[CharlesS]

Public Service Announcement: If you want to use Rosetta, don't custom install it from the Snow Leopard install disc. Leave it uninstalled - the first time you try to launch a PPC app it will automatically download for you. The reason this is better is that it will create a log on Apple's servers that you downloaded Rosetta, and let them know that you're using it.

Apple has to be aware that people are using Rosetta, or they will remove it in a future version. Downloading Rosetta instead of installing it from the disc helps prevent them from using low downloads as an excuse to axe it in a future version of Mac OS X.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Or....install from the disc so Apple sees low downloads of Rosetta, removes it from future OS X releases, thus forcing lazy developers to make their applications compatible with Intel processors that have been used in Apple computers for over 3 years now.

EDIT: It's not up to Apple to provide support for legacy PPC-only apps, it's up to developers to update their own apps. They've had plenty of time to do it.

[timmerk]

Or..... do what CharlesS said and keep Rosetta an option because there are some PPC apps that will never be updated (reasons can include companies out of business, old games, etc)

[Ted L. Nancy]

You're all wrong. The best thing to do is to never install Rosetta and never use a non-Intel compatible app.

[IronPen]

Is this 'for real'? The whole point is that developers update their software so that Rosetta isn't needed in future versions of OS X. In order for technology to progress, we need to leave legacy software behind. That's the reality. Windows got stuck with the same problem. People want to continue running all of their old applications from Windows 95 or 3.1 or 98 or whatever and it just keeps the rest of the world from moving on. Thankfully, there are many great Mac developers out there who keep their apps current. And when they don't, there are often alternative apps available. So sit back, relax, take a deep breath and grab a cool drink, or a warm one, I don't care. Just chill the @!@#$ out.

[Chuckit]

What's the great alternative to older versions of Photoshop that doesn't take lots of money to get? Oh, right, there's not one.

[IronPen]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

What's the great alternative to older versions of Photoshop that doesn't take lots of money to get? Oh, right, there's not one.

So you're suggesting that your 'old' version of Photoshop be able to be compatible with every OS X update ever? At what point is it okay to stop supporting an old product?

I have seen a bunch of these threads, often someone bitching that their G4 or G5 isn't supported by Snow Leopard. But not being able to run Snow Leopard doesn't make your machine any less productive than it was yesterday. So your option is to keep running Photoshop on the latest update of the OS that supports your hardware or allows you to run those apps until you can afford to get a new computer or a new version of Photoshop, or both.

It is so easy to have this knee-jerk reaction and vent that you're being left behind. Apple made the announcement to go to Intel in 2005. That has been a lot of time to prepare for the inevitable..the dropping of support for PPC. Now, the fact that those machines are still viable today is a testament to just how great they are. If they still work for you, continue to use them. You spent a lot of money for your PPC machine and Photoshop, so as long as you can get the job done, why complain? It's not like you bought PS and a new Mac two years ago and it is obsolete.

[IronPen]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

What's the great alternative to older versions of Photoshop that doesn't take lots of money to get? Oh, right, there's not one.

And there are alternatives to Photoshop, the problem is that they just aren't Photoshop. There will be a learning curve and you won't have EVERY feature that you have in Photoshop. And if you're someone needing those features, then PS is your option and the company you work for will hopefully foot the bill for you to have it. Adobe has the lock on that industry and while they make a good product, it is bad for the industry overall. But I digress.

[Brien]

Well, FWIW, Photoshop CS runs fine on Snow Leopard (with Rosetta obviously).

It'll be a good 2 years before we have to worry about 10.7, so I'm not worried.

[The Final Dakar]

Well, isn't this a fun little thread.

[Eug]

Meh. Who's bothering to install Snow Leopard anyway? j/k

[NoBackUp]

Originally Posted by IronPen 

Is this 'for real'? The whole point is that developers update their software so that Rosetta isn't needed in future versions of OS X. In order for technology to progress, we need to leave legacy software behind. That's the reality. Windows got stuck with the same problem. People want to continue running all of their old applications from Windows 95 or 3.1 or 98 or whatever and it just keeps the rest of the world from moving on. Thankfully, there are many great Mac developers out there who keep their apps current. And when they don't, there are often alternative apps available. So sit back, relax, take a deep breath and grab a cool drink, or a warm one, I don't care. Just chill the @!@#$ out.

PALM Apps require Rosetta

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by IronPen 

So you're suggesting that your 'old' version of Photoshop be able to be compatible with every OS X update ever? At what point is it okay to stop supporting an old product?

At the point where it's necessary.

Originally Posted by IronPen 

I have seen a bunch of these threads, often someone bitching that their G4 or G5 isn't supported by Snow Leopard. But not being able to run Snow Leopard doesn't make your machine any less productive than it was yesterday. So your option is to keep running Photoshop on the latest update of the OS that supports your hardware or allows you to run those apps until you can afford to get a new computer or a new version of Photoshop, or both.

It is so easy to have this knee-jerk reaction and vent that you're being left behind. Apple made the announcement to go to Intel in 2005. That has been a lot of time to prepare for the inevitable..the dropping of support for PPC. Now, the fact that those machines are still viable today is a testament to just how great they are. If they still work for you, continue to use them. You spent a lot of money for your PPC machine and Photoshop, so as long as you can get the job done, why complain? It's not like you bought PS and a new Mac two years ago and it is obsolete.

Um, hi. I have an Intel Mac, and my Photoshop is supported. I'm not complaining about anything Apple has done — heck, I'm not complaining about anything at all.

[P]

Apple used to have a compability horizon of several decades - we're down to what, 5 years now? Backwards compability is very important in enterprise settings - we have several examples of computers that need to run NT 4 to work, because there simply aren't any updates available from the manufacturer. Virtual PC is a godsend when it works, but it doesn't always (think dongles). Keeping old machines hanging around sounds good, but they do wear out - especially PSUs, HDs, fans, and even CPUs are only supposed to work for 8 years these days. I'm going to keep my old iMac G5 around, downgraded to Tiger (it always ran best with that), but it will die as well eventually.

Or....install from the disc so Apple sees low downloads of Rosetta, removes it from future OS X releases, thus forcing lazy developers to make their applications compatible with Intel processors that have been used in Apple computers for over 3 years now.

Any app that is still being developed has been updated for Intel compability, because that is a major selling point, and updates to existing apps are a high-margin source of income. Apps that still aren't compatible won't ever be. Keeping Rosetta around doesn't hurt anyone, as the PPC libs don't need to be updated anymore anyway.

[Simon]

"Several decades" sounds highly exaggerated to me. The Mac itself hasn't even been around for three.

Several years? Sure. Several decades? No.

[P]

Maybe slightly, but Apple did keep supporting Apple II models all the way into nineties - last system update was released in 1993, and Apple usually offers support for at least a year after that. The first Apple II was released in 1977, so that is 16 years at least. The Mac Plus was also supported for more than one decade, with 7.6 dropping support for it in 1997, more than 11 years after launch.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by P 

Apple used to have a compability horizon of several decades - we're down to what, 5 years now? Backwards compability is very important in enterprise settings - we have several examples of computers that need to run NT 4 to work, because there simply aren't any updates available from the manufacturer. Virtual PC is a godsend when it works, but it doesn't always (think dongles). Keeping old machines hanging around sounds good, but they do wear out - especially PSUs, HDs, fans, and even CPUs are only supposed to work for 8 years these days. I'm going to keep my old iMac G5 around, downgraded to Tiger (it always ran best with that), but it will die as well eventually.



Any app that is still being developed has been updated for Intel compability, because that is a major selling point, and updates to existing apps are a high-margin source of income. Apps that still aren't compatible won't ever be. Keeping Rosetta around doesn't hurt anyone, as the PPC libs don't need to be updated anymore anyway.

Then there is a clear market for some enterprising programmers to fill the gap and make Intel-compatible versions of legacy abandoned software. Would making an app Intel-compatible violate a copyright on the non-Intel version? The code must be different right?

[Chuckit]

It's not possible to make an app Intel-compatible without the source code. You'd have to make an entirely different app.

Incidentally, in most cases, the code for a universal app would not be that different from a PPC app.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It's not possible to make an app Intel-compatible without the source code. You'd have to make an entirely different app.

Incidentally, in most cases, the code for a universal app would not be that different from a PPC app.

Ahh, I see. So unless the app had a wide target audience (which if it did, I assume the original app maker would have updated it), there would really be no reason to invest in making an Intel-compatible version.

What are the chances of a developer giving permission to someone else to make his/her app Intel-compatible if they have stopped developing it themselves? Would there be any reason for them to NOT give such permission?

[The Wolf]

Hi all, sorry I'm a little out of the loop but maybe someone can help me out. A loooong time ago I created an AppleScript to launch a little spreadsheet that I created. I reworked it when number came out so that it's using Numbers instead of Excel. So, why is Snow Leopard making me install Rosetta to run this script? Are AppleScripts Rosetta? Is there something "new" I should be using instead? Thanks, T.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by P 

Apple used to have a compability horizon of several decades - we're down to what, 5 years now? Backwards compability is very important in enterprise settings - we have several examples of computers that need to run NT 4 to work, because there simply aren't any updates available from the manufacturer. Virtual PC is a godsend when it works, but it doesn't always (think dongles). Keeping old machines hanging around sounds good, but they do wear out - especially PSUs, HDs, fans, and even CPUs are only supposed to work for 8 years these days. I'm going to keep my old iMac G5 around, downgraded to Tiger (it always ran best with that), but it will die as well eventually.

Exactly, which is probably a big part of the reason that Apple never seems to pick up any traction in the business world.

Any app that is still being developed has been updated for Intel compability, because that is a major selling point, and updates to existing apps are a high-margin source of income. Apps that still aren't compatible won't ever be. Keeping Rosetta around doesn't hurt anyone, as the PPC libs don't need to be updated anymore anyway.

OS 9 didn't need to be updated anymore either, but that didn't stop Apple from stripping out the Classic environment, even on PPC Macs where it could have been kept with minimal effort. I don't really trust Jobs' Apple to do the right thing anymore.

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Then there is a clear market for some enterprising programmers to fill the gap and make Intel-compatible versions of legacy abandoned software. Would making an app Intel-compatible violate a copyright on the non-Intel version? The code must be different right?

Without the source code, that ain't happening. What someone could probably do is to rig up a third-party Rosetta using the PPC libs in the developer SDKs, but it would be a giant pain in the ass, it probably wouldn't work very well (see: SheepShaver), it would require people to install the developer tools, and of course Apple in their infinite wisdom would eventually stop bundling the 10.5 SDK with the developer tools anyway, and then you'd be screwed, so I doubt anyone would bother with this.

Or, you could have a full-on virtual machine running an older, Rosetta-capable version of OS X like Snow Leopard, but then you'd need yet another multiple-GB disk image file which of course would get completely copied over to your Time Machine drive every time you changed a single bit.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by The Wolf 

Hi all, sorry I'm a little out of the loop but maybe someone can help me out. A loooong time ago I created an AppleScript to launch a little spreadsheet that I created. I reworked it when number came out so that it's using Numbers instead of Excel. So, why is Snow Leopard making me install Rosetta to run this script? Are AppleScripts Rosetta? Is there something "new" I should be using instead? Thanks, T.

Older AppleScript apps are PPC. Just resave it as an app again and it will be Universal.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay 

Older AppleScript apps are PPC. Just resave it as an app again and it will be Universal.

Sweet, thanks!

[cgc]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

What's the great alternative to older versions of Photoshop that doesn't take lots of money to get? Oh, right, there's not one.

Gimp, Pixelmator, Seashore, etc. or simply don't upgrade to SL. I have a Sawtooth G4 (original AGP model) that runs iTheater fine. I don't think iTheater has been updated in years but it works great doing what I need it to do...yeah, it will never be updated but that's ok, I'l work around it's deficiencies. I see no reason to complain to the world about it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by cgc 

Gimp, Pixelmator, Seashore, etc. or simply don't upgrade to SL. I have a Sawtooth G4 (original AGP model) that runs iTheater fine. I don't think iTheater has been updated in years but it works great doing what I need it to do...yeah, it will never be updated but that's ok, I'l work around it's deficiencies. I see no reason to complain to the world about it.

Not a one of those apps you named had remotely the colorspace support I needed last time I looked. But like I said, I'm not complaining — everything is hunky dory over here. I'm just explaining why killing Rosetta would do more harm than good.

[CharlesS]

^ and the only "good" it would do would be to save a small amount of space in the system libraries. Doesn't mean Steve won't do it, though.

[angelmb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

What's the great alternative to older versions of Photoshop that doesn't take lots of money to get? Oh, right, there's not one.

Higher prices, retarded innovation, poor products. Under my perspective the problem has nothing to do with Rosetta but Adobe's untouchable market position instead.

[P]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

OS 9 didn't need to be updated anymore either, but that didn't stop Apple from stripping out the Classic environment, even on PPC Macs where it could have been kept with minimal effort. I don't really trust Jobs' Apple to do the right thing anymore.

I justified that to myself that Classic had special hooks in the kernel, and those hooks were ripped out to improve stability. I'm probably just kidding myself, though. I agree: Rosetta is coming out in 10.7, and this is just their way of dropping hints about it.

[Simon]

I'm curious. From Apple's POV, is there an obvious gain from removing Rosetta from OS X? I don't see it saving a whole lot of space. Does it require that much effort to keep it up to date with the rest of the system?

[CharlesS]

Not much that I can see. I'm sure that once they do it, though, everyone on this forum will be proclaiming that keeping Rosetta working would be like climbing Mount Everest while wearing ballet slippers.

[OreoCookie]

I think it is supposed to serve as a reminder to people that Rosetta may not be part of 10.7.
Since we have no idea how much time Apple plans to allocate for the development of 10.7, this may be long enough so that all PowerPC-based Macs are deprecated (~6 years).

[CharlesS]

Yes, and this is why you should download Rosetta rather than install it from the disc, to let them know you're using it.

Hell, go and uninstall it, then go to a coffee shop where you have a different IP and install it again.

[P]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I think it is supposed to serve as a reminder to people that Rosetta may not be part of 10.7.

Exactly. Possibly Apple pays licensing fees to Transitive as well.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Since we have no idea how much time Apple plans to allocate for the development of 10.7, this may be long enough so that all PowerPC-based Macs are deprecated (~6 years).

The last 68k Mac seems to have been discontinued in 1995. 68k apps could run until Leopard in 2007. Apple's continuing obsession with removing compability layers runs counter to the trends in the industry of keeping compability around longer - witness the XP mode of Win 7, for instance - and I have to wonder: Apple has over 90% of the (US) market of high-priced laptops, and a quite decent part of the expensive home desktop market as well. If Apple plans to expand into enterprise settings - and the single new feature of SL, Exchange support, seems to suggest that - they're going to have to come up with a better solution than dumping older apps over the side as soon as they possibly can.

[OreoCookie]

One of the reasons Windows has become rather mediocre is its insistence on backwards (pseudo-)compatibility. Just have a look at Adobe: do you think they would have switched voluntarily from Carbon to Cocoa if they hadn't been forced? It's a decision that doesn't affect the large majority of Mac users when time comes. 6~7 years is a long time in the computer industry, especially after a platform switch.

[Chuckit]

Have we benefited from Adobe being forced to switch to Cocoa?

[Brien]

I think it's more about the trend at Apple in general to abandon old hardware/software quicker than they used to. Sure, 5-6 years is a long time, but PPC Macs are, at best, 3 years old, when they used to support Macs that were 10+ years old.

I wouldn't be surprised to see 10.7 dump both Rosetta and Core Duo support, honestly.

[OreoCookie]

@Chuckit
I think it's beneficial in the long run, yes: you base your OS around one modern API rather than having to deal with several.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Have we benefited from Adobe being forced to switch to Cocoa?

Not yet, but we will.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@Chuckit
I think it's beneficial in the long run, yes: you base your OS around one modern API rather than having to deal with several.

Eh, they're still not doing that.

[OreoCookie]

What do you mean? I thought Carbon was deprecated … 
(I'm aware there are other APIs, the Core APIs, for instance, but I thought they just supplement Carbon and Cocoa.)

[P]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

One of the reasons Windows has become rather mediocre is its insistence on backwards (pseudo-)compatibility.

Really? That's why? Because MS has only really started going downhill in the last few years, from 2003 and onwards, which is after the biggest compability hawks at MS had left the company. The new MS is the one pushing .NET and other initiatives that break with compability.

100% backwards compability forever will indeed make development stagnate, but Classic and Rosetta are two examples of backwards compability done right: Old apps work, but in a bubble that limits their ability to affect newer code. The way old Mac OS did backwards compability (different optional memory managers, the ability to disable fundamental parts of the OS by removing their extensions, etc) was worse. And yet Apple is ripping them out. Try as I might, I can't justify that from a programming perspective. The only logical explanation is that Apple wants to push upgrades, and that will hurt them in an enterprise setting.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Just have a look at Adobe: do you think they would have switched voluntarily from Carbon to Cocoa if they hadn't been forced?

Yes, and this was good WHY? It pushed Adobe into the current Fireworks-y garbage GUI they have in CS4 so they will have an easier porting.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It's a decision that doesn't affect the large majority of Mac users when time comes. 6~7 years is a long time in the computer industry, especially after a platform switch.

All true, but you're missing a big point: If an update means that user A can no longer run a fundamental app, but also means that 100 other users can boot up 2 seconds faster or make the menus shinier or whatever, that is not a good tradeoff. Will there, 3 years from now, be 100 x86 Mac users for every PPC Mac user? According to various statistics I googled up (W3Counter was one, there were many), Win 98 was more than 1% of the browsers as late as the beginning of 2008 - 10 years after launch. MS had released 3 major updates to it in that time - Win ME, XP and Vista (2000 was released in the time period, but was not targeted at Win 98 users).

6-7 years is a long time if you follow the market and upgrade often, but many don't do that. The number of users you hurt is quite small, but the damage you're doing is huge. It just isn't worth it. Rosetta should be available for at least 10 years from the launch of the first Intel Macs and then for as long as keeping it around isn't a major inconvenience.

[msuper69]

All this back-and-forth will be moot if Steve Jobs decides he doesn't want Rosetta cluttering up OS X, backwards compatibility be damned.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by P 

100% backwards compability forever will indeed make development stagnate, but Classic and Rosetta are two examples of backwards compability done right: Old apps work, but in a bubble that limits their ability to affect newer code. The way old Mac OS did backwards compability (different optional memory managers, the ability to disable fundamental parts of the OS by removing their extensions, etc) was worse. And yet Apple is ripping them out. Try as I might, I can't justify that from a programming perspective. The only logical explanation is that Apple wants to push upgrades, and that will hurt them in an enterprise setting.

Does (or should) Apple care, though?

I think their *reason* for pushing upgrades might be to get *developers* (not users) to upgrade.

Imagine for a second that Apple's iTablets are real, and their drive is towards iPhone-like laptop-followup devices capable of running a full OS with ample performance for full-fledged desktop apps and yet lasting forever on a single battery charge, able to elegantly hover over tall buildings in a single swoop, faster than a speeding brulée etc.

The last thing they want is ten-year-old software running in an emulated PPC environment.

Yes, that will hurt them in the enterprise setting - but

a) Apple's representation in the enterprise setting pre-Intel was utterly miniscule, anyway, and

b) since when does Apple care deeply about the enterprise market, and why should they at this point? It's not where their bread and butter are, and they probably never want it to be.

They're after the home entertainment/home commodity/lifestyle market (viz: "The Computer for the Rest of Us", "Your Digital Hub", iPod, iTunes Store, etc.).

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by P 

Really? That's why? Because MS has only really started going downhill in the last few years, from 2003 and onwards, which is after the biggest compability hawks at MS had left the company. The new MS is the one pushing .NET and other initiatives that break with compability.

Sure, but it's still in the company genes to make backwards compatibility a high priority.

Originally Posted by P 

100% backwards compability forever will indeed make development stagnate, but Classic and Rosetta are two examples of backwards compability done right: Old apps work, but in a bubble that limits their ability to affect newer code.

I absolutely agree with you here. Personally, I'd keep Rosetta and still install it by default.

The question of Carbon vs. Cocoa is different, though. But I digress, I'm not a developer and I don't really know how to program. But I for one, find the focus in that particular case good. People who know Cocoa can easily program for the iPhone and the upcoming tablet as well.

Originally Posted by P 

Yes, and this was good WHY? It pushed Adobe into the current Fireworks-y garbage GUI they have in CS4 so they will have an easier porting.

Adobe would have gotten complacent one way or the other. Adobe's apps have been Windows apps ported to the Mac for a long time now, and that's the reason why the interface is not very Mac-like. I wouldn't blame Apple for that. There is not that much innovation coming from that company anymore.

Originally Posted by P 

All true, but you're missing a big point: If an update means that user A can no longer run a fundamental app, but also means that 100 other users can boot up 2 seconds faster or make the menus shinier or whatever, that is not a good tradeoff.

I disagree with such a general statement. It depends on the actual percentage: if it is a miniscule part of the people who cannot use such a fundamental app and assuming there is no update available which runs on the new OS, then they have a problem. But how many people really depend on apps that are (i) incompatible and (ii) there is no update/alternative available that runs on the current OS? I very much doubt it's a big problem.

Originally Posted by P 

Will there, 3 years from now, be 100 x86 Mac users for every PPC Mac user? According to various statistics I googled up (W3Counter was one, there were many), Win 98 was more than 1% of the browsers as late as the beginning of 2008 - 10 years after launch. MS had released 3 major updates to it in that time - Win ME, XP and Vista (2000 was released in the time period, but was not targeted at Win 98 users).

To my knowledge, Mac users are much more keen on switching to newer versions of OS X.

[Eug]

10.7 and Rosetta? I'm sure the decision has already been made, and the decree from the top is that it likely won't be there in 10.7, although I wouldn't be completely surprised if hung around until 10.8. The install option for Rosetta is just a PR exercise in 10.6 to nudge developers to Intel.

In any case, I see no reason not to install it in a customized 10.6 install, so that's what I did.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

What do you mean? I thought Carbon was deprecated … 
(I'm aware there are other APIs, the Core APIs, for instance, but I thought they just supplement Carbon and Cocoa.)

Parts of Carbon are deprecated. Parts aren't — in fact, AFAIK menus are still almost exclusively a Carbon feature. And then there's the entire CoreFoundation framework, which is way more redundant to Cocoa than Carbon ever was. Grab the name of any Cocoa class, replace the "NS" with "CF" and do a Google search on it — odds are you will find a CoreFoundation API.

[P]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Does (or should) Apple care, though?

I think their *reason* for pushing upgrades might be to get *developers* (not users) to upgrade.

I doubt it. Apple is many things, but it's not clueless. I think they want to advertise that certain apps are old, so users understand why their computer is suddenly less snappy.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Imagine for a second that Apple's iTablets are real, and their drive is towards iPhone-like laptop-followup devices capable of running a full OS with ample performance for full-fledged desktop apps and yet lasting forever on a single battery charge, able to elegantly hover over tall buildings in a single swoop, faster than a speeding brulée etc.

The last thing they want is ten-year-old software running in an emulated PPC environment.

Sure, but that's a different question though. That iTablet would have a significantly different interface. Current x86 Mac apps would only ever run badly on it. I can certainly see them skipping Rosetta on that.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Yes, that will hurt them in the enterprise setting - but

a) Apple's representation in the enterprise setting pre-Intel was utterly miniscule, anyway, and

Fair enough, but past performance can be used as an indicator of future performance, so to speak. Especially if you don't have an official policy for support of older apps.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

b) since when does Apple care deeply about the enterprise market, and why should they at this point? It's not where their bread and butter are, and they probably never want it to be.

Since they made Exchange support THE major SL feature. And they should care because they can't grow any more in their current market segments.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

They're after the home entertainment/home commodity/lifestyle market (viz: "The Computer for the Rest of Us", "Your Digital Hub", iPod, iTunes Store, etc.).

And that's fine, and their way of supporting older apps probably works fine with them, but indications are they are looking to grow outside that niche. Killing Rosetta will hurt them in that market.

[P]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Adobe would have gotten complacent one way or the other. Adobe's apps have been Windows apps ported to the Mac for a long time now, and that's the reason why the interface is not very Mac-like. I wouldn't blame Apple for that. There is not that much innovation coming from that company anymore.

You're right, mostly, but I don't see how stopping Carbon support helps. A new Fireworks interface is not better than the old Carbon one - quite the opposite - and they're not going to make a Cocoa interface on a cross-platform app. For the record: If Apple had said from day 1 of the 64-bit transition that Carbon would not be supported, I would not have said a thing about it and Adobe would have 64-bit Cocoa PS on OS X today. What Apple did wrong was initially advertise 64-bit Carbon and then kill it so very late in Leopard development.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I disagree with such a general statement. It depends on the actual percentage: if it is a miniscule part of the people who cannot use such a fundamental app and assuming there is no update available which runs on the new OS, then they have a problem. But how many people really depend on apps that are (i) incompatible and (ii) there is no update/alternative available that runs on the current OS? I very much doubt it's a big problem.

It doesn't need to be very many, is my point. Not being able to run an important app is huge, and returns from removing Rosetta are tiny.

And updates being available doesn't mean that anyone wants to pay the money for upgrading. Buying a new app is probably an investment - upgrading it to running on a new machine is a cost

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

To my knowledge, Mac users are much more keen on switching to newer versions of OS X.

That's a fairly specialized app, though. Users of it are likely to be savvier than the general public.

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by IronPen 

...In order for technology to progress, we need to leave legacy software behind. That's the reality. Windows got stuck with the same problem. People want to continue running all of their old applications from Windows 95 or 3.1 or 98 or whatever and it just keeps the rest of the world from moving on. Thankfully, there are many great Mac developers out there who keep their apps current. And when they don't, there are often alternative apps available. So sit back, relax, take a deep breath and grab a cool drink, or a warm one, I don't care. Just chill the @!@#$ out.

You chill.
My job isn't to make sure technology progresses. My job is to do my work. And that, very often, means using older software that simply isn't going to be updated so it works on the bleeding edge. Some software exists in very small niches where there just isn't a budget to keep-up with every twist and turn of technology. Quite frankly, an OS that allows for that consumer-level reality is much, much more valuable to me than one that seems to require me to shovel large piles of money at various corporations every year or two, just for the luxury of having things work. I don't see what harm it could do Apple just to have Rosetta available to users in the future, especially if it's handled on a "download if needed" basis.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by P 

You're right, mostly, but I don't see how stopping Carbon support helps. A new Fireworks interface is not better than the old Carbon one - quite the opposite - and they're not going to make a Cocoa interface on a cross-platform app. For the record: If Apple had said from day 1 of the 64-bit transition that Carbon would not be supported, I would not have said a thing about it and Adobe would have 64-bit Cocoa PS on OS X today. What Apple did wrong was initially advertise 64-bit Carbon and then kill it so very late in Leopard development.

You're right it was a mistake to tell the world they'll make a 64-bit version of Carbon, Adobe thought they could get away with not adopting standard technology once again.

Apple has been saying from day 1 that Carbon is a stop-gap solution -- all we did not know was when they would actually pull the plug. I doubt Adobe had released a Cocoa-based version of Photoshop with the release of Snow Leopard if the message concerning the 64 bit version of Carbon had been different. They've missed many opportunities to read the writing on the wall (switching to XCode comes to mind and the subsequent difficulty to port their apps to Intel) -- and I'm sure Apple would dispatch engineers to help Adobe cope.

Originally Posted by P 

It doesn't need to be very many, is my point. Not being able to run an important app is huge, and returns from removing Rosetta are tiny.

As I've written before, you don't get an argument from me when it comes to Rosetta.
All I'm saying is that Apple wants to send a huge hint to developers, that's all.

Originally Posted by P 

And updates being available doesn't mean that anyone wants to pay the money for upgrading. Buying a new app is probably an investment - upgrading it to running on a new machine is a cost

That's correct. But in a professional environment, the necessity to upgrade is a fact of life. Needing to upgrade after six, seven, eight years is not forcing the hand of many customers.

Originally Posted by P 

That's a fairly specialized app, though. Users of it are likely to be savvier than the general public.

I've seen other numbers based on browser usage. I couldn't find them, but the pattern was rather similar: OS X users were adopting new versions of OS X much quicker than Windows users would adopt new versions of Windows.