Chris J Witt

Q: Rosetta and Lion - Is there a solution?

I'm considering upgrading to Lion, mostly due to the fact it has drivers for Nvidia's 500 Series, so ATY_Init will be happy with it.

But, one problem... No rosetta, and a lot of the programs I use or test are not universal binary (Primarily Cocoa PPC or Carbon). So that raises the issue.

 

How would I go about getting Rosetta on to Lion? I'm assuming that it wouldn't be as simple as copying some Frameworks and Kexts... Do any solutions exist for this yet, like hacks or mods, or is it impossible? (Or too soon?)

Posted on Jul 21, 2011 2:30 AM

Close

Q: Rosetta and Lion - Is there a solution?

  • All replies
  • Helpful answers

first Previous Page 9 of 13 last Next
  • by MlchaelLAX,

    MlchaelLAX MlchaelLAX Apr 4, 2012 10:48 AM in response to Csound1
    Level 4 (2,256 points)
    Apr 4, 2012 10:48 AM in response to Csound1


    Csound1 wrote:

     

    MlchaelLAX wrote:

     

    So if I want to use Adobe's Photoshop CS4, how many of Adobe's other products' SLAs (that I may not even own) do I have to read before I can be really, really sure I have the right to use Photoshop CS4?

    How would I know, ask Adobe!

    I was facetiously using "analogy" to respond to your answer to babowa...

  • by Király,

    Király Király Apr 4, 2012 11:10 AM in response to Csound1
    Level 6 (9,807 points)
    Apr 4, 2012 11:10 AM in response to Csound1

    Claiming that the SLA for Snow Leopard disallows virtualization of SL because it's not explicitly mentioned as permissible, is backward thinking; and an incorrect way of interpereting licenses. It's like claiming that running OS X while drinking a glass of orange juice is not allowed, because the SLA doesn't explicitly allow it.

     

    This viewpoint is shared by all major virtualization software providers so I am comfortable with it.

     

    No. We do not know the reasons why the major virtualization software providers disallow Snow Leopard from being virtualized, because this information has never been made public. What may or may not have gone on behing closed doors between Apple and the VM companies is not known.

     

    I have my own theories on what may have been gone on behind those closed doors, that is resulting in the VM companies doing what they are doing. My theories cannot be proven nor disproven. But the theory that "Snow Leopard Client is not licened to be run under virtualization on a Mac running Lion" can be disproven, simply by reading the license, and understanding the correct way of interpreting licenses (see my orange juice example above.)

     

    If you want to know how you can run Snow Leopard, read the SLA. That is the only thing that matters or carries any official or legal weight. Basing your decisions on speculating on what may or may not have gone on behind closed doors between Apple and some third parties is incorrect. Do so if you will, but recognize what you are doing for what it is, and keep that kind of speculation off of these forums where it is prohibited under the terms of use.

     

     

    Both SL and Lion (server) also state that virtualization is allowed.

     

    So? That doesn't mean that SL client isn't. What other licenses for other software products say have no bearing on SL's license terms.

  • by Csound1,

    Csound1 Csound1 Apr 4, 2012 11:12 AM in response to Király
    Level 9 (50,245 points)
    Desktops
    Apr 4, 2012 11:12 AM in response to Király

    Király wrote:

     

    Claiming that the SLA for Snow Leopard disallows virtualization of SL because it's not explicitly mentioned as permissible, is backward thinking; and an incorrect way of interpereting licenses. It's like claiming that running OS X while drinking a glass of orange juice is not allowed, because the SLA doesn't explicitly allow it.

     

    This viewpoint is shared by all major virtualization software providers so I am comfortable with it.

     

    No. We do not know the reasons why the major virtualization software providers disallow Snow Leopard from being virtualized, because this information has never been made public. What may or may not have gone on behing closed doors between Apple and the VM companies is not known.

     

    I have my own theories on what may have been gone on behind those closed doors, that is resulting in the VM companies doing what they are doing. My theories cannot be proven nor disproven. But the theory that "Snow Leopard Client is not licened to be run under virtualization on a Mac running Lion" can be disproven, simply by reading the license.

     

    If you want to know how you can run Snow Leopard, read the SLA. That is the only thing that matters or carries any official or legal weight. Basing your decisions on speculating on what may or may not have gone on behind closed doors between Apple and some third parties is incorrect. Do so if you will, but recognize what you are doing for what it is, and keep that kind of speculation off of these forums where it is prohibited under the terms of use.

     

     

    Both SL and Lion (server) also state that virtualization is allowed.

     

    So? That doesn't mean that SL client isn't. What other licenses for other software products say have no bearing on SL's license terms.

     

    I choose to interpret the SLA differently from you, I choose the same interpretation as VMWare, Parallels and Sun (VBox), you have chosen another but regardless of how many times you post your interpretation or how many theories you have regarding 'closed door' discussions mine does not change.

     

    However, continuing to advise people that they can do it based on your interpretation is somewhat more troubling than the opposite.

     

    Clear now?

  • by Király,

    Király Király Apr 4, 2012 11:18 AM in response to Csound1
    Level 6 (9,807 points)
    Apr 4, 2012 11:18 AM in response to Csound1

    Not at all. Do you know for sure that VMWare, Parallels and Sun (VBox) are doing what they are doing because SL client is not licensed to be virtualized? No you don't. Apple has never said that SL client is not licensed to be virtualized, nor does this prohibition appear in the license. There's a different reason why the VM companies have taken this route, a reason of which is not known at this time.

     

    I have my theories about what is really going on, theories that make much more sense to me than the disprovable idea that SL is not licensed to be virtualized. But I can't post my theories here. Neither should you post yours.

  • by MlchaelLAX,

    MlchaelLAX MlchaelLAX Apr 4, 2012 11:26 AM in response to Csound1
    Level 4 (2,256 points)
    Apr 4, 2012 11:26 AM in response to Csound1

    Csound1 wrote:

     

    However, continuing to advise people that they can do it based on your interpretation is somewhat more troubling than the opposite.

     

    Now, that is REALLY troubling!

  • by Csound1,

    Csound1 Csound1 Apr 4, 2012 11:32 AM in response to Király
    Level 9 (50,245 points)
    Desktops
    Apr 4, 2012 11:32 AM in response to Király

    Király wrote:

     

    Not at all. Do you know for sure that VMWare, Parallels and Sun (VBox) are doing what they are doing because SL client is not licensed to be virtualized? No you don't. Apple has never said that SL client is not licensed to be virtualized, nor does this prohibition appear in the license. There's a different reason why the VM companies have taken this route, a reason of which is not known at this time.

     

    I have my theories about what is really going on, theories that make much more sense to me than the disprovable idea that SL is not licensed to be virtualized. But I can't post my theories here. Neither should you post yours.

    But by posting that SL can be virtualized you are doing exactly that, you have no idea what Apples SLA means, you have chosen the interpretation that you prefer, as have I, and that makes for equal disagreement. If however you are suggesting that your interpretation overrules others dream on.

  • by MlchaelLAX,

    MlchaelLAX MlchaelLAX Apr 4, 2012 12:07 PM in response to Chris J Witt
    Level 4 (2,256 points)
    Apr 4, 2012 12:07 PM in response to Chris J Witt

    So going back to the original post in this thread:

    Chris J Witt wrote:

     

    I'm considering upgrading to Lion, mostly due to the fact it has drivers for Nvidia's 500 Series, so ATY_Init will be happy with it.

    But, one problem... No rosetta, and a lot of the programs I use or test are not universal binary (Primarily Cocoa PPC or Carbon). So that raises the issue.

     

    How would I go about getting Rosetta on to Lion? I'm assuming that it wouldn't be as simple as copying some Frameworks and Kexts... Do any solutions exist for this yet, like hacks or mods, or is it impossible? (Or too soon?)

    No one has yet successfully moved Rosetta over to Lion.

     

    One solution: Run Snow Leopard in Parallels 7 while in Lion, as I have posted in this thread and on other threads where similar questions have been asked.

     

    Some, with no authority to do so, will attempt to dissuade you from doing so by claiming that it is a license violation.  To date, Apple has never released an official statement in support of this position. Yet these people continue to do a disservice to those seeking a solution that works, over and over and over again.

     

    Do your own research and come to your own conclusion. 

     

    To those who need assistance in following the steps to implement Snow Leopard in Parallels 7, I look forward to your questions.

     

    To the naysayers:

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

  • by Csound1,

    Csound1 Csound1 Apr 4, 2012 12:12 PM in response to MlchaelLAX
    Level 9 (50,245 points)
    Desktops
    Apr 4, 2012 12:12 PM in response to MlchaelLAX

    MlchaelLAX wrote:

     

    So going back to the original post in this thread:

     

    Some, with no authority to do so, will attempt to dissuade you from doing so by claiming that it is a license violation. To date, Apple has never released an official statement in support of this position. Yet these people continue to do a disservice to those seeking a solution that works, over and over and over again.

    While others, with equally little authority will tell you that it is OK.

  • by Martin Pace,

    Martin Pace Martin Pace Apr 4, 2012 12:30 PM in response to Csound1
    Level 5 (5,118 points)
    Apr 4, 2012 12:30 PM in response to Csound1

    Philosophy can be fun!

  • by MlchaelLAX,

    MlchaelLAX MlchaelLAX Apr 4, 2012 12:37 PM in response to Csound1
    Level 4 (2,256 points)
    Apr 4, 2012 12:37 PM in response to Csound1

    Csound1 wrote:

    [bla bla bla bla bla]

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yB7J7DYi6M

  • by Csound1,

    Csound1 Csound1 Apr 4, 2012 12:37 PM in response to MlchaelLAX
    Level 9 (50,245 points)
    Desktops
    Apr 4, 2012 12:37 PM in response to MlchaelLAX

    MlchaelLAX wrote:

     

    Csound1 wrote:

    While others, with equally little authority will tell you that it is OK.

     

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yB7J7DYi6M

    Just as I thought, a fictional backup

  • by MlchaelLAX,

    MlchaelLAX MlchaelLAX Apr 4, 2012 12:43 PM in response to Csound1
    Level 4 (2,256 points)
    Apr 4, 2012 12:43 PM in response to Csound1

     

    Csound1 wrote:

    OK: I give up and I promise to stop needlessly hitting the REPLY button on this forum!

     

     

     

    THANK YOU!  Q.E.D.

  • by Csound1,

    Csound1 Csound1 Apr 4, 2012 12:50 PM in response to MlchaelLAX
    Level 9 (50,245 points)
    Desktops
    Apr 4, 2012 12:50 PM in response to MlchaelLAX

    MlchaelLAX wrote:

     

     

    Csound1 wrote:

    OK: I give up and I promise to stop needlessly hitting the REPLY button on this forum!

     

     

     

    THANK YOU!  Q.E.D.

    Please stop making up posts and attributing them to me Mr Lax, I can and will speak for myself, you however seem to want to speak for me, and you are not up to that task.

  • by Csound1,

    Csound1 Csound1 Apr 4, 2012 12:52 PM in response to MlchaelLAX
    Level 9 (50,245 points)
    Desktops
    Apr 4, 2012 12:52 PM in response to MlchaelLAX

    MlchaelLAX wrote:

     

    Blah

    Blah

    Blah

     

    One solution: Run Snow Leopard in Parallels 7 while in Lion, as I have posted in this thread and on other threads where similar questions have been asked.

     

    Here is the list of Guest OS's supported in P7, please note the complete absence of Snow Leopard (except for Server)

     

    64-bit Operating Systems

    • Windows 7
    • Windows Vista® SP 0, SP 1, SP 2
    • Windows Server® 2008 R2, SP2, SP1, SP0
    • Windows Server® 2003 R2, SP2, SP1, SP0
    • Windows XP Professional SP2
    • Red Hat Enterprise 6.x, 5.x
    • Fedora 15, 14, 13, 12
    • Ubuntu 11.10, 11.04, 10.10, 10.04, 9.10, 9.04, 8.10
    • CentOS 5.x
    • Debian 5.0
    • Suse Linux Enterprise Server 11, 10 SP2
    • Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop 11
    • OpenSUSE Linux 11.x
    • Mandriva 2010, 2009
    • Solaris 10
    • Open Solaris 2009.06
    • FreeBSD 8.x,7.x
    • Mac OS X Leopard Server 10.5.x
    • Mac OS X Snow Leopard Server 10.6.x

     

    Includes experimental support for 32- and 64-bit Windows 8 Developer and Consumer Previews.

  • by MlchaelLAX,

    MlchaelLAX MlchaelLAX Apr 4, 2012 12:54 PM in response to Csound1
    Level 4 (2,256 points)
    Apr 4, 2012 12:54 PM in response to Csound1

    So noted! ...as proof of nothing!

     

    If a tree falls in a forest...

first Previous Page 9 of 13 last Next