6 ms·

Killing it in the way they did? Not a dire technical one. In the past they managed to keep compatibility while switching operating systems ("Classic") and CPU a

by mhd 7y ago

Killing it in the way they did? Not a dire technical one. In the past they managed to keep compatibility while switching operating systems ("Classic") and CPU architectures (68k -> PPC, PPC -> Intel). And that while being a much smaller company. This is business, nothing else. Just like all the increased "security" restrictions. Corralling everyone towards the App Store. I think they've got too much legacy to ever totally cut off "regular" applications, but apart from that they're doing everything they can to move everything in the direction of iOS (or iPadOS now). Not sure how long the days of the last commercial Unix will last.

Kwpolska 7y ago
The Classic environment was retired in 2007 with the release of 10.5 Leopard, and was never available for x86 Macs. With 10.7 Lion (2011), they dropped support for 32-bit x86 Macs, and running PowerPC software via emulation (Rosetta). Eight years of support for 32-bit apps is quite long by these standards.
scarface74 7y ago
Apple has supposedly been “corralling every one” to the Mac App Store for a decade. Isn’t it more likely that the conspiracy theories are wrong?
- st3fan 7y ago
  Yes. And that is what they are - conspiracy theories.
  - phs318u 7y ago
    Conspiracy hypotheses.
soraminazuki 7y ago
I'd guess a translation layer would require much more effort to develop and maintain than just keeping 32 bit support. It wouldn't make much sense in this case because dropping support is the sole objective, not some side effect caused by architectural/OS changes.
- mhd 7y ago
  I was just mentioning those layers as something Apple was able to do if they wanted to keep being compatible. They could, but they don't want. How sinister that purpose is, is up to the reader...
  - wayoutthere 7y ago
    Apple has a long history of sunsetting various technologies, so I don't know how this is different. Their solution to tech debt is often to just deprecate the edge cases -- which is probably the right decision.
    - jtdev 7y ago
      It’s like the exact opposite approach that Microsoft seems to take with Windows, and a key reason that I prefer Apple/MacOS
      - wayoutthere 7y ago
        Yeah, Apple tried to take the Microsoft approach with the Mac Clones in the late 90s and it failed spectacularly because it's just not in their DNA to be a tech company. They're a product company that hates managing technology longer than is absolutely necessary.
pvg 7y ago
Killing it in the way they did? Not a dire technical one. In the past they managed to keep compatibility Killing it in what way? They kept compatibility for years and eventually ended it, just like the transitions you mention. This is business, nothing else Both the security changes and dropping 32 bits are technically reasonable things to do. You might not like them and that's perhaps not entirely unreasonable either but the notion that they were done for business, nothing else makes little sense. What business do you have in mind? Apple makes money selling iPhones.
throwaway884840 7y ago
> In the past they managed to keep compatibility while switching operating systems ("Classic") and CPU architectures (68k -> PPC, PPC -> Intel). The Classic Environment (OS 9 -> OS X) was dropped after 6 years. Rosetta (PPC -> i386) was dropped after 5 years. i386 -> x86_64 is now being dropped after 12 years.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  Your point notwithstanding, the big difference to me is this: Classic and Rosetta were hacks with sucky UX. In particular, performance was terrible, in Rosetta because it was a full on CPU emulator, and Classic because it was booting Mac OS 9 in a Virtual Machine. Apps that used Classic also looked visually out of place. Running 32 bit apps in Mac OS X Mojave is 100% seamless to the user—if it wasn't for Apple's warning dialogues that 32bit was going to be deprecated, most users—even advanced users—would never even know the app was 32 bit. And that's because 32 bit support is a key feature of the amd64 architecture—it's the main reason most computers today use amd64 instead of the alternate standard proposed by Intel.
goatinaboat 7y ago
Remember on 68k they also had to orchestrate the transition from 24-bit to 32-bit addressing.
- hoistbypetard 7y ago
  I remember using some Connectix gadget on a IIcx to make it able to address 32 bits. I spent some time in macsbug figuring out how it worked. It was really interesting. It essentially patched the memory manager early in the boot process then forced it to reinitialize itself. I'm pretty sure Apple licensed that for some version of System 7 (maybe 7.5.something?) so that they could assume all post-boot 32-bit macs were 32-bit clean.
ben509 7y ago
> This is business, nothing else. That's entirely the case. Apple has to weigh the cost of maintaining compatibility against the value it brings. And it's hard to see how if the developer can't make a business case for updating their software that Apple can make a business case for maintaining compatibility. That's the business reality of Apple's primarily consumer market: consumers are generally willing to let old software go and buy new stuff. Microsoft is simply in a different market: they have many large enterprise customers who are willing to pay top dollar for extensive backwards compatibility.

by mhd 7y ago

Kwpolska 7y ago

The Classic environment was retired in 2007 with the release of 10.5 Leopard, and was never available for x86 Macs. With 10.7 Lion (2011), they dropped support for 32-bit x86 Macs, and running PowerPC software via emulation (Rosetta). Eight years of support for 32-bit apps is quite long by these standards.

scarface74 7y ago

Apple has supposedly been “corralling every one” to the Mac App Store for a decade. Isn’t it more likely that the conspiracy theories are wrong?

st3fan 7y ago
Yes. And that is what they are - conspiracy theories.
- phs318u 7y ago
  Conspiracy hypotheses.

soraminazuki 7y ago

I'd guess a translation layer would require much more effort to develop and maintain than just keeping 32 bit support. It wouldn't make much sense in this case because dropping support is the sole objective, not some side effect caused by architectural/OS changes.

mhd 7y ago
I was just mentioning those layers as something Apple was able to do if they wanted to keep being compatible. They could, but they don't want. How sinister that purpose is, is up to the reader...
- wayoutthere 7y ago
  Apple has a long history of sunsetting various technologies, so I don't know how this is different. Their solution to tech debt is often to just deprecate the edge cases -- which is probably the right decision.
  - jtdev 7y ago
    It’s like the exact opposite approach that Microsoft seems to take with Windows, and a key reason that I prefer Apple/MacOS
    - wayoutthere 7y ago
      Yeah, Apple tried to take the Microsoft approach with the Mac Clones in the late 90s and it failed spectacularly because it's just not in their DNA to be a tech company. They're a product company that hates managing technology longer than is absolutely necessary.

pvg 7y ago

Killing it in the way they did? Not a dire technical one. In the past they managed to keep compatibility Killing it in what way? They kept compatibility for years and eventually ended it, just like the transitions you mention. This is business, nothing else Both the security changes and dropping 32 bits are technically reasonable things to do. You might not like them and that's perhaps not entirely unreasonable either but the notion that they were done for business, nothing else makes little sense. What business do you have in mind? Apple makes money selling iPhones.

throwaway884840 7y ago

> In the past they managed to keep compatibility while switching operating systems ("Classic") and CPU architectures (68k -> PPC, PPC -> Intel). The Classic Environment (OS 9 -> OS X) was dropped after 6 years. Rosetta (PPC -> i386) was dropped after 5 years. i386 -> x86_64 is now being dropped after 12 years.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
Your point notwithstanding, the big difference to me is this: Classic and Rosetta were hacks with sucky UX. In particular, performance was terrible, in Rosetta because it was a full on CPU emulator, and Classic because it was booting Mac OS 9 in a Virtual Machine. Apps that used Classic also looked visually out of place. Running 32 bit apps in Mac OS X Mojave is 100% seamless to the user—if it wasn't for Apple's warning dialogues that 32bit was going to be deprecated, most users—even advanced users—would never even know the app was 32 bit. And that's because 32 bit support is a key feature of the amd64 architecture—it's the main reason most computers today use amd64 instead of the alternate standard proposed by Intel.

goatinaboat 7y ago

Remember on 68k they also had to orchestrate the transition from 24-bit to 32-bit addressing.

hoistbypetard 7y ago
I remember using some Connectix gadget on a IIcx to make it able to address 32 bits. I spent some time in macsbug figuring out how it worked. It was really interesting. It essentially patched the memory manager early in the boot process then forced it to reinitialize itself. I'm pretty sure Apple licensed that for some version of System 7 (maybe 7.5.something?) so that they could assume all post-boot 32-bit macs were 32-bit clean.

ben509 7y ago

> This is business, nothing else. That's entirely the case. Apple has to weigh the cost of maintaining compatibility against the value it brings. And it's hard to see how if the developer can't make a business case for updating their software that Apple can make a business case for maintaining compatibility. That's the business reality of Apple's primarily consumer market: consumers are generally willing to let old software go and buy new stuff. Microsoft is simply in a different market: they have many large enterprise customers who are willing to pay top dollar for extensive backwards compatibility.