And that it bogs down the system. And you have to support legacy stuff on newer machine, something Apple has never really done since the beginning. They have the view that if you go out today, and get a new Mac, you'll be able to use software but for versions whatever to whatever.
Apple isn't going to make hardware, then try to make programs from the 90s run on the hardware. Apple's view, and mine too, is it is stupid. It is a waste of resources which Apple didn't have in the 90s to about 2004, and it is a problem to maintain. Honestly, I can't think of ANY program that I use that is just PPC. Nothing. 3 years ago, yes, I had stuff that was just PPC. A year ago.....maybe...but probably not. Now, nothing.....everything is Universal or just Intel. As for 10.7 NOT supporting Rosetta. There is NOTHING preventing you from say using something like Parallels and running 10.6 or earlier virtually. There is also Sheepsaver which allows old OS 9 apps to run on modern Macs. It works, but....there isn't really anything to run other than if you want to go in the way back machine and revisit Hypercard..... On Sunday, February 27, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Hi Robert, > > Apple is obsessed with streamlining, often at the expense of its users. Their > built-in Rosetta PPC emulation works incredibly well, for the most part, and > there is no good reason to drop it other than Steve Jobs' own personal > predilections. > > Cheers, > > - DJA > ----- > WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org > > > > On 27 Feb 2011, at 6:44 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > On 27 Feb 2011 at 17:11, Darcy James Argue wrote: > > > > > 4) Emulation/virtualization -- I know there is going to be > > > considerable demand to run PPC applications, so presumably Apple > > > removing Rosetta support means that some third-party developers like > > > Parallels will release a PPC emulator for Lion. (Of course, this is > > > speculative at this point, but I definitely expect some kind of > > > third-party solution.) > > > > I would think this would be by far the easiest way to do things, and > > in Apple's interest to implement. By comparison, Windows 7 > > Professional and higher has its "Windows XP mode" which is Windows > > emulation that's extremely easy to use. In fact, it's so easy that > > most people don't even attempt to try to get older apps running under > > Win7 (even though the options are there that would likely allow it), > > and instead go directly for the virtual machine. It has its problems > > (USB printing, for one), but it's there right out of the box (or > > easily downloaded). > > > > The fact is that MS hasn't shut out a whole host of legacy apps with > > architectural changes (though Win7 does drop Win16 support, so you do > > have to run any 16-bit apps in WinXP mode; but Win16 has been on the > > way out since the introduction of Win95, 16 years ago!), and is > > providing fallbacks for those who need to run legacy apps. > > > > I wonder why Apple isn't doing the same thing when they have much > > more severe restrictions on what will run? I'm not criticizing Apple, > > just wondering why they aren't accomodating their user base to a > > greater extent. > > > > -- > > David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com > > David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Finale mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > > > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
