Creative Modem Blaster V.92 USB (DE5671 Model) in the latest Mac OS X versions?

[Ant]

Hello.

Last week, I got an unwanted and unopened Creative Modem Blaster V.92
USB (DE5671 Model) box. I got this very old modem to work in Linux
(KNOPPIX v7.0.4 LiveCD) and 64-bit Windows HPE (7 SP1 and Vista SP2),
but not in Mac Mini's Mac OS X 10.7.4.

Mac OS X seems to detect it through its USB list through its About This
Mac's More Info...'s System Report. However, Modems showed nothing of it
connected. Dmesg also does not show any detections like in Linux. Does
Mac OS X not support this very old USB dial-up modem? Or maybe a third
party driver is needed? Creative's web site didn't show any drivers
for Mac OSes so I assume no. :(

Thank you in advance. :)

P.S. I use dial-up as a backup in case my cable Internet goes down, so
this could be useful for rare Internet connection situations. ;)
--
Quote of the Week: "Every ruler sleeps on an anthill." --Afghani
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail. If crediting,
( ) then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

[Ant]

> ... Mac OS X seems to detect it through its USB list through its About

> This Mac's More Info...'s System Report. However, Modems showed
> nothing of it connected. Dmesg also does not show any detections like

> in Linux...

FYI. http://i.imgur.com/NW75J.gif for a screen shot/capture.

[Ant]

On 9/18/2012 2:05 AM PT, Michael Vilain typed:

> There are no 64-bit compatible drivers for it, so it's useless. Unless
> you can write the drivers. Toss it.

Oh well. Not even old 32-bit Mac OSes? I guess it is only good for
non-Mac computers. Thanks anyways. :(
--
"Bother," said Winnie the Pooh, as the ants devoured him.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)

/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |

\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[David Stone]

In article <gJadnQIwT5k3psXN...@earthlink.com>,

Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> On 9/18/2012 2:05 AM PT, Michael Vilain typed:
>
> > There are no 64-bit compatible drivers for it, so it's useless. Unless
> > you can write the drivers. Toss it.
>
> Oh well. Not even old 32-bit Mac OSes? I guess it is only good for
> non-Mac computers. Thanks anyways. :(

In your (Ant's) original post, you did say "Mac OS X 10.7.4"...

You could try hooking it up to something running 10.5.x or 10.6.x
(as long as Rosetta is installed), but you didn't ask about those
versions!

[Ant]

On 9/18/2012 5:55 AM PT, David Stone typed:

>> > There are no 64-bit compatible drivers for it, so it's useless. Unless
>>> you can write the drivers. Toss it.
>>
>> Oh well. Not even old 32-bit Mac OSes? I guess it is only good for
>> non-Mac computers. Thanks anyways. :(
>
> In your (Ant's) original post, you did say "Mac OS X 10.7.4"...
>
> You could try hooking it up to something running 10.5.x or 10.6.x
> (as long as Rosetta is installed), but you didn't ask about those
> versions!

Aren't those only 64-bit too? What's Rosetta?
--
"No, I'd prefer a cooler WITHOUT an ant-door, thank you..." --unknown

[PhillipJones]

Ant wrote:
> On 9/18/2012 5:55 AM PT, David Stone typed:
>
>>> > There are no 64-bit compatible drivers for it, so it's useless. Unless
>>>> you can write the drivers. Toss it.
>>>
>>> Oh well. Not even old 32-bit Mac OSes? I guess it is only good for
>>> non-Mac computers. Thanks anyways. :(
>>
>> In your (Ant's) original post, you did say "Mac OS X 10.7.4"...
>>
>> You could try hooking it up to something running 10.5.x or 10.6.x
>> (as long as Rosetta is installed), but you didn't ask about those
>> versions!
>
> Aren't those only 64-bit too? What's Rosetta?

Rosetta is the software Apple provide with OSX up to 6.8 to allow
software that was created in PowerPC code to run on an intel machine.
Evidently it was a third party software Apple licensed. as of Lion
(OSX.7.x) and Mountain Lion (OSX.8.x) it is no longer provided. so if
you hav applications such as Office2004 and Prior the second you start
up from computer opened in one of the Lions they no loger will work. I
don't know if Rosetta exist on the free market or will run on either. So
any of your PPC application are Toast.

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net mailto:pjon...@comcast.net

[David Empson]

Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> On 9/18/2012 5:55 AM PT, David Stone typed:
>
> >> > There are no 64-bit compatible drivers for it, so it's useless. Unless
> >>> you can write the drivers. Toss it.
> >>
> >> Oh well. Not even old 32-bit Mac OSes? I guess it is only good for
> >> non-Mac computers. Thanks anyways. :(
> >
> > In your (Ant's) original post, you did say "Mac OS X 10.7.4"...
> >
> > You could try hooking it up to something running 10.5.x or 10.6.x
> > (as long as Rosetta is installed), but you didn't ask about those
> > versions!
>
> Aren't those only 64-bit too?

The short version:

10.6 sometimes (depending on the Mac model and settings). 10.5, no as
far as drivers are concerned. Rosetta is not relevant as far as drivers
are concerned, but might be if there are support applications.

The long version:

A 32-bit Intel processor (Core Solo/Duo) can only run 32-bit code.

A 64-bit Intel processor (Xeon, Core 2 Duo, Core i3/i5/i7) can run both
32-bit and 64-bit code.

Hardware drivers for things like modems run as extensions in the kernel,
and must support the mode in which the kernel is running (32-bit or
64-bit). If you have a 32-bit-only driver and your kernel is running in
64-bit mode, the driver is not able to be loaded. Most current drivers
have both 32-bit and 64-bit code, but older ones are 32-bit-only.
(Drivers supplied with/for Mountain Lion and later OS X versions might
be 64-bit-only.)

Applications can be 32-bit or 64-bit independently of the kernel mode,
as long as the OS supports 64-bit applications.

Here is a detailed breakdown of the OS X version capabilities:

10.4.x is mostly 32-bit, but if you have a 64-bit processor, it can run
some limited 64-bit application code at the underlying Unix level (e.g.
command line tools in Terminal, but not 64-bit GUI applications).

10.5.x adds the ability to run 64-bit GUI applications, but the kernel
is still 32-bit.

10.6.x adds support for 64-bit kernel on some 2008 and later 64-bit
Macs, but most models default to 32-bit kernel. Most servers and some
2011 models default to 64-bit kernel. On models which are able to run
the 64-bit kernel, you can choose to run that instead of the 32-bit
kernel via a keyboard command at startup, or persistent settings in
NVRAM. The same methods can be used to force running the 32-bit kernel
on models which default to the 64-bit kernel.

10.7.x requires a 64-bit processor, extends 64-bit kernel support to
more Macs, but some older models still only support the 32-bit kernel
(due to having integrated graphics which only has 32-bit drivers, or
having 32-bit firmware which is unable to support the 64-bit kernel).
10.7 defaults to 64-bit kernel for all models which support it. You can
choose to run the 32-bit kernel via a keyboard command at startup, or
persistent settings in NVRAM.

10.8.x excludes models with older graphics hardware or 32-bit firmware,
which means all supported models can use the 64-bit kernel. The 32-bit
kernel has been removed.

If your modem has a 32-bit driver, and assuming it has no other version
dependency issues, it could work on 10.4 and 10.5, could work on a fair
number of Macs running 10.6 (all of them by forcing 32-bit kernel mode),
could work on a few Macs running 10.7 (all of them by forcing 32-bit
kernel mode), and it won't work at all on 10.8 or later.

> What's Rosetta?

Rosetta is a code translation engine written by Transitive (now owned by
IBM), which Apple licensed and included in Mac OS X on Intel Macs. It
allows Mac OS X applications written for the PowerPC processor family
(used in Macs until 2006) to run on a Mac with an Intel processor (2006
and later).

Rosetta works by translating all PowerPC code into equivalent Intel
code, which is then able to be executed by the CPU. It operates on an
"entire process" basis: all code invoked by a PowerPC applications
within the same process must also be PowerPC code, so libraries and
frameworks included with the operating system must have PowerPC code to
be used by PowerPC applications. Similarly, all plugins and printer
drivers must include PowerPC code to work with PowerPC applications.

Rosetta does not extend to the kernel itself, so PowerPC-only drivers
cannot be used on an Intel Mac.

Rosetta was included in Mac OS X 10.4, 10.5 and 10.6. It is not in OS X
10.7 or later, so recent and future OS X versions are unable to run
PowerPC code.

Apple haven't said why they removed Rosetta starting in 10.7, but my
speculation is that it was mainly due to licensing: when IBM bought
Transitive, they stopped supplying the code translation engine to other
companies and reserved it for their own use (converting other
architectures to run on IBM's POWER architecture). Apple's licence to
use Rosetta probably lasted until 10.6, and would have needed to be
renewed for later OS X versions. IBM may have been unwilling to renew
the licence at all, or at least not for what Apple regarded as a
reasonable price.

Another factor is that the elimination of Rosetta meant Apple could
eliminate all PowerPC code they were having to maintain in the libraries
and frameworks that make up a large portion of OS X. This saved a fair
amount of space and development effort, so Apple might have not wanted
to continue supplying Rosetta anyway.

It is not possible for anyone other than Apple to reinstate Rosetta in
10.7 or later, because only Apple has the source code to the libraries
and frameworks that would need to have PowerPC code in order to run
PowerPC applications.


By the way: please don't post the same message to so many Mac
newsgroups. Your message is likely to be ignored as spam if it is
excessively cross-posted, and it is even more irritating if you post it
separately to several groups, as that results in a fragmented
discussion. Pick one, maybe two, or at most three relevant groups and do
a single cross-post to those groups.

In this case, comp.sys.mac.apps was never an appropriate group for this
topic, and you should not use comp.sys.mac.misc if also posting to other
comp.sys.mac.* groups. The most appropriate groups would be
comp.sys.mac.comm and comp.sys.mac.system, so I've pointed followups
there. (comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc is arguably relevant, but not
necessary as there is a specific group for communications.)

Please also note that the "comp.sys.mac.systems" group you have been
posting to does not exist in the list of official newsgropus. If it
appears on your news server, that is an error and you should avoid using
it, because it will not be distributed to news servers which are
following the official list. The correct name is "comp.sys.mac.system".

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[Ant]

On 9/18/2012 8:47 AM PT, PhillipJones typed:

>> ... Aren't those only 64-bit too? What's Rosetta?

> Rosetta is the software Apple provide with OSX up to 6.8 to allow
> software that was created in PowerPC code to run on an intel machine.
> Evidently it was a third party software Apple licensed. as of Lion
> (OSX.7.x) and Mountain Lion (OSX.8.x) it is no longer provided. so if
> you hav applications such as Office2004 and Prior the second you start
> up from computer opened in one of the Lions they no loger will work. I
> don't know if Rosetta exist on the free market or will run on either. So
> any of your PPC application are Toast.

Ah thanks. Couldn't one use VMware Fusion or a Mac OS VM? :)
--
"Ants can lift up to 50 times their own weight. And your monitor is
missing. Time to bring out the bugspray." --BBspot's Geek Horoscopes
(2/28/2003)

[David Empson]

[Note: followup groups trimmed]

Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> On 9/18/2012 8:47 AM PT, PhillipJones typed:
>
> >> ... Aren't those only 64-bit too? What's Rosetta?
>
> > Rosetta is the software Apple provide with OSX up to 6.8 to allow
> > software that was created in PowerPC code to run on an intel machine.
> > Evidently it was a third party software Apple licensed. as of Lion
> > (OSX.7.x) and Mountain Lion (OSX.8.x) it is no longer provided. so if
> > you hav applications such as Office2004 and Prior the second you start
> > up from computer opened in one of the Lions they no loger will work. I
> > don't know if Rosetta exist on the free market or will run on either. So
> > any of your PPC application are Toast.
>
> Ah thanks. Couldn't one use VMware Fusion or a Mac OS VM? :)

Parallels and VMware Fusion enforce restrictions on which versions of OS
X you can run in a virtual machine. They won't allow non-server versions
of 10.6 or earlier. Mac OS X Server 10.5 or 10.6 work, but they are very
expensive (unless you get lucky and find one cheaply).

It is possible to bypass the checks, but doing so is probably a
violation of the OS X licence agreement. This is a topic which has been
argued here repeatedly, but it is clear that the VM vendors are of the
opinion that they are not allowed to virtualize non-server 10.6 or
earlier. We don't know whether that is based on legal advice they have
received based on a reading of the OS X licence agreement, or explicit
instructions from Apple to the VM vendors (which is not public
information).

Virtualbox _says_ it has the same restrictions, but it appears that it
doesn't enforce it reliably.

10.7 relaxed the virtualization rules (10.7 and later non-server can run
in a VM, with some restrictions), and had a huge price drop for OS X
Server. I don't think it was a coincidence that these happened in the
same OS version which eliminated Rosetta.

I suspect Apple's licence to use Rosetta (also not public information)
had an explicit clause that Apple was not to allow Rosetta to run in a
virtual machine, unless a licence fee was paid to Transitive for each
potentially running VM installation. That licence fee would have been
covered by the much higher retail price of Mac OS X Server 10.5 or 10.6,
but not by the retail price of Mac OS X 10.5 or especially 10.6.

OS X Server also has a licence key and checks for other running copies
on the network using the same licence key, which effectively imposes a
limit of one running VM per OS X Server licence.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz