This is certainly an interesting way to characterize dropping support for old hardware. What is a reasonable way to go about hardware deprecation in your view?
We're talking here about an OS that hasn't even come out yet, that will get years of security support, for computers that Apple hasn't been selling for several years now. Seems pretty reasonable.
If it was planned, Rosetta 2 would have never existed in the first place. It would have been a qemu fork haphazardly crammed into Xcode.
There was no "planning" here. Here's how I imagine it went: a developer whined about tech debt, management seized an opportunity to generate revenue, neither party considered, yknow, humans, and now we're here.
For day to day tasks there is no difference.
I think "M series chips are no better than ten year old Intel chips" is a take that would be somewhat difficult to sustain, given the data.
Btw she can downgrade to Sequoia from Tahoe.
- Mac Classic II, the slowest of the bunch, $1.900, or about $4.661 today
- Quadra 900, the fastest model in 1991, was $7.200 ($17.663 today)
- PowerBook 170 was $4600 ($11.285)Plenty of people would even be perfectly happy on an x86 Mac, too. Sure, there would be a perceptible difference compared to a new machine, but not enough to justify the price. That's what obsoleting Rosetta is about, it's about artifically making x86 Macs so unbearable that would-be happy users have no choice but to buy something else.