MAC OS Native version and Rootsmagic development plans

RootsMagic
1

I bought an earlier version of Rootsmagic years ago that required (wine I believe) to work on a Mac computer. So 14 years later I still use a Mac and finally getting around to putting things in RM9 versus keeping everything online in family search/ ancestry etc. I’ve read folks continue to have issues with Mac on program upgrades. Admittedly, I am not proficient at RM nor any other software, (I used PAF back in the day). SO HERE’s the question: If I plan to learn and put my family stuff in RM9, what is the commitment or plan from RM development to having a Mac OS version that will not have conflicts with intel chips?

Thanks.

1 Like
2

RM Development hasn’t made any statement on its future plans. The native Mac version is running extremely well, and is nothing like using the CrossOver wrapper.

3

So am I mistaken that RM for Mac isn’t native? I’ve read it still requires rosetta which apple may soon do away with because of their use of non-intel chips.

I like RM, I just want to be able to depend on it long term if apple changes things. Thanks

1 Like
4

RM is intel only code requiring rosetta translation. Best to upgrade to RM10 from 9. RM on mac “native” without crossover windows bottle does run but is not your typical mac program and hindered by Intel only code.
Four years after Apple launched their own superior chip design RM is the only remaining intel only program of the 29 on my M2 mac.

5

So, is RM10 native OS based?

1 Like
6

It is native for the machines that are running Intel processors. The M chip machines use Rosetta to translate the native Mac Intel code. I really would not worry about Rosetta going away in the near future. Granted, Apple like to play like Microsoft did back in the early 2000’s in so far as they think their way is the best and the rest of the world should follow it. However, like Microsoft, they have found out that is not always the case. There are still many Mac users out there that rely on software that is Intel based and until such time as this code gets written for the M chips, they aren’t going to jump the gun to force the issue. They have a significantly smaller market share than Windows does, and they probably don’t wish to lose that share after struggling for decades to get as much as they have.

2 Likes
7

I really wouldn’t worry.
I’m running RM10 on two Macs (iMac and MacBook Air), both with M1 chips, and no problems, other than the odd glitches you get with all computer programs.
Much better than the wine bottle days!

1 Like
8

Thanks, I had bad experience sometimes with an older version of RM in those days. Reality is, I didn’t use a lot (pre-retirement and raising kids). Although I had a lot of documentation and sources, either kept in familysearch or hard copies. I bought RM 9 when it was on sale, thinking I would soon start adding everything which I’m about to. Then after reading some stuff online (usually only bad stuff gets posted, right?), and another Mac user friend using Reunion, I started researching other programs. Sounds like nothing to be concerned about for now… and BTW - your noted computer glitches - I can’t remember the last time I got a glitch on a Mac OS.

9

I moved from Reunion to RM7 way back when, because I hated the way Reunion handled sources - also, it’s very expensive.
I have never regretted the move. I do keep an eye on the native Mac program offerings, but so far have seen nothing that has seriously tempted me to move from RM

14

I’m almost sorry I posted this, maybe I should have just called RM directly. Maybe the moderator can just delete, but I would like to give some more context.

I’ve been researching for over 30 years, used PAF back in the day, and RM when PAF went away. I don’t remember searching hard for another program, but RM seemed to fit the bill. But, it wasn’t MAC OS specific and had to use whatever it’s called ( a wrapper, emulator, wine, whatever). Bottom line it never worked well and crashed frequently. Last year when I had the option to upgrade for a low cost, I bought RM 9.

I retired a couple years ago and now have more time to document my research appropriately, which will be in its own database that I control everything. Starting fresh. I can decide how I want to import (or not) from other online resources, knowing that a lot of what I see is junk. Document my sources appropriately (in my view) and be confident that I’m doing this well.

I’ve used a MAC since 2010 because I got tired of windows issues etc. Hardly ever (if any) have I had issues with this OS and its ecosystem with our iPhones is great. This isn’t a debate or trying to sway anyone, it’s just what I chose. And BTW, I have Microsoft O365, made for MAC OS and it works great.

All I want is a software I can depend on to work right, not because it’s perfect (none are), but was designed to work with my OS. But, I’m gettin access violation errors that I can’t tell has caused any problem, who knows. Unacceptable in my opinion.

So, I will continue to use RM 9 as it has a lot of great features. But, in the meantime, I bought a MAC OS specific app that was designed for my computer. It seems to be very good, but only time will tell. And I plan to start fresh here, RM 9 as another option.

So for those commenters about the RM costs/ profit etc - who cares? Busby and company can decide what they want their business model to be and if there is enough profit to deliver the app for non-windows users. I’m just asking the question and as all consumers in the world, I can make my decision to continue using their product or not. I’m not mad, disappointed, or will trash RM.

I appreciate a forum where folks can give honest opinions and options. Too much of our world wants to denegrate others for expressing their opinion. I’m happy to discuss pros and cons, but agree to disagree sometimes.

Thank you.

1 Like
17

You may want to download RM10 Essentials and see if you have the same access violation errors appearing there. Just make sure to use a copy of your database since you won’t be able to reopen in RM9 once its converted.

18

It’s good to hear that RM10 is running well for most Mac users. May I now hijack this thread, just slightly, to make a case for Linux users? I used RM9 happily on Windows until I had to change to Linux but since then I have tried every possible Wine-based solution, to get it to work, without the slightest success. Not only do I like RM, and especially the integration with Ancestry.com, but there are hardly any Linux genealogy apps. With the Linux user base constantly growing apace, RM could make a killing in that market. Ok, I’m not going to hold my breath but it is a seriously made point. In the meantime, if anyone has RM (any version) running on Linux, and would be prepared to offer advice, I’d be extremely grateful.

19

Perhaps a reddit Linux forum (or other such Linux forum) user could be convinced to download RootsMagic Essentials and offer configuration advice.

1 Like
20

Have you seen this thread?
Running RM 9 on Linux/Wine - RootsMagic - RootsMagic Community

1 Like
21

Another Mac-user here. Honestly RM (10) of course does run on macOS but really sluggish and with some crashes now and then. I now my machine is an older (intel) one from 2017 but comparable software runs much faster and smoother so I guess the age of my Mac isn’t the main problem here. I hope it runs better when finally changing to a state-of-the-art apple silicon machine but I have to admit that I’m slightly irritated that RM really is a native macOS app. It behaves more like an emulation.

22

Sluggish RM behaviour is not due to your older Intel mac chip. I have an M2 macbook air with 24 GB ram and an 85% free 512 SSD and RM is quite slow and erratic. It is also the only intel only code of 29 3rd party apps on my mac. Even my Doxie scanner software is apple silicon.

23

I’m running RM 9.1.1 in Wine 7, but any newer version of either fails. RM 9.1.2 and newer don’t work, because something changed in the FS logon process, to accomodate macOS users, and newer Wine versions don’t have the proper graphics support, so many RM windows are just black, or blank.

1 Like