Forum Posts Feed
Buying macOS Software now?
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by satis
Jul 3, 2020 at 05:57 PM
Andy Brice wrote:
>My experience of Apple, as a developer, is that they put very little
>effort into keeping ‘old’ apps running. So I don’t expect a long
>transition period.
Andy, Rosetta existed in Mac OS X for *six years*.
Posted by satis
Jul 3, 2020 at 06:06 PM
Skywatcher wrote:
>I’ve been using Macs for long enough to remember the transition from
>PowerPC to Intel.
Heh, I remember the transition *to* PowerPC in 1993! This is the third time Apple’s done this, and from what I’ve heard from devs the devkit looks pretty polished.
The vast majority of old apps will run in Rosetta_2 (but say goodbye to Bootcamp and Parallels/Windows, the latter thanks to Microsoft’s official refusal to support Apple’s ARM chips), and iPad apps will run *natively* on ARM silicon Macs.
Posted by satis
Jul 3, 2020 at 06:20 PM
Lothar Scholz wrote:
>
>Rosetta ... was introduced with Tiger 10.4 and stopped after 10.6.
Some context: Rosetta was released in 2006 with 10.4 (and I believe was released to devs before that). Mac OSX 10.6 was released in 2009 and the last version of 10.6 came out summer 2011 with 10.6.8.
I know people who successfully continued to use 10.6.8 for years after that (I used it until 2012). But Rosetta was actively supported for five years and worked for the vast majority of PowerPC software.
Posted by Andy Brice
Jul 5, 2020 at 08:50 PM
satis wrote:
>Andy, Rosetta existed in Mac OS X for *six years*.
Was it really 6 years?
On the other hand, I believe software I wrote 15 years ago still runs on the latest version of Windows.
—
Andy Brice
https://www.hyperplan.com
Posted by apb123
Jul 6, 2020 at 07:16 PM
washere wrote:
NeXT could have been slightly interesting, even then Jobs wasted his
>potential on computing devices & business, though helped lots of people
>in the process. I guess he regretted what he spent his life on when on
>his deathbed, remembering his early seventies years, but couldn’t help
>not do all he did anyway, was his nature ultimately. Since his parting,
>Tim is not only not moving it forward, but also systematically & step by
>step is deconstructing what’s left of Steve’s work. I guess he can’t
>help it either and that’s his nature.
what ???