How long will Rosetta 2 and Universal Binary 2 exist for? and other questions

[the8thark]

We all know in the last change from PPC to Intel, eventually Rosetta and Universal Binary support was stopped. That's obvious as it exists as a stop gap transition to allow people to smoothly from all PPC to all intel.

But now we have the intel to Apple SoC transition. How long do you think Apple will give us all to move to a fully native Apple SoC environment?

Also how will the first generation of Apple Mac SoC fare? I remember the first gen Core Duo was not supported that long by Apple and shortly after everything required at least the Core 2 Duo. Will the 2nd gen of Apple Mac SoC quickly make the 1st gen obsolete? This is basically a how will the early adopters fare?

Also as an aside Craig mentioned a new virtualisation app. Do you think we'll be able to virtualise other OS there like older Mac OS versions and Windows there also? I ask this because many people use bootcamp on a daily basis for native Windows on their Mac. A move to Apple SoC I think would kill bootcamp.

These questions are making me put off the iMac purchase I was considering. I feel there's almost no point purchasing any intel Mac at this point in time. Still I feel these questions are really important to consider.

 

[PaulD-UK]

Rosetta 1 (PPC>Intel) lasted 2.5 OS X iterations at a time when a new one only came along every 2 years.
The A12Z mini only has 2 usb-c ports, which is fine for MacBook/MacBook Air form factor. So like the 1st gen Core 2 Intel only lasted relatively briefly, until the A14X++ comes along with a boosted graphic engine and a selection of proper I/O ports, a replacement for the iMac will be compromised - compared to current or future Intel versions.

 

[Fishrrman]

No one outside of Apple knows.
Perhaps even they haven't even decided yet.

Figure 2-3 iterations of the OS.
Use it as long as it lasts.
Then... move on.

 

[iluvmacs99]

We all know in the last change from PPC to Intel, eventually Rosetta and Universal Binary support was stopped. That's obvious as it exists as a stop gap transition to allow people to smoothly from all PPC to all intel.

But now we have the intel to Apple SoC transition. How long do you think Apple will give us all to move to a fully native Apple SoC environment?

Also how will the first generation of Apple Mac SoC fare? I remember the first gen Core Duo was not supported that long by Apple and shortly after everything required at least the Core 2 Duo. Will the 2nd gen of Apple Mac SoC quickly make the 1st gen obsolete? This is basically a how will the early adopters fare?

Also as an aside Craig mentioned a new virtualisation app. Do you think we'll be able to virtualise other OS there like older Mac OS versions and Windows there also? I ask this because many people use bootcamp on a daily basis for native Windows on their Mac. A move to Apple SoC I think would kill bootcamp.

These questions are making me put off the iMac purchase I was considering. I feel there's almost no point purchasing any intel Mac at this point in time. Still I feel these questions are really important to consider.

Always buy a computer based on your computing needs. Never buy a computer just to keep up with the Joneses, or else you will loose. No one knows when Apple is keeping Rosetta 2 supported, but we know the time line transitioning from Intel to ARM will be 2 years, so given another 1 to 2 more years after that before Intel support is dropped, I would say give it about 3-4 years or so. By then, you will have a library of new replacement software that will take advantage of the new Apple Bionic neural engine feature plus a few others. During the presentation, it was clear to me that Apple plans to adopt more of the neural engine feature in future software on their Bionic chips; AI technology. Currently I am using AI software to help edit my images and it had shortened the time span I need to spend per image as opposed as adjusting manual by hand. This becomes handy in the future, whereby many creative tasks that we do by hand will be assisted by AI through Apple's neural engine feature. Writing, music creation, image editing and video editing and others will greatly benefit by AI assistance. This is where Apple is heading towards, so by that time, people would no longer need Intel software. Software virtualization means that the OS will provide a virtual emulation layer for other OS if need be. But I think the trend is for Apple to be turning over Macs like they do with iPhone and iPads. Unlike the past, you are not going to be keeping Macs for a decade like you would now with current models. You will be encouraged to upgrade every few years so you don't get behind. I personally do not like this concept, but it bears reality as computing sales had declined due to stagnate computer innovation, so now Apple and a few others had decided to turn a computer into an appliance where you are encouraged to upgrade on their time line and their software eco system so Apple can keep making money for their shareholders.

 

[mmomega]

Of course being a little sarcastic but ...

Someone go grab a magic hat and pull ANY TIMELINE out of it.

No person on this forum will have that answer, it is just trying to make a guess based off of the past and a single statement about Apple saying a 2 year transition. Your own guess would have just as much logic as anyone else.

I would guess more than 2 years, potentially double that to 4 max, but again, just a guess.
So does that first year start with the first release of the first Apple silicon computer? Does that first year start on the release of macOS 11?
It's still a guess at the moment.

 

[Homy]

According to Wikipedia Apple announced transition to Intel in 2005 and released Mac OS X v10.6 "Snow Leopard" on August 28, 2009 as Intel-only, removing support for the PowerPC architecture. It is also the last Mac OS X version that supports PowerPC-based applications,[4] as Mac OS X v10.7 "Lion" dropped support for Rosetta on July 20, 2011."

It means that Apple stops making Intel Macs in 2022, macOS stops support Intel in 2024 and Rosetta in 2026. Probably it all will happen faster this time.

 

[iamMacPerson]

It means that Apple stops making Intel Macs in 2022, macOS stops support Intel in 2024 and Rosetta in 2026. Probably it all will happen faster this time.

Lets also not forget that Steve said they had a lot of 'great new PowerPC products still in the pipeline' and they expected it to take 2 years with the transition complete by mid-2007 - basically the exact same schtick Cook gave. The first Intel Mac, the iMac, launched Jan 2006 and the last was the Mac Pro/XServe which was announced in September 2006. I expect that if they're ready to launch the first ARM Mac before the end of the year we could see the whole product line switched by WWDC21.

 

[hawkeye_a]

They seem to be following the PPC->Intel transition plan pretty closely.

If i remember correctly, Snow Leopard(10.6) was the last version which had Rosetta1.

 

[Homy]

Lets also not forget that Steve said they had a lot of 'great new PowerPC products still in the pipeline' and they expected it to take 2 years with the transition complete by mid-2007 - basically the exact same schtick Cook gave. The first Intel Mac, the iMac, launched Jan 2006 and the last was the Mac Pro/XServe which was announced in September 2006. I expect that if they're ready to launch the first ARM Mac before the end of the year we could see the whole product line switched by WWDC21.

Yes, in June 2005 he said "We're making awesome machines right now. We've got a lot of great PPC products in the pipeline." but they also updated every Mac model before the transition, two iBooks in July 2005, two Mac Minis in Sep 2005 and two PowerBooks, two iMacs and three Power Macs in Oct 2005. Nothing after the first Intel Macs in Jan 2006 (iMac and MacBook Pro).

 

[maflynn]

As long as its needed, pure and simple. If a lot of apps have moved on to ARM fairly quickly, then Apple will move on from Rosetta 2, if the transition appears to be more painful then initially expected they'll keep Rosetta 2 for longer

 

[EyeTack]

I'll be stuck on Mojave forever. There are a couple work apps that aren't 64-bit yet (niche stuff).

I've got a ton of games that are 32-bit and barely have a hope of being recompiled to 64-bit, much less ARM.

It would be nice if this is the push Microsoft needs to get off their duff and release Visio for Mac. That's the last thing I have ever needed Remote Desktop for.

 

[maflynn]

get off their duff and release Visio for Mac

If they haven't done it by now, its doubtful if we'll see it in the future. Given the limited audience of that app, they may not think it makes too much sense.

 

[KALLT]

As long as its needed, pure and simple. If a lot of apps have moved on to ARM fairly quickly, then Apple will move on from Rosetta 2, if the transition appears to be more painful then initially expected they'll keep Rosetta 2 for longer

Not much can be added.

Apple is claiming that the switch from x86_64 to arm64 is less problematic than from ppc to i386 at the time, given that the developer toolchain is much richer now and does the heavy lifting and because x86_64 and arm64 use the same byte order (endiannes). Problems arise mainly in hard-coded architectural dependencies at lower-level code (e.g. assumptions about the architecture the code will be executed on) and dependencies on incompatible binaries (e.g. static libraries compiled for x86_64). Theoretically, an app or library that uses few dependencies and portable lower-level source code will not encounter that many problems. Conversely, an app that uses lots of lower-level code with x86_64 specific optimisations and many third-party libraries may have a lot of work on their hands. As always, well-maintained code that follows the developer guidelines closely will have a much easier time.

I doubt that Apple will keep Rosetta 2 around for as long as the original Rosetta existed. I consider it likely that Apple will announce a roadmap next year about Mac App Store requirements (specifically that any app or app date is compiled for ARM) and that Rosetta is deprecated thereafter. Maybe it will coincide with the two-year schedule Apple mentioned.

 

[DearthnVader]

Of course being a little sarcastic but ...

Someone go grab a magic hat and pull ANY TIMELINE out of it.

No person on this forum will have that answer, it is just trying to make a guess based off of the past and a single statement about Apple saying a 2 year transition. Your own guess would have just as much logic as anyone else.

I would guess more than 2 years, potentially double that to 4 max, but again, just a guess.
So does that first year start with the first release of the first Apple silicon computer? Does that first year start on the release of macOS 11?
It's still a guess at the moment.

I think the two years was how long it was going to take to move the whole Mac model line over to Arm, so Dec. 2022.

Then, after that, x86 will still be supported for "years to come".

That makes sense to me, last Intel Mac ships Nov. 2022, I'd say 3-5 years support, putting x86/Intel support in the macOS ending in 2025-2027.

Tho that's just how I read it, and anyone's guess is as good as mine.

 

[Homy]

I think the two years was how long it was going to take to move the whole Mac model line over to Arm, so Dec. 2022.

Then, after that, x86 will still be supported for "years to come".

That makes sense to me, last Intel Mac ships Nov. 2022, I'd say 3-5 years support, putting x86/Intel support in the macOS ending in 2025-2027.

Tho that's just how I read it, and anyone's guess is as good as mine.

Supporting Intel Macs certainly doesn't mean releasing new Intel Macs for two more years. If the transition is supposed to be over in 2022 they're going to release the last Intel Macs long before that. Like the last time I think we'll see the last Intel Macs be released next year. Indeed on the contrary Nov 2022 could be the time they will release the last remaining AS Mac in the product line, like Mac Pro.

 

[DearthnVader]

Supporting Intel Macs certainly doesn't mean releasing new Intel Macs for two more years. If the transition is supposed to be over in 2022 they're going to release the last Intel Macs long before that. Like the last time I think we'll see the last Intel Macs be released next year.

All the money they spent on the 7,1 and they are going to dump it that quick?

I think not, Pro Arm isn't going to be ready before 2022, but then, I've been wrong before.

 

[Homy]

All the money they spent on the 7,1 and they are going to dump it that quick?

I think not, Pro Arm isn't going to be ready before 2022, but then, I've been wrong before.

Well, that's what Tim Cook said. When they say the transition will be over in two years they mean the whole product line, not just some models. Apple is rich. They can afford to change their mind that quick when they know they can earn even more money.

 

[DearthnVader]

Well, that's what Tim Cook said. When they say the transition will be over in two years they mean the whole product line, not just some models. Apple is rich. They can afford to change their mind that quick when they know they can earn even more money.

I have my doubts that Arm will be fast enough to compete with a 28 core 56 thread Xeon before 18-24 months.

 

[Homy]

I have my doubts that Arm will be fast enough to compete with a 28 core 56 thread Xeon before 18-24 months.

Don't underestimate ARM because it's a big family of CPUs and not only about mobile chips in iPhone.

Good news for future Macs: The fastest supercomputer uses Arm chips

The same processor family that powers phones and likely the next generation of Apple computers is at the heart of the world's fastest machine.

www.cnet.com

 

[JPack]

All the money they spent on the 7,1 and they are going to dump it that quick?

I think not, Pro Arm isn't going to be ready before 2022, but then, I've been wrong before.

What money did Apple spend on the Mac Pro?

It's not like Apple designed the Xeon processor or Radeon Vega.

The chassis, cooling system, MPX modules, etc. can all be reused. Only the motherboard needs to be scrapped.

 

[Voyageur]

The chassis, cooling system, MPX modules, etc. can all be reused. Only the motherboard needs to be scrapped.

The problem is that, judging by the latest data from the WWDC, Apple will not use third-party GPUs. In general, it is not clear how the modularity of the Mac Pro on Apple Silicone with SoC, will be solved. If it exists at all (bye-bye DIY CPU and GPU upgrade)

I am also afraid that MPX boxes may receive 1-2 updates for Intel solution and disappear.

 

[JPack]

The problem is that, judging by the latest data from the WWDC, Apple will not use third-party GPUs.

I haven't seen anything suggesting that. In fact, WWDC videos strongly suggest that discrete GPUs will still be used.

In general, it is not clear how the modularity of the Mac Pro on Apple Silicone with SoC, will be solved. If it exists at all (bye-bye DIY CPU and GPU upgrade)

I am also afraid that MPX boxes may receive 1-2 updates for Intel solution and disappear.

Apple does not need to change the form factor for ARM Mac Pro. The MPX modules use a standard PCIe connector.

New MPX modules may not be compatible with Intel Mac Pro, due to software. But no one is expecting Intel Macs to have any longevity. In terms of physical and electrical standards, new and old MPX modules can be identical. ARM machines still use PCIe.

 

[Voyageur]

I haven't seen anything suggesting that. In fact, WWDC videos strongly suggest that discrete GPUs will still be used.



Apple does not need to change the form factor for ARM Mac Pro. The MPX modules use a standard PCIe connector.

New MPX modules may not be compatible with Intel Mac Pro, due to software. But no one is expecting Intel Macs to have any longevity. In terms of physical and electrical standards, new and old MPX modules can be identical. ARM machines still use PCIe.

What does Apple's switch to ARM based processors mean for the future of the Mac Pro

Just going through the WWDC videos. Apparently, if you’re not using DriverKit, you should be. :) If you’re not, pain is assured. Another interesting thing that I keep seeing over and over again in the videos I’ve watched... Apple Silicon Macs are ONLY defined as utilizing an Apple GPU. Only...

forums.macrumors.com

 

[ChrisA]

All the money they spent on the 7,1 and they are going to dump it that quick?

I think not, Pro Arm isn't going to be ready before 2022, but then, I've been wrong before.

I doubt Apple makes much money from the Mac Pro. Not enough to justify designing different silicon just for the Mac Pro. But I doubt they will completely drop the product. A future Mac Pro will likely have the same 8 ARM cores that an iMac has, but only in a nicer box with upgradable RAM, SSD and GPUs. They will still call it a "Mac Pro" but the CPU cores will be the same as iMac's or the larger Macbooks. The "Pro" will be faster than iMac because of the better GPUs, more RAM, and better cooling.

 

[Homy]

I doubt Apple makes much money from the Mac Pro. Not enough to justify designing different silicon just for the Mac Pro. But I doubt they will completely drop the product. A future Mac Pro will likely have the same 8 ARM cores that an iMac has, but only in a nicer box with upgradable RAM, SSD and GPUs. They will still call it a "Mac Pro" but the CPU cores will be the same as iMac's or the larger Macbooks. The "Pro" will be faster than iMac because of the better GPUs, more RAM, and better cooling.

Sorry but you must be joking. A future Mac Pro with 8 ARM cores like an iMac, MacBook or iPad? Not even iMac is rumored to have 8 cores but 12 cores to begin with. Apple was clear about designing specific Mac SoC and there is nothing to stop them from adding more cores to the ARM CPU or GPU to make more powerful products like Mac Pro. They could even put several ARM chips in Mac Pro. World's fastest supercomputer now is an ARM based Japanese one with 48-core ARM CPUs (https://www.top500.org/news/japan-captures-top500-crown-arm-powered-supercomputer/).