3 ms·
Feels like a bit of a nudge to developers to not take x86 compatibility for a given… kind of, "it's there if it's truly necessary, but you really should port th
by kitsunesoba 6y ago
Feels like a bit of a nudge to developers to not take x86 compatibility for a given… kind of, "it's there if it's truly necessary, but you really should port that plugin/daemon/etc".
- kevincox 6y agoI suspect this as well. But it seems so obvious that it is necessary for a while that I doubt that anyone takes it seriously.
- geerlingguy 6y agoI believe the Mac OS Classic environment wasn't installed by default in the early OS X days.
- sjwright 6y agoThis is both correct and incorrect. This is correct if you refer to how early versions of the Mac OS X installer was packaged. The Classic environment framework was always installed but a copy of Mac OS 9 was also required to be installed on the system volume as well—and this wasn't included when installing a fresh copy of Mac OS X from a CD. There was a limited period of time when Apple shipped and installed both Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X on Macs—so for those people, the Classic environment was "effectively" installed by default. Though to reproduce this you'd need to run the Mac OS X and Mac OS 9 installers from their respective CDs.
- SahAssar 6y agoMac OS Classic (running OS 9 apps on OS X) is more like a VM than a translation layer. The better comparison for rosetta 2 is rosetta 1.