zlacker

>>janand+(OP)
The full sentence:

> And since our philosophy is to provide software for our machines free or at minimal cost, you won't be continually paying for access to this growing software library.

>>ameliu+t5
They forgot to mention that the growing software library is also shrinking as they deprecate support for older OS versions and hardware. On the one hand they go to heroic lengths (fat binaries, Rosetta 2) to enable a migration to a new hardware platform but get bored in ~5 years and drop support.

"Growing software library" it ain't.

>>titzer+D9
The ARM chips in later iPhones and all M series Macs physically don’t have the hardware to run 32 bit software.

Should they still be supporting PPC software? 68K software? Why not old Apple // software for good measure?

Right now the last time I counted in 2012, there were 12 ways to define a string in Windows and you had to convert back and forth between them depending on which API you are calling. There are so many one off hacks to keep Windows running (see Raymond Chen’s blog) it’s a house of cards

>>raw_an+vo
Emulation has been a thing for a long time. It's not pretty and takes work to make it fast, but can be surprisingly stable.

It's wild to me that after many many decades with computers people are always surprised that the current hardware gets deprecated for new hardware and then rediscover emulation again.

>>titzer+vJ2
And it takes resources, slower than native and lets developers lolligag about upgrading their apps.

I’m well aware of emulation parts of PPC MacOS - including the operating system was running 68K code until OS X came out 8 years after the PPC was introduced. Intel Macs ran PPC code under emulation for a few years.

So should the ARM Mac have emulations for Intel 32 bit/64 bit, PPC and 68K?

Should the iPhone have emulators?