4 ms·

Apple, having already forced PPC->X86 and now forcing X86->X64, clearly has no difficulty forcing an architecture update every 5 years, stranding apps in the pa

Apple, having already forced PPC->X86 and now forcing X86->X64, clearly has no difficulty forcing an architecture update every 5 years, stranding apps in the past if they don’t update. Saying that they wouldn’t force X64->ARM64 due to migration issues they have repeatedly accepted makes no sense, given their history - and especially having done so regardless of Adobe’s inability to keep up.

ken 7y ago
They've been even more aggressive than you suggest. They promised 64-bit Carbon in 10.5, and included it in developer seeds, before finally yanking it from the final release. Adobe found out it was cancelled at the same time as everyone else: when Apple announced it at WWDC.
- eridius 7y ago
  My recollection is that Apple did in fact ship a 64-bit HIToolbox library, but they didn't allow the general public to use it. I thought Adobe was one of the few people who were allowed to use it though, as a temporary measure until they rewrote Photoshop to stop using Carbon. I could be wrong though, that was a long time ago.
eridius 7y ago
Both PPC->x86 and x86->x86_64 had (temporary) migration paths. The x86->x86_64 path was pretty easy; x86 apps were still supported for a rather long time. The PPC->x86 migration path wasn't as clean, but they did ship Rosetta for a couple of years before ditching it. If they do Intel->ARM they'll need some sort of migration strategy. Would that involve a Rosetta 2.0?
9935c101ab17a66 7y ago
The intel transition was 13 years ago? And the powerpc era lasted from 1992ish to 2005?
- floatingatoll 7y ago
  Wikipedia may be of some use here, I don’t know the exact dates of when OS X was released (with a Mac Classic emulator, how meta!) versus when Apple transitioned 6502->68k and 68k->ppc and ppc->x86. Sorry I can’t be of more help to your questions!

4 ms·

Apple, having already forced PPC->X86 and now forcing X86->X64, clearly has no difficulty forcing an architecture update every 5 years, stranding apps in the pa

by floatingatoll 7y ago

ken 7y ago
They've been even more aggressive than you suggest. They promised 64-bit Carbon in 10.5, and included it in developer seeds, before finally yanking it from the final release. Adobe found out it was cancelled at the same time as everyone else: when Apple announced it at WWDC.
- eridius 7y ago
  My recollection is that Apple did in fact ship a 64-bit HIToolbox library, but they didn't allow the general public to use it. I thought Adobe was one of the few people who were allowed to use it though, as a temporary measure until they rewrote Photoshop to stop using Carbon. I could be wrong though, that was a long time ago.
eridius 7y ago
Both PPC->x86 and x86->x86_64 had (temporary) migration paths. The x86->x86_64 path was pretty easy; x86 apps were still supported for a rather long time. The PPC->x86 migration path wasn't as clean, but they did ship Rosetta for a couple of years before ditching it. If they do Intel->ARM they'll need some sort of migration strategy. Would that involve a Rosetta 2.0?
9935c101ab17a66 7y ago
The intel transition was 13 years ago? And the powerpc era lasted from 1992ish to 2005?
- floatingatoll 7y ago
  Wikipedia may be of some use here, I don’t know the exact dates of when OS X was released (with a Mac Classic emulator, how meta!) versus when Apple transitioned 6502->68k and 68k->ppc and ppc->x86. Sorry I can’t be of more help to your questions!