Rosetta returns as Rosetta 2

[Rod]

Brings back memories to see Rosetta mentioned again in these forums. 2006 was when Apple introduced Rosetta to facilitate the move from Power PC to Intel, now we have a transition from Intel to ARM, the same architecture as your iOS devices. Rosetta 2 is an emulator built in to the soon to be released macOS Big Sur that will enable Intel based applications to run with Apple's new silicon ARM64 processor chip. “Rosetta 2 is mostly there to minimize the impact on end-users and their experience when they buy a new Mac with Apple Silicon,” says Angela Yu, founder of the software-development school App Brewery. “If Rosetta 2 does its job, your average user should not notice its existence.” I will be interested to see if that last sentence holds true. Suffice to say I wont be upgrading my hardware any time soon (I hope). As with new macOSs I'd prefer to have someone else work out the bugs before I dip my toes in the water with my primary device.
Here is the article from The Verge explaining the whole thing. https://www.theverge.com/21304182/apple-arm-mac-rosetta-2-emulation-app-converter-explainer

 

[IWT]

Very interesting post, Rod. And the linked article from Verge is a good read.

I was particularly interested in the comparisons between the original Rosetta which had to covert every instruction in real time; whereas "Rosetta 2 can convert an application right at installation time, effectively creating an ARM-optimized version of the app before you’ve opened it."

This will hopefully minimise any lag in performance.

Ian

 

[Randy B. Singer]

What's interesting is that Rosetta (1) likely has no relationship to Rosetta 2 whatsoever.

Rosetta 1 was a just in time compiler based on technology licensed from Transitive. Transitive no longer exists. Their technology is now owned by IBM, and reports were that one of the reasons that Rosetta 1 was discontinued by Apple after only three years was that IBM had no great interest in licensing the necessary technology to Apple.

So it doesn't seem likely that IBM has now changed its mind. Given that Rosetta 2 seems to work in an entirely different manner than Rosetta 1, one wonders whose technology Rosetta 2 is based on. So far, no one has said.

 

[Lifeisabeach]

What's interesting is that Rosetta (1) likely has no relationship to Rosetta 2 whatsoever.

Rosetta 1 was a just in time compiler based on technology licensed from Transitive. Transitive no longer exists. Their technology is now owned by IBM, and reports were that one of the reasons that Rosetta 1 was discontinued by Apple after only three years was that IBM had no great interest in licensing the necessary technology to Apple.

So it doesn't seem likely that IBM has now changed its mind. Given that Rosetta 2 seems to work in an entirely different manner than Rosetta 1, one wonders whose technology Rosetta 2 is based on. So far, no one has said.

Even more importantly... one wonders if this time, it's here for the long haul.

 

[chscag]

Even more importantly... one wonders if this time, it's here for the long haul.

I doubt it. Knowing Apple, they will likely discontinue supporting and including Rosetta 2 when they no longer support/update their Intel line. That might be years from now, but I wouldn't like to speculate on what Apple intends to do.

Like Randy, I too wonder where Apple is getting the new Rosetta 2 from, or, is it an in house thing?

 

[MacInWin]

I would bet on in-house. I think IBM burned them with the original Rosetta, forced their hand. So do it in-house, you control it. Intel just postponed their next updates, so bet Apple accelerates the ARM rollout.

 

[dmccloud]

I would bet on in-house. I think IBM burned them with the original Rosetta, forced their hand. So do it in-house, you control it. Intel just postponed their next updates, so bet Apple accelerates the ARM rollout.

I'm wondering if any of Apple's acquisitions over the last 2-3 years already had the technology in place. It wouldn't be the first time Apple bought a company to incorporate their work into Mac OS...

 

[BigD]

Intel just postponed their next updates, so bet Apple accelerates the ARM rollout.

I can't believe the media onslaught against Intel right now! I know the failure of the Atom line and Netbooks in general was a big deal but the fact that they sold their ARM company XScale in 2006 whilst also turning down the opportunity to co-develop the iPhone's CPU seems like a double epic fail that was always going to come home to roost! And it seems like it has...

... both in 2016 with 12,000 jobs lost!

... and now with the Mac switch to ARM and the transition to a partially fabless Intel!!!

Now CEO Bob Swain says the company is looking at a more "pragmatic" approach to the use of third-party foundries. This might mean more critical components such as GPUs or even CPUs coming from outside Intel itself, with the company's advanced multichip-packaging technologies used to aggregate dissimilar dies into a single package.

Part of me is sad but AMD and Apple with Apple Silicon are going to take up the slack. Intel will survive it's just that they'll be more competition and innovation rather than just Moore's Law! Good news really in the big scheme of things.

 

[Lifeisabeach]

I doubt it. Knowing Apple, they will likely discontinue supporting and including Rosetta 2 when they no longer support/update their Intel line. That might be years from now, but I wouldn't like to speculate on what Apple intends to do.

Like Randy, I too wonder where Apple is getting the new Rosetta 2 from, or, is it an in house thing?

Well by "long haul", I was thinking for more than a couple macOS releases. But from what Ian said about the app basically being converted to ARM-optimized on first run, would it really matter long-term? For many apps, it may be very practical to keep an early version of macOS that has Rosetta 2 as a feature around in a VM and simply "convert" that app inside the VM, then transfer it to the host OS.

I'm actually very eager to jump in on this. My wife's Mac mini is the oldest of the Macs here; sees the least use; and doesn't dual-boot Windows or use a VM for Windows. I'm normally hesistant to jump on first-gen hardware, but if early reviews look good, I may replace that. It's easily the best candidate to go first and would be a great test bed.