Apple’s recent push into gaming may keep Rosetta 2 around a bit longer. The game porting kit is basically a front end for WINE, and they contributed a lot of code to the WINE project, most of which depends on Rosetta 2 to properly run.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How long before Mac OS is Apple Silicon only?
- Thread starter andeify
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple’s recent push into gaming may keep Rosetta 2 around a bit longer. The game porting kit is basically a front end for WINE, and they contributed a lot of code to the WINE project, most of which depends on Rosetta 2 to properly run.
I think that the game companies are probably thinking about their ARM transition as that looks like the direction Microsoft wants to go to long-term.
Mac OS needs to drop Rosetta so it forces everybody to adopt ARM. It makes no sense to run non-ARM software on a ARM chip.
It probably means to have a PC also on the side, but else we will be stuck on a compromised solution forever.
Some of my music production equipment will never work on Mac OS anymore (even with Rosetta 2), so might as well go full ARM mode.
It probably means to have a PC also on the side, but else we will be stuck on a compromised solution forever.
Some of my music production equipment will never work on Mac OS anymore (even with Rosetta 2), so might as well go full ARM mode.
Microsoft going to ARM will only help. Maybe we'll get WINE-ARM one of these days.
It's hard to draw direct parallels between Rosetta and Rosetta 2 in part because of how the latter actually works. I agree that the simple existence of the GPTK indicates that Rosetta 2 will play a larger role in the overall direction of the Mac platform going forward rather than simply handling the x86 to AS transition. I also don't think that it would be feasible to completely separate Rosetta 2 from the OS at this time in order to make it exclusive to developers using the GPTK.
I don't think the maintenance effort is high, it's a fairly standalone component that works once it works. It relies on two things: hardware support for x86 memory model emulation (something Apple needs to include in their CPUs for as long as they want to support Rosetta 2), and — as you mention — framework support. The first one is probably not trivial, the second is not a problem as long as Apple still ships macOS for x86 architecture. Once x86 is fully discontinued, maintaining old framework compatibility is going to become an issue in the long run.
In addition, it isn't likely that Apple would completely eliminate Rosetta 2 because they support it for their native Linux VM efforts. I doubt they would go through that work for a relatively niche feature if they were planning on removing it in the future. Of course, that probably doesn't help a future Mac user who is relying on an old Intel only binary since as you say, Apple would also have to maintain support for the old Intel frameworks/libraries.
If you really need x86 Windows, then just get a separate machine. Apple could yank Rosetta 2 at any time. When you buy an AS Mac, you have to take that into consideration for your production work.
My reply had nothing to do with Windows. I'm suggesting that Apple will probably not pull Rosetta 2 any time soon but they are very likely, as @leman noted, to pull the macOS x86 frameworks needed to run x86 macOS applications.
I have a program that is a Windows executable that runs on macOS via WINE. And on AS, it runs via WINE and Rosetta 2. This company has $4.5 trillion AUM. But they can't do a macOS Intel or macOS AS port. I imagine that this isn't the only major program like this.
Yes, that likely won't work for more than a couple more generations. WINE is definitely relying on macOS x86 libraries and frameworks. I think it is unlikely that Apple will continue to support x86 macOS frameworks much after the last x86 Mac is unsupported by the latest macOS. They might not drop support immediately though. It might depend on how much macOS software is still stuck on x86.
I have a large Windows desktop that is generally unused since I bought my Studio but I can press it back into service if macOS loses Rosetta 2 support. I'd need to get a Windows laptop as well. Always best to keep it in the back of my mind that this could happen
I’d have agreed with you before Apple released the Game Porting Toolkit, which relies on and even adds to the source code of WINE. It’s possible Apple limits Rosetta 2 to a “white list” of specific applications, but I don’t see it going away completely for a few more years, and perhaps even longer if Apple’s latest efforts to improve gaming on the Mac are even modestly successful.
2017 Macs didn't get Sonoma support. I expect 2018 Macs won't get the 2024 update and 2019 Macs won't get the 2025 update and 2020 Macs won't get the 2026 update. So maybe Rosetta 2 goes away or gets limited in 2026 - but users that have a dependency could just stay on the 2025 version of macOS. It's not right around the corner but people should think about planning what to do in case it does happen.
Three years after the last PPC Mac stopped shipping, Snow Leopard came out, the first Intel-only macOS. But it still supported Rosetta up to the release of Lion (the beginning of download-only macOS), a couple years later. Intel machines may get another OS upgrade, but then again, maybe not. I suspect the next OS release will have Intel support but it will be only the baseline OS and any new features will be AS-only.
Apple doesnt have a Trillion dollars. Apple stockholders hold assest that curgently book that high. ( really largely an unrealized asset. If they all tried to turn that into money at the same time it would be no where near that high) . That isn’t Apple’s money.
Apple Cash is at $60-80B . Apple debt is about $120B. ( up a whole lot from being zero about 15 years ago ) .
Apple Inc. (AAPL) Valuation Measures & Financial Statistics
Find out all the key statistics for Apple Inc. (AAPL), including valuation measures, fiscal year financial statistics, trading record, share statistics and more.
finance.yahoo.com
That is a couple of orders of magnitude distance away from 1 trillion .
You're making the false assumption that all software developers will move, or that all software even has developers around any more. I wouldn't appreciate having to replace my 5 year old printers just because Brother or Canon don't want to go back and update the drivers for ARM. (and since the printers are not current, you can be 100% sure that they won't bother.)
As for the PC on the side, thanks for offering to buy one for us.
Just so you know, he is not talking about Apple. He is talking about a company that offers a trading platform that runs on a Mac through Wine.Apple doesnt have a Trillion dollars. Apple stockholders hold assest that curgently book that high. ( really largely an unrealized asset. If they all tried to turn that into money at the same time it would be no where near that high) . That isn’t Apple’s money.
Apple Cash is at $60-80B . Apple debt is about $120B. ( up a whole lot from being zero about 15 years ago ) .
Apple Inc. (AAPL) Valuation Measures & Financial Statistics
Find out all the key statistics for Apple Inc. (AAPL), including valuation measures, fiscal year financial statistics, trading record, share statistics and more.
That is a couple of orders of magnitude distance away from 1 trillion .
I somewhat presumed that his quoted text had some Apple work reference to it. i missed that, sorry . However, likely same difference …. Trillion of non company resource and so immaterial to funding work or not. At the heart here imploring Apple to keep the frameworks alive is an attempt to spend Apple money to keep it going. Same factor ( no ROI) at both companies.
WINE is not the only way to run the Windows operating system .Apple has already pointed to virtual machines as being the Windows path.
The gaming “training wheels” are just scaffolding to get folks to try things out. Likely not permanent .
I did test running it in a Windows VM but WINE is faster and there isn't the overhead of running a second operating system.
The primary point of a porting kit is to get apps porting. Not stuck in a non port status. The the primary use of your porting kit is to produce few conversions then your “port krypton” has pretty much failed its primary mission.
there is a decent chance Apple can keep the macOS intel frameworks on comatose status for a couple of years past macOS on Intel stops getting any trailing edge minuscule security updates. AllApple has to to is ‘kick the can’ until Windows on Arm gains moment . If a WINE for windows on Arm appears then can dump the Rosetta. WINE is not trying to be a deep x86 emulator . It is just trying to present the Windows API layer above the processor . The x86 just gets entangled because older Windows apps have x86 assumptions built into them . Unwind those assumptions and Rosetta isn’t a critical piece anymore.
PS similar iisues for Rosetta on Linux. As arm linux takes ever larger share of sever market the number of apps that have x86 presumptions in them will go down over the next 2-5 years.
And the M5-M6 SoCs several years down the road will soak up the overhead all them more easier.
Last edited:
I'm more inclined to just pull out a Windows desktop if they drop support.
Not really an option on laptops though.
But for Windows Arm to get traction Microsoft has to get serious about it. Broker a settlement between Qualcomm and Arm regarding Nuvia and commission a custom chip with a hardware-assisted Rosetta-like feature that makes Windows users indifferent as to whether they have an Arm or x86-64 chip inside. Officially sanctioning Windows Arm on Apple Silicon Macs was a nice first step, but there aren’t enough Mac users total, much less Mac users running Windows, for that to be more than a minor bump for Windows Arm.
