4 ms·

Nothing you wrote is accurate. The apps ran on both types of machines thanks to rosetta and the performance hit this takes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roset

Nothing you wrote is accurate. The apps ran on both types of machines thanks to rosetta and the performance hit this takes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software) It is doubtful that a PPC system can boot an intel MacOS HD. One is RISC the other CISC. The reason you can "natively" run intel on ARM machines is Rosetta2 "Until recently, Mac developers only had to worry about creating Intel-based apps. However, that started to change when the first Apple silicon Macs arrived. For Intel-based apps to run on these computers, Apple introduced Rosetta 2." Please read up before posting.

pram 4y ago
lol maybe you should do some reading before posting. Mach-O supports multi-architecture binaries. Rosetta is solely for things that haven’t been made “Universal” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_binary https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_binary
- kennend3 4y ago
  Great.. now explain why Rosetta exist if it is not needed because "mach-o supports.."
vetinari 4y ago
> It is doubtful that a PPC system can boot an intel MacOS HD. One is RISC the other CISC. That's the point of fat binaries: they contain .text sections for several architectures. Even the installation DVD was a single one, for both platforms. Some more modern example of the same concept: Terminal: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures: [x86_64:Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64] [arm64e] Terminal (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64 Terminal (for architecture arm64e): Mach-O 64-bit executable arm64e
alwillis 4y ago
Nothing you wrote is accurate. You must be new here. ;-) The apps ran on both types of machines thanks to rosetta and the performance hit this takes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software) It is doubtful that a PPC system can boot an intel MacOS HD. One is RISC the other CISC. I know about this because I used to do it all the time when I worked in tech support. Regardless of which Mac a client might show up with, I could boot it with the same external hard drive back in the mid-90s. Rosetta allowed unmodified PPC apps to run on Intel Macs by translating them on the fly. However, developers had the option of making a few changes and recompiling their apps to produce a version that would include native code for PPC and Intel machines; macOS would handle running the correct binary. These were known as "fat binaries". Fast forward to 2020 and Apple is applying the same strategy. Rosetta2 translates Intel apps on the fly to run on ARM. And developers can recompile their apps so that they run natively on Intel and ARM machines. Even though I'm typing this on an Intel Mac, I could boot an ARM-based Mac with its hard drive if necessary. Here's the output from the file command on the ls command: /bin/ls: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures: [x86_64:Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64] [arm64e:Mach-O 64-bit executable arm64e] /bin/ls (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64 /bin/ls (for architecture arm64e): Mach-O 64-bit executable arm64e Yes, even ls is a fat binary that runs natively on Intel and ARM-based Macs. Please read up before posting. Perhaps you should take your own advice?

pram 4y ago

lol maybe you should do some reading before posting. Mach-O supports multi-architecture binaries. Rosetta is solely for things that haven’t been made “Universal” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_binary https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_binary

kennend3 4y ago
Great.. now explain why Rosetta exist if it is not needed because "mach-o supports.."

vetinari 4y ago

> It is doubtful that a PPC system can boot an intel MacOS HD. One is RISC the other CISC. That's the point of fat binaries: they contain .text sections for several architectures. Even the installation DVD was a single one, for both platforms. Some more modern example of the same concept: Terminal: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures: [x86_64:Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64] [arm64e] Terminal (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64 Terminal (for architecture arm64e): Mach-O 64-bit executable arm64e

alwillis 4y ago

Nothing you wrote is accurate. You must be new here. ;-) The apps ran on both types of machines thanks to rosetta and the performance hit this takes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software) It is doubtful that a PPC system can boot an intel MacOS HD. One is RISC the other CISC. I know about this because I used to do it all the time when I worked in tech support. Regardless of which Mac a client might show up with, I could boot it with the same external hard drive back in the mid-90s. Rosetta allowed unmodified PPC apps to run on Intel Macs by translating them on the fly. However, developers had the option of making a few changes and recompiling their apps to produce a version that would include native code for PPC and Intel machines; macOS would handle running the correct binary. These were known as "fat binaries". Fast forward to 2020 and Apple is applying the same strategy. Rosetta2 translates Intel apps on the fly to run on ARM. And developers can recompile their apps so that they run natively on Intel and ARM machines. Even though I'm typing this on an Intel Mac, I could boot an ARM-based Mac with its hard drive if necessary. Here's the output from the file command on the ls command: /bin/ls: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures: [x86_64:Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64] [arm64e:Mach-O 64-bit executable arm64e] /bin/ls (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64 /bin/ls (for architecture arm64e): Mach-O 64-bit executable arm64e Yes, even ls is a fat binary that runs natively on Intel and ARM-based Macs. Please read up before posting. Perhaps you should take your own advice?