4 ms·

The M1 chip and Rosetta 2 were introduced in 2020. macOS 28 will be released in 2027. 7 years seems like plenty of time for software vendors to make the necessa

The M1 chip and Rosetta 2 were introduced in 2020. macOS 28 will be released in 2027. 7 years seems like plenty of time for software vendors to make the necessary updates. If Apple never discontinues Rosetta support, vendors will never update their software to run natively on Apple chips.

spacechild1 1y ago
There is lots of existing software (audio plugins, games, etc.) that will never see an update. All of that software will be lost. Most new software has ARM or universal binaries. If some vendors refuse to update their software, it's their problem. Windows still supports 32-bit applications, yet almost all new software is 64-bit.
out_of_protocol 1y ago
Windows 95 was released... well, in 1995. In 2025 you can run apps targeting W95 just fine (and many 16-bit apps with some effort)
- stalfosknight 1y ago
  That's not necessarily a good thing.
- K7PJP 1y ago
  This isn't a new or unique move; Apple has never prioritized backwards compatibility. If you're a Mac user, you expect this sort of thing. If running neglected software is critical to you, you run Windows or you keep your old Macs around.
  - timw4mail 1y ago
    I seem to remember 68k software working (on PowerPC Macs) until Classic was killed off in Leopard? I'm likely misremembering the length of time, but it seems like that was the longest backwards-compatibility streak Apple had.
  - torstenvl 1y ago
    It's a bizarre assumption that this is about "neglected software." A lot of software is for x64 only. If Rosetta2 goes away, Parallels support for x64 binaries in VMs likely goes away too. Parallels is not neglected software. The x64 software you'd want to run on Parallels are not neglected software. This is a short-sighted move. It's also completely unprecedented; Apple has dropped support for previous architectures and runtimes before, but never when the architecture or runtime was the de facto standard. https://docs.parallels.com/parallels-desktop-developers-guide/software-development-specific-functions-of-parallels-desktop/using-rosetta-to-run-x86-64-linux-software-on-apple-silicon-macs https://docs.parallels.com/parallels-desktop-developers-guid...
    - galad87 1y ago
      Paralles x86_64 emulation doesn't depend on Rosetta.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - mxey 1y ago
      > If Rosetta2 goes away, Parallels support for x64 VMs likely goes away too. Rosetta 2 never supported emulating a full VM, only individual applications.
      - torstenvl 1y ago
        You're right. It looks like the new full VM emulation in 20.2 doesn't use Rosetta. https://www.parallels.com/blogs/parallels-desktop-20-2-0/ https://www.parallels.com/blogs/parallels-desktop-20-2-0/ Nevertheless, running x64 software including Docker containers on aarch64 VMs does use Rosetta. There's still a significant valid use case that has nothing to do with neglected software. Edited my post above. Thanks for the correction.
        mrpippy 1y ago
        The OP only applies to Rosetta for running x64 Mac apps, not running x64 Linux software in aarch64 Linux VMs.
- Klonoar 1y ago
  Just because Microsoft does one thing doesn't mean Apple has to do the same.
- slavapestov 1y ago
  > In 2025 you can run apps targeting W95 just fine (and many 16-bit apps with some effort) FWIW, Windows running on a 64-bit host no longer runs 16-bit binaries.
  - jack_tripper 1y ago
    >Windows running on a 64-bit host no longer runs 16-bit binaries. Which isn't an issue since Windows 95 was not a 16-bit OS, that was MS-DOS. For 16-bit DOS apps there's virtualization things like DOSbox or even HW emulators.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - out_of_protocol 1y ago
    Yes. Still, there are ways to do it anyway, from Dosbox to WineVDM. Unlike MacOS where having even 32 bit app (e.g. half of Steam games that supported Macos to begin with) means you're fucked
    - nomel 1y ago
      You can use dosbox and x86 virtual machines just fine in macOS (with the expected performance loss) right now, without Rosetta. macOS is still Turing complete.
      - out_of_protocol 1y ago
        Technically speaking, you can run anything on anything since stuff Turing complete. Practically speaking however.... E.g. i have half of macos games in my steam library as a 32-bit mac binaries. I don't know a way to launch them at any reasonable speed. Best way to do it is to ditch macos version altogether and emulate win32 version of the game (witch will run at reasonable speed via wine forks). Somehow Win32 api is THE most stable ABI layer for linux & mac
- delusional 1y ago
  There's a lot of Win95 software that you can't run too. Microsoft puts a lot of work into their extensive backlog of working software. It's not just "good engineering" it's honest to god fresh development.
- reddalo 1y ago
  That's not a good thing for other reasons; e.g. there are a lot of inconsistencies in modern Windows, like pieces of Windows 3.1 still in Windows 11.
  - Kwpolska 1y ago
    There are leftovers from older versions of macOS and severely neglected apps in Tahoe too. Sure, they might have been given a new icon, or adopted the new system styling, but they have not been updated for ages.
linguae 1y ago
This is also consistent with Apple’s previous behavior with backwards compatibility, where Apple would provide a few years of support for the previous platform but will strongly nudge developers and users to move on. The Classic environment in Mac OS X that enabled classic Mac OS apps to run didn’t survive the Intel switch and was unavailable in Leopard even for PowerPC Macs, and the original Rosetta for PowerPC Mac OS X applications was not included starting with Lion, the release after Snow Leopard.
- delusional 1y ago
  Honestly, for apple this is above and beyond. They've killed support with less fanfare and compatibility support than what we see here.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    Bully on me for owning hardware and expecting it to behave consistently across OTA updates.
    - renewiltord 1y ago
      I think you probably should not buy Apple hardware. It is not a guarantee they have ever offered that their software would behave consistently across updates. If this mattered to me, I would have done some research and rapidly found out that Apple has done this every few years for the last 30 years.
      - subarctic 1y ago
        But their new hardware is so good though, it's kind of hard to pass up
    - searls 1y ago
      At what point in history have you owned a particular piece of hardware for use with a particular piece of never-to-be-updated software and installed a major OEM operating system release a full 7 years after release without issue? I doubt such a thing has ever happened in the history of consumer-facing computing.
watermelon0 1y ago
The main problem is not native software, but virtualization, since ARM64 hardware is still quite uncommon for Windows/Linux, and we need Rosetta for decent performance when running AMD64 in virtual machines.

spacechild1 1y ago

There is lots of existing software (audio plugins, games, etc.) that will never see an update. All of that software will be lost. Most new software has ARM or universal binaries. If some vendors refuse to update their software, it's their problem. Windows still supports 32-bit applications, yet almost all new software is 64-bit.

out_of_protocol 1y ago

Windows 95 was released... well, in 1995. In 2025 you can run apps targeting W95 just fine (and many 16-bit apps with some effort)

stalfosknight 1y ago
That's not necessarily a good thing.
K7PJP 1y ago
This isn't a new or unique move; Apple has never prioritized backwards compatibility. If you're a Mac user, you expect this sort of thing. If running neglected software is critical to you, you run Windows or you keep your old Macs around.
- timw4mail 1y ago
  I seem to remember 68k software working (on PowerPC Macs) until Classic was killed off in Leopard? I'm likely misremembering the length of time, but it seems like that was the longest backwards-compatibility streak Apple had.
- torstenvl 1y ago
  It's a bizarre assumption that this is about "neglected software." A lot of software is for x64 only. If Rosetta2 goes away, Parallels support for x64 binaries in VMs likely goes away too. Parallels is not neglected software. The x64 software you'd want to run on Parallels are not neglected software. This is a short-sighted move. It's also completely unprecedented; Apple has dropped support for previous architectures and runtimes before, but never when the architecture or runtime was the de facto standard. https://docs.parallels.com/parallels-desktop-developers-guide/software-development-specific-functions-of-parallels-desktop/using-rosetta-to-run-x86-64-linux-software-on-apple-silicon-macs https://docs.parallels.com/parallels-desktop-developers-guid...
  - galad87 1y ago
    Paralles x86_64 emulation doesn't depend on Rosetta.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - mxey 1y ago
    > If Rosetta2 goes away, Parallels support for x64 VMs likely goes away too. Rosetta 2 never supported emulating a full VM, only individual applications.
    - torstenvl 1y ago
      You're right. It looks like the new full VM emulation in 20.2 doesn't use Rosetta. https://www.parallels.com/blogs/parallels-desktop-20-2-0/ https://www.parallels.com/blogs/parallels-desktop-20-2-0/ Nevertheless, running x64 software including Docker containers on aarch64 VMs does use Rosetta. There's still a significant valid use case that has nothing to do with neglected software. Edited my post above. Thanks for the correction.
      - mrpippy 1y ago
        The OP only applies to Rosetta for running x64 Mac apps, not running x64 Linux software in aarch64 Linux VMs.
Klonoar 1y ago
Just because Microsoft does one thing doesn't mean Apple has to do the same.
slavapestov 1y ago
> In 2025 you can run apps targeting W95 just fine (and many 16-bit apps with some effort) FWIW, Windows running on a 64-bit host no longer runs 16-bit binaries.
- jack_tripper 1y ago
  >Windows running on a 64-bit host no longer runs 16-bit binaries. Which isn't an issue since Windows 95 was not a 16-bit OS, that was MS-DOS. For 16-bit DOS apps there's virtualization things like DOSbox or even HW emulators.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- out_of_protocol 1y ago
  Yes. Still, there are ways to do it anyway, from Dosbox to WineVDM. Unlike MacOS where having even 32 bit app (e.g. half of Steam games that supported Macos to begin with) means you're fucked
  - nomel 1y ago
    You can use dosbox and x86 virtual machines just fine in macOS (with the expected performance loss) right now, without Rosetta. macOS is still Turing complete.
    - out_of_protocol 1y ago
      Technically speaking, you can run anything on anything since stuff Turing complete. Practically speaking however.... E.g. i have half of macos games in my steam library as a 32-bit mac binaries. I don't know a way to launch them at any reasonable speed. Best way to do it is to ditch macos version altogether and emulate win32 version of the game (witch will run at reasonable speed via wine forks). Somehow Win32 api is THE most stable ABI layer for linux & mac
delusional 1y ago
There's a lot of Win95 software that you can't run too. Microsoft puts a lot of work into their extensive backlog of working software. It's not just "good engineering" it's honest to god fresh development.
reddalo 1y ago
That's not a good thing for other reasons; e.g. there are a lot of inconsistencies in modern Windows, like pieces of Windows 3.1 still in Windows 11.
- Kwpolska 1y ago
  There are leftovers from older versions of macOS and severely neglected apps in Tahoe too. Sure, they might have been given a new icon, or adopted the new system styling, but they have not been updated for ages.

linguae 1y ago

This is also consistent with Apple’s previous behavior with backwards compatibility, where Apple would provide a few years of support for the previous platform but will strongly nudge developers and users to move on. The Classic environment in Mac OS X that enabled classic Mac OS apps to run didn’t survive the Intel switch and was unavailable in Leopard even for PowerPC Macs, and the original Rosetta for PowerPC Mac OS X applications was not included starting with Lion, the release after Snow Leopard.

delusional 1y ago
Honestly, for apple this is above and beyond. They've killed support with less fanfare and compatibility support than what we see here.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  Bully on me for owning hardware and expecting it to behave consistently across OTA updates.
  - renewiltord 1y ago
    I think you probably should not buy Apple hardware. It is not a guarantee they have ever offered that their software would behave consistently across updates. If this mattered to me, I would have done some research and rapidly found out that Apple has done this every few years for the last 30 years.
    - subarctic 1y ago
      But their new hardware is so good though, it's kind of hard to pass up
  - searls 1y ago
    At what point in history have you owned a particular piece of hardware for use with a particular piece of never-to-be-updated software and installed a major OEM operating system release a full 7 years after release without issue? I doubt such a thing has ever happened in the history of consumer-facing computing.

watermelon0 1y ago

The main problem is not native software, but virtualization, since ARM64 hardware is still quite uncommon for Windows/Linux, and we need Rosetta for decent performance when running AMD64 in virtual machines.