObjects since then, so nobody really knows if they plan to reintroduce Objective-C there or not.