Wished Apple Was More Up Front About Rosetta's Limitations

[leman]

Interesting. Is that a technical curiosity noted above about or an applicable "limited use or adjustment" to the existing Rosetta software or a hybrid solution that can allow Rosetta II to truly emulate 32 bit apps?

Just curious. I'm learning a lot here.

To sum it up, it seems that Apple has disabled the use of 32-bit applications, however, 64-bit applications can still load and execute 32-bit code. This works on both Intel Macs and ARM Macs, which means that Rosetta2 is fully capable of executing 32-bit x86 code.

Basically, this is a path for legacy apps to still use legacy code without burdening Apple with the need to support fragile 32-bit APIs — the app developer will need to provide appropriate trampolines and emulation environment for letting their 32-bit code interface with (64-bit-only) system libraries. This of course does not give you full capability of running old applications, but it seems you have much more flexibility than previous assumed. Among other things, this is what allows Wine/Crossover to run 32-bit Windows software on M1 Macs under Rosetta2!

 

[bradbomb]

I'm sorry, IMHO I really think Apple doesn't need to be more transparent about the lack of support for 32bit executables. Like others have said, my reasons are as follows:

1. macOS since High Sierra (released in 2017) has warned users of the lack of support coming soon. Support was removed in 2019 with Catalina
2. Apple has always recommended to update the OS since they provide these major releases for free for supporting machines

Now for the two specific software you list:

1. As others have said, Microsoft Office 2011 isn't supported by Microsoft anymore since 2017 and remember, this was software originally released to run on 10.7 Lion, but was supported on 10.5 Leopard
2. Adobe CS6 was discontinued in 2013 and replaced with CC, stopped being available on their website as of 2017, and their update system won't even update a newly installed copy of CS6 (I know because I had to just that a month ago and then had to dive into archive.org just to get everything in CS6 updated to their last versions).

You bought a new machine with new architecture and made an assumption that 10 year old software would still run. Your software cannot run on ANY new Mac, Intel or Apple Silicon based, as it is too old and was replaced by the software developer with newer versions.

 

[Nermal]

If my memory serves me right, the communication on this was unambiguous: something along the lines of „future OSes will not support 32bit“

It was something a bit wishy-washy actually; I think it was "10.14 is the last to support 32-bit without compromises".

 

[MacCheetah3]

I don't think so. For me, it was the disappointment of the G5 and the promise of the intel Core 2 series that pushed Apple to the transition.

Not saying that Apple didn't have a plan B from the beginning.

But OS-X is based on the NeXTSTEP operating system which had already been ported to X86 back in 1993. It is very likely that OS-X always ran on Intel hardware.

I very vaguely recall this:

On June 6, 2005, Steve Jobs announced in his keynote address at WWDC that Apple would be making the transition from PowerPC to Intel processors over the following two years, and that Mac OS X would support both platforms during the transition. Jobs also confirmed rumors that Apple had versions of Mac OS X running on Intel processors for most of its developmental life. Intel-based Macs would run a new recompiled version of OS X along with Rosetta, a binary translation layer which enables software compiled for PowerPC Mac OS X to run on Intel Mac OS X machines.[110] The system was included with Mac OS X versions up to version 10.6.8.[111]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS#PowerPC–Intel_transition

 

[grrrz]

I appreciate everyone's comments about how Apple noted the move to 64bit in tech columns and probably on a tech sheet and that Rosetta is "not the problem." And yes, I do have an older OS (Yosemite) on a laptop that runs older CS apps as well as 2011 Office. First, not every user of MacBookPros is technically as plugged in as many on this forum. I know, it's hard to believe, but true. And while we may be great in our creative fields, we may lag in tech "saviness." Many of us do creative work and some of us didn't quite catch the digital transition to 64 bit - as a limit, not just a perceived optimum option. She may consider it naive, but nonetheless some of us missed it. My key point was that nowhere on the Apple website selling the new laptop is there a mention of this. Instead it says: "Over 10,000 apps and plug-ins are already optimized for Apple silicon. And Rosetta 2 seamlessly translates apps designed for Intel processors for use on your new MacBook Pro." Look up "Apple Rosetta II" as I did, I find no mention of a 64 bit limit. "Instead it says: "Rosetta is not an app that you need to open. Rosetta works automatically in the background whenever you use an app built only for Mac computers with an Intel processor. It translates the app for use with Apple silicon. In most cases, you won't notice any difference in the performance of an app that needs Rosetta. But you should contact the app developer to inquire about a version that can natively use the full power and performance of Apple silicon." Sure, sure. Who cares? But I still think Apple - as a 23 year consumer of their products - could be a bit more clear about an emulation product. Despite the fact that they are concerned about a fall off in new product purchases with a new chip architecture/. Or, is that perhaps the reason for the lack of an up front mention?

You're pushing it a bit. Yosemite was released in 2014. It's alright to never update your OS; but if you're gonna skip almost ten years of technical devellopement you better catch up a bit. It's like expecting apple to advertise that their computer is not compatible with ppc software. Again it's not Rosetta 2 that's not compatible with 32 bit it's MacOS since catalina; so you'd get the same result with any modern up to date intel mac.

 

[bill-p]

I appreciate everyone's comments about how Apple noted the move to 64bit in tech columns and probably on a tech sheet and that Rosetta is "not the problem." And yes, I do have an older OS (Yosemite) on a laptop that runs older CS apps as well as 2011 Office. First, not every user of MacBookPros is technically as plugged in as many on this forum. I know, it's hard to believe, but true. And while we may be great in our creative fields, we may lag in tech "saviness." Many of us do creative work and some of us didn't quite catch the digital transition to 64 bit - as a limit, not just a perceived optimum option. She may consider it naive, but nonetheless some of us missed it. My key point was that nowhere on the Apple website selling the new laptop is there a mention of this. Instead it says: "Over 10,000 apps and plug-ins are already optimized for Apple silicon. And Rosetta 2 seamlessly translates apps designed for Intel processors for use on your new MacBook Pro." Look up "Apple Rosetta II" as I did, I find no mention of a 64 bit limit. "Instead it says: "Rosetta is not an app that you need to open. Rosetta works automatically in the background whenever you use an app built only for Mac computers with an Intel processor. It translates the app for use with Apple silicon. In most cases, you won't notice any difference in the performance of an app that needs Rosetta. But you should contact the app developer to inquire about a version that can natively use the full power and performance of Apple silicon." Sure, sure. Who cares? But I still think Apple - as a 23 year consumer of their products - could be a bit more clear about an emulation product. Despite the fact that they are concerned about a fall off in new product purchases with a new chip architecture/. Or, is that perhaps the reason for the lack of an up front mention?

Again, your problem is not that Rosetta does not support your apps. It's that the OS itself doesn't.

Yes, I concede Apple should have communicated this limitation better, but again, it's not a limitation of Rosetta or of emulation. In fact, as noted, 32-bit x86 emulation/translation is in place. It's just that MacOS itself is no longer compatible with 32-bit apps. If you bought an Intel Mac this year, you'd run into the same issue.

 

[Marshall73]

I have used Apple laptops for many years - writing, some video editing and photo work. I have some very useful legacy versions of Office and CS - 6. And was hoping Rosetta would enable me to utilize them, even if in a limited way. I missed the major demarcation of 32 and 64 bit until I pulled the trigger on a 16" Pro model. I'm psyched about the capabilities and promise. But wish Apple had been a bit more open about Rosetta's limitations. When speaking with Apple today, I mentioned that most of the promotional wording about Rosetta 2 does not mention the 64 bit native hurdle. I thought that perhaps the Rosetta function not only translated the x86 to native M1 but also - perhaps - upscaled from any 32bit to 64 bit information. Wishful thinking obviously, And perhaps technically a most difficult obstacle. But, I do wish Apple was more transparent about this limitation given the important transition to another chip species entirely. By now you'd think I'd be warned about the "insanely great" product promotion. But, in fact, some of us do like the ability to pick and choose versions of software and not be obsessed with "being up to date with every new version the developers feel obliged to develop - no matter how minor the improvements for most users. Well, I'm probably stuck with the less visually appealing Word look of today and a yearly anchor around my neck from Adobe. Time marches on.

you spent over 2k on a new Mac then complain that your old apps don’t run. Next time try this… https://bfy.tw/SDXE