Hi, Is there any plan to provide a version that doesn’t require Rosetta ? I don’t want to install it on my Mac.
Recent versions of Zwift are Apple Silicon native apps and don’t require Rosetta. They’ve put a huge amount of work into them and they run brilliantly, albeit a bit limited with default Zwift settings.
You don’t “install” Rosetta, it’s an integral component of MacOS on Apple Silicon Macs whether you like it or not and if the app you want to run is amd64 / x64 architecture code, it will always run emulated. Not that it is a huge problem - you don’t need to do anything and the performance penalty is mostly negligible.
1 Like
Hi @David_Dosoudil
The Zwift Installer requires Rosetta to be installed, and that’s what I would like to avoid. Please see the screenshot below
Rosetta is not installed by default. I have multiple Apple Silicon MacBooks w/out Rosetta. If an app requires it, it will ask you to install Rosetta. Otherwise, there is no reason for Rosetta. Most if not all major apps have native Apple Silicon binaries.
@Tristan_Kelkermans
That said, I don’t run Zwift on my MacBooks. However, it’s my understanding that Zwift also runs native w/out the need for Rosetta (hence this thread/topic).
1 Like
I assume Rosetta is required because the distribution contains some x86 and universal executables and libraries, even though the game itself (ZwiftAppSilicon) is native.
ZwiftApp: Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64
ZwiftMacCrashHandler: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures: [x86_64:Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64] [arm64:Mach-O 64-bit executable arm64]
ZwiftMacCrashHandler (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64
ZwiftMacLauncherCrashHandler: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures: [x86_64:Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64] [arm64:Mach-O 64-bit executable arm64]
ZwiftMacLauncherCrashHandler (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64
libBink2Macx64.dylib: Mach-O 64-bit dynamically linked shared library x86_64
libant.dylib: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures: [x86_64:Mach-O 64-bit dynamically linked shared library x86_64] [arm64:Mach-O 64-bit dynamically linked shared library arm64]
libant.dylib (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit dynamically linked shared library x86_64
libswiftCore.dylib: Mach-O 64-bit dynamically linked shared library x86_64
libswiftCoreFoundation.dylib: Mach-O 64-bit dynamically linked shared library x86_64
libswiftCoreGraphics.dylib: Mach-O 64-bit dynamically linked shared library x86_64
libswiftDarwin.dylib: Mach-O 64-bit dynamically linked shared library x86_64
libswiftDispatch.dylib: Mach-O 64-bit dynamically linked shared library x86_64
libswiftFoundation.dylib: Mach-O 64-bit dynamically linked shared library x86_64
libswiftIOKit.dylib: Mach-O 64-bit dynamically linked shared library x86_64
libswiftObjectiveC.dylib: Mach-O 64-bit dynamically linked shared library x86_64
libswiftXPC.dylib: Mach-O 64-bit dynamically linked shared library x86_64
I can highly recommend just install Zwift on your M(x) Mac and not worry about Rosetta… My Zwift just works, is rock stable, hardly using any system resources and is a source of joy every day 
BòóX
Apologies, you’re right of course. It’s more than a year now it asked me to install it and I did of course and since then it never wanted any confirmation again so I completely forgot I’ve done it 
Major apps are one thing, but there are quite a few small utilities and other tools which are not compiled universal yet. Doesn’t really matter, just saying running pure Apple Silicon apps is not quite there yet. Again, it’s not a big deal, once you install Rosetta, you won’t even notice and you don’t have to care.
Question for both @Tristan_Kelkermans and @Lin_Alan - is there any reason why you’re trying to avoid Rosetta? The requirements are minimal, there’s literally no overhead when it’s installed, plus gives you more options and it’s completely transparent when in use. Is it something I’m missing as a reason not to install it, or you just don’t want it because you don’t want it?
@David_Dosoudil I aim to install only native Apple Silicon apps. By avoiding Rosetta, I can easily identify applications that aren’t fully compatible…
I don’t see anything wrong with wanting to avoid Rosetta. Probably nothing will come of it from the Zwift side but it’s certainly theoretically possible if they wanted to put in the effort.
You can always see those that are running Rosetta by right clicking and selecting info, or when they run by checking Activity Monitor in “kind” column and if you’re not happy remove them.
Both Zwift Launcher and Zwift App themselves are running as Apple Silicon native apps. As @Paul_Southworth mentioned, the Rosetta request might be purely due to some x86_64 libraries or I wouldn’t be surprised - the installer itself.
Please note I am not trying to suggest there’s anything wrong with wanting to avoid Rosetta. I’m just trying to understand why some people do try and impose (in my humble opinion) unnecessary limitations and what are the reasons for that. I’ve done my own analysis of why I am happy with it, but I am keen to learn if I might have missed something important and re-evaluate my own approach in the face of other people’s experiences. Just curious, that’s all. No criticism, no judgement.
I’m not necessarily avoiding Rosetta. But so far I have not had a need for it on work or personal MacBooks. Again, I don’t run Zwift on my MacBook. But maybe the installer itself requires Rosetta for some odd reason🤷🏻♂️