iLife '09 not fully compatible with PowerPC Macs

[AppleInsider]

Apple is slowly dropping PowerPC compatibility with its latest software releases as evidenced by a major new feature of iLife '09 that will function only on Intel-based Macs.

Ars Technica points out that GarageBand's Learn to Play, a new section within the music-making software that serves as a digital instructor for a user learning a new instrument, is not officially supported for Macs still running on PowerPC processors.

System requirements found on the Apple Store website say, in fine print, "GarageBand Learn to Play requires an Intel-based Mac with a dual-core processor or better."

When iLife '09 was first announced at last month's Macworld, the system requirements included "a Power PC G5 or 867 MHz or faster PowerPC G4" without mentioning any incompatible individual features.

Learn to Play also offers Artist Lessons from a Lesson Store built into GarageBand where artists teach fans how to play their hit songs on certain instruments for $4.99 each lesson.

Chief executive Steve Jobs confirmed the switch from PowerPC to Intel in June 2005, targeting the end of 2007 for the transition to be completed.

Mac OS X Leopard excluded slower PowerPC-based Macs with a cutoff set at 800 MHz G4 or faster.

Official documentation from Apple gives clues that PowerPC Macs very well may be left out completely when Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard is released sometime during the first half of this year. Developer copies distributed at WWDC last year included a requirements PDF that listed "an Intel processor" as the minimum necessary to run the software.

Adding further weight to that possibility, people familiar with the ongoing development of Leopard have previously told AppleInsider that Snow Leopard would in all likelihood exclude support for PowerPC processors.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[IQatEdo]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Apple is slowly dropping PowerPC compatibility with its latest software releases as evidenced by a major new feature of iLife '09 that will function only on Intel-based Macs.

Ars Technica points out that GarageBand's Learn to Play, a new section within the music-making software that serves as a digital instructor for a user learning a new instrument... told AppleInsider that Snow Leopard would in all likelihood exclude support for PowerPC processors.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

To me, Learn to Play demonstrates another powerful direction for applications under OS X, graphic instruction in skills that we might otherwise not be confident to pursue but which Garageband (and no doubt, future applications) makes very, very attractive. I guess, in the light of the ever increasing demand on performance that these applications seem to require, support for older systems will decline.

Still using a dual 1.42 GHz G4, along with my near new MacBook Pro.

[aplnub]

I wouldn't be shocked for Snow Leopard to take a whiz on all PPC Mac's. If Snow Leopard is available for PPC Macs, I definitely see SL being the last officially supported OS for PPC Mac's.

The upside should be more sales of computers.

[archer75]

Snow Leopard will be intel only. I'm surprised that apple hasen't announced that yet. They reduced the size of files as well as the OS. The only way to do that is by removing the PPC code in there.
There is actually an app you can get that will remove the unecessary PPC code in Leopard on an Intel machine and the final file size for apps is the same size i've been seeing for apps bundled with snow leopard.

[JavaCowboy]

In order to "dip my toe" into OS X, I bought the very first PowerPC MacMini back in 2005. After about a while, I discovered the MacMini was a little underpowered for some things, especially Eclipse and Google Earth. Just as I was about to buy an iMac, Apple announced the Intel transition.

So I held off for several months waiting for more info on the transition. I was pleasantly surprised when I found out the iMac was the Mac to go Intel. After reading all the reviews and MacIntouch (which indicated very slight issues, but the first Intel iMac was mostly in tip-top shape), the only concern I had was that the Intel chip was 32-bit, and that the Core 2 Duo would only come out later in the year. After asking around, I was told that the only advantage to a 64-bit chip was that it would address more than 4 Gb of RAM.

Well, I got nailed later when Apple provided Java 6 only for 64-bit Intel chips. That was a real letdown, seeing as I'm a Java developer.

Anyway, to make a long story short, there's never a right time to buy a new computer, or a new Mac. No matter how well you try to time it, you'll miss out on something.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by aplnub

I wouldn't be shocked for Snow Leopard to take a whiz on all PPC Mac's. If Snow Leopard is available for PPC Macs, I definitely see SL being the last officially supported OS for PPC Mac's.

The upside should be more sales of computers.

I'd expect SL to be delivered without PPC support. How exactly does Apple optimize and set a roadmap for the future by clinging on to computers that will be nigh 4 years old when SL is purported to ship?

To date there's been no hint of PPC support so I doubt that we suddenly get a build that inserts PPC.

Though Leopard is a fine OS for PPC and I frankly do not see much reason for PPC owners to anguish over not being invited to the SL party. The GPU and CPU features are pretty much tailored for Intel and recent AMD/Nvidia product

[Macintox]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Apple is slowly dropping PowerPC compatibility with its latest software releases as evidenced by a major new feature of iLife '09 that will function only on Intel-based Macs.

Ars Technica points out that GarageBand's Learn to Play, a new section within the music-making software that serves as a digital instructor for a user learning a new instrument, is not officially supported for Macs still running on PowerPC processors.

System requirements found on the Apple Store website say, in fine print, "GarageBand Learn to Play requires an Intel-based Mac with a dual-core processor or better."

When iLife '09 was first announced at last month's Macworld, the system requirements included "a Power PC G5 or 867 MHz or faster PowerPC G4" without mentioning any incompatible individual features.

Learn to Play also offers Artist Lessons from a Lesson Store built into GarageBand where artists teach fans how to play their hit songs on certain instruments for $4.99 each lesson.

Chief executive Steve Jobs confirmed the switch from PowerPC to Intel in June 2005, targeting the end of 2007 for the transition to be completed.

Mac OS X Leopard excluded slower PowerPC-based Macs with a cutoff set at 800 MHz G4 or faster.

Official documentation from Apple gives clues that PowerPC Macs very well may be left out completely when Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard is released sometime during the first half of this year. Developer copies distributed at WWDC last year included a requirements PDF that listed "an Intel processor" as the minimum necessary to run the software.

Adding further weight to that possibility, people familiar with the ongoing development of Leopard have previously told AppleInsider that Snow Leopard would in all likelihood exclude support for PowerPC processors.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

Yes it seems that way is inevitable and it brings another question I have about Rosetta. Seems that it will be scrapped in Snow leopard ? can anyone confirm ?
I am dependant on Appleworks so I may have to buy a macbook now to be sure of having Rosetta at hand.

[NPrtmn4evr]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we know this at MacWorld? I could have sworn Phil said this during his presentation.

[physguy]

This should lead to at least 5 more law-suits.

[Phone-UI-Guy]

It looks like AppleInside is creating news today. The Garageband learn to play requirements were up the day of the keynote and did not change. I read that before I pre-ordered the Mac Box set Family Pack.

[bdkennedy1]

If it's not on the box that GarageBand doesn't fully support PPC, then those people should be allowed to get their money back if they want.

[hypoluxa]

As a last gen G5 owner I do not mind one bit Apple dropping PPC from SL, I will eventually update my PowerMac to an Intel version in a few more years, and will have a spanking new MacPro w/ 8 or more cores to boot! In the meanwhile, Im thinking of getting a MacBook for my traveling/ portable convenience.

[minderbinder]

If Apple is dumping PPC support, they need to find the balls to come out and announce it instead of leaving everyone in the dark, both users and developers.

Originally Posted by hmurchison

How exactly does Apple optimize and set a roadmap for the future by clinging on to computers that will be nigh 4 years old when SL is purported to ship?

Actually, less than 3 years, the tower didn't switch from G5 to intel until august 2006.

My biggest concern is that there will be apps that won't run on 10.5, say if Logic 8.1 ships this fall.

[RoboNerd]

No surprises. It's time for Apple to move on from the PowerPC. I would like to see any major security holes plugged in Leopard for some time, which I'm sure Apple will. Beyond that, the only thing I'd ask is for XCode to maintain the ability to compile for PPC and Tiger/Leopard for a couple of more years in order to help transition legacy systems to the new scheme of things.

Snow Leopard could represent as huge a change for developers as anything we've seen since the move from Classic/Carbon to Cocoa. I've been rather busy so I haven't kept up much with Snow Leopard. I'm curious as to how much of these changes will apply to app developers, as far as taking advantage of Grand Central and/or OpenCL. As in, how much of that will be left to the compiler versus directly tweaking the knobs and levers ourselves. For example, if I already have a Core Animation app, will Core Animation now automatically take advantage of these new capabilities, to where I merely re-compile the binary for Snow Leopard and automagically get these benefits?

[RoboNerd]

Originally Posted by minderbinder

My biggest concern is that there will be apps that won't run on 10.5, say if Logic 8.1 ships this fall.

I doubt that would be the case: the Pro apps have always supported one generation of OS X backwards. In Leopard's case that would automatically mean that PPC support would have to be in the box.

The Universal binary tactic actually has quite a few upsides: we could see three binaries for a while -- PPC, Intel, and an Intel-Snow Leopard binary, optimized for multi-core stations with Grand Central and OpenCL. That would be sweet.

[hillstones]

This two year transition from the PowerPC to Intel is the same timeframe as the transition from the 68040 to the PowerPC. Apple supported the 68040 for about two years after the shift to PowerPC. Slowly the software shifted to PowerPC only, and dropped all 680x0 support. The same thing was said about Mac OS 8.5, but there was no reason for it to support 68040 processors anymore.

Snow Leopard is still Leopard. There is no reason for Apple to continue to support the PowerPC G5 processor when it is already 6 years old. It doesn't bother me. It will save me from spending $129 for another OS release on my iMac G5.

The GarageBand requirement even shuts out the Mac Mini with the single-core Intel processor. GarageBand was always slow to begin with.

[PBG4 Dude]

Originally Posted by JavaCowboy

In order to "dip my toe" into OS X, I bought the very first PowerPC MacMini back in 2005. After about a while, I discovered the MacMini was a little underpowered for some things, especially Eclipse and Google Earth. Just as I was about to buy an iMac, Apple announced the Intel transition.

So I held off for several months waiting for more info on the transition. I was pleasantly surprised when I found out the iMac was the Mac to go Intel. After reading all the reviews and MacIntouch (which indicated very slight issues, but the first Intel iMac was mostly in tip-top shape), the only concern I had was that the Intel chip was 32-bit, and that the Core 2 Duo would only come out later in the year. After asking around, I was told that the only advantage to a 64-bit chip was that it would address more than 4 Gb of RAM.

Well, I got nailed later when Apple provided Java 6 only for 64-bit Intel chips. That was a real letdown, seeing as I'm a Java developer.

Anyway, to make a long story short, there's never a right time to buy a new computer, or a new Mac. No matter how well you try to time it, you'll miss out on something.

I got nailed by the Java 6 thing too. I have a 32bit Intel MacBook. It isn't a 32 vs. 64 bit thing though, it's Apple only developing Java 6 for 64 bit only for whatever reason (probably cost savings as 32 bit Intel computers were only available for a short time).

[hillstones]

Originally Posted by Macintox

Yes it seems that way is inevitable and it brings another question I have about Rosetta. Seems that it will be scrapped in Snow leopard ? can anyone confirm ?
I am dependant on Appleworks so I may have to buy a macbook now to be sure of having Rosetta at hand.

I don't think Apple will drop Rosetta support in any version of Mac OS X. Even though Snow Leopard won't run on PowerPC hardware, it should still support PowerPC emulation for older software programs. A lot of people don't have money to invest in new versions, or may prefer an older version of a program. Even when they transitioned to PowerPC from the 68040, Mac OS 8.5 dropped 68040 Macs and only ran on PowerPC's, but the Mac OS still ran 680x0 software all the way through Mac OS 9.2.2. The Rosetta emulation for PowerPC is completely different than trying to continue support for the Classic Mac OS. They can easily retain Rosetta support.

[hillstones]

Originally Posted by bdkennedy1

If it's not on the box that GarageBand doesn't fully support PPC, then those people should be allowed to get their money back if they want.

It is on the box and on the website under System Requirements. This is no secret.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by minderbinder

If Apple is dumping PPC support, they need to find the balls to come out and announce it instead of leaving everyone in the dark, both users and developers.

Actually, less than 3 years, the tower didn't switch from G5 to intel until august 2006.

My biggest concern is that there will be apps that won't run on 10.5, say if Logic 8.1 ships this fall.

Exactly. Apple should have already declared pricing and at least what computers will be included or left out. Frankly I think Snow Leopard is going to be a snoozer and certainly not worth $129 ...hell $59 would be pushing it.

The day it ships it'll likely have less than 10 apps that take advantage of OpenCL or Grand Central or whatever.

Apple's major and minor apps won't be SL optimized until next year's refreshes. Look how long it took for iLife to get Core Animation and other Leopard goodies. It took Leopard being out over a year and being on version 10.5.6.

If you have a PPC rejoice and let Intel users beta test Snow Leopard and shoot for 10.7 or 10.6.6 before you upgrade. By then you'll actually have apps that take advantage of all this new tech.

[hillstones]

Originally Posted by minderbinder

If Apple is dumping PPC support, they need to find the balls to come out and announce it instead of leaving everyone in the dark, both users and developers.

You would have to be pretty stupid not to realize that Snow Leopard only runs on Intel. It is no secret. Ever since it was first announced and developers were testing early versions, it was documented that it only ran on Intel hardware. They are not going to suddenly throw in PowerPC support at the end. The PowerPC is not in Apple's future, and it has already been three years since the first Intel Mac arrived. The Intel optimizations won't benefit a PowerPC Mac, and you are not getting any major features in Snow Leopard.

[minderbinder]

Originally Posted by hillstones

You would have to be pretty stupid not to realize that Snow Leopard only runs on Intel.

So why doesn't apple just come out and announce it?

And for the record, with 10.5, early developer releases were intel only with PPC support released later in the dev cycle, so that's not evidence of anything.

[macxpress]

Originally Posted by hillstones

You would have to be pretty stupid not to realize that Snow Leopard only runs on Intel. It is no secret. Ever since it was first announced and developers were testing early versions, it was documented that it only ran on Intel hardware. They are not going to suddenly throw in PowerPC support at the end. The PowerPC is not in Apple's future, and it has already been three years since the first Intel Mac arrived. The Intel optimizations won't benefit a PowerPC Mac, and you are not getting any major features in Snow Leopard.

But you know damn well people with PPC Macs are going to buy SL and expect it to work. Not everyone in the world follows Mac news 24/7.

Apple should just come out and say (perhaps when they release it for pre-order) Snow Leopard will be Intel Mac only. I'm sure developers are up to speed with this already but the agreement they have with Apple prevents them from saying so?

[Virgil-TB2]

Well, I guess I'll point it out since no one else has yet.

This quote (the first words of the first sentence of the article!):

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Apple is slowly dropping PowerPC compatibility with its latest software releases ...

... is total BS and based on nothing.

You guys need a few lessons in logic and writing. The single data point of one application, in one of two suites of apps made by Apple, having one feature that is not supported on PPC in no way supports the assertion that "Apple is slowly dropping PowerPC compatibility with it's latest software releases."

What are you guys, nuts?

You can speculate that this is the case, you can talk about the inevitability of this happening someday, you can even whine on about your "feelings" or have a "hunch," but you shouldn't just be making crap up like this.

You could even be 100% right about the trend, but if you put a statement like that in an article you have an obligation to back it up with something. (anything!)

It's also, as many have pointed out, old news.

[Cubert]

Apparently (I don't have iLife '09 yet), the free lessons can be played on a PPC by finding the files buried down in the Application Support folder under the user's library folder. Just double-click.

[Cubert]

Originally Posted by minderbinder

If Apple is dumping PPC support, they need to find the balls to come out and announce it instead of leaving everyone in the dark, both users and developers.



Actually, less than 3 years, the tower didn't switch from G5 to intel until august 2006.

My biggest concern is that there will be apps that won't run on 10.5, say if Logic 8.1 ships this fall.

EXACTLY! If Apple ships Snow Leopard in June, that will be less than 3 years of support for a hardware product. Very Microsoftian if you ask me.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by macxpress

But you know damn well people with PPC Macs are going to buy SL and expect it to work. Not everyone in the world follows Mac news 24/7.

Apple should just come out and say (perhaps when they release it for pre-order) Snow Leopard will be Intel Mac only. I'm sure developers are up to speed with this already but the agreement they have with Apple prevents them from saying so?

On every product that Apple sells, there is full disclosure re system requirements. Are you suggesting that Apple would change this standard policy?

Are you suggesting that PPC owners are so stupid that they would unilaterally buy any product without checking the system requirements first?

Or are you just saying that people are so stupid there should be a 'black' box warning on everything we buy? Would it matter? Perhaps for most, but there will always be stupid people, just like those that buy cigarettes.

[NasserAE]

Originally Posted by minderbinder

If Apple is dumping PPC support, they need to find the balls to come out and announce it instead of leaving everyone in the dark, both users and developers.

Well I guess they will when they release it. If you own PPC you have two choices either you keep your PPC machine or buy a new Intel Mac. It's not like you are going to buy a new PPC Mac, which does not exist anymore, if Apple announces that SL is compatible with PPC! I don't think it is leaving anyone in the dark since your choices won't change. IMO they are doing you a favor by keeping you from buying a new Mac until this issue is finalized. Maybe new machine will be available that take full advantage of SL when they release it.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by Cubert

EXACTLY! If Apple ships Snow Leopard in June, that will be less than 3 years of support for a hardware product. Very Microsoftian if you ask me.

Actually Microsoft's biggest problem is adherence to legacy systems which prevent them from making large architectural changes. They still use a registry for chrissakes.

A decade ago a computer was likely expected to last 4-5 years and you spent a couple of grand on the thing.

Today an Intel Mac is $799 and I think computers are expected to last about 3 years. It comes down to the point where I feel like "why the hell am I suffering because someone wants to keep a hold of their legacy Mac for 4 years?"

If Intel is delivering a new architecture every 24-32 months then Apple certainly needs to be pushing 36 month refresh cycle for their OS IMO.

[pmjoe]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Apple is slowly dropping PowerPC compatibility with its latest software releases as evidenced by a major new feature of iLife '09 that will function only on Intel-based Macs.

[...]

System requirements found on the Apple Store website say, in fine print, "GarageBand Learn to Play requires an Intel-based Mac with a dual-core processor or better."

That would also exclude single-core Intel-based Macs.

[MotherBrain]

Originally Posted by RoboNerd

The Universal binary tactic actually has quite a few upsides: we could see three binaries for a while -- PPC, Intel, and an Intel-Snow Leopard binary, optimized for multi-core stations with Grand Central and OpenCL. That would be sweet.

File sizes are already twice their size now! Three times their size?!? Oh lord!

Though nice to have UBs for simplicity's sake for those who don't know the difference, I just wish companies would break apart the downloads into PPC and Intel versions to save on downloading times for those of us who DO know. Companies did that before during the transition from the 68k processor. There was the regular download or install and the FAT binary version. Downloading trials such as Adobe's are outlandish in size because there only being a UB version.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

System requirements found on the Apple Store website say, in fine print, "GarageBand Learn to Play requires an Intel-based Mac with a dual-core processor or better."

Not if you looked in the right place in the first place. http://www.apple.com/ilife/systemrequirements.html

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by motherbrain

file sizes are already twice their size now! Three times their size?!? Oh lord!

Though nice to have ubs for simplicity's sake for those who don't know the difference, i just wish companies would break apart the downloads into ppc and intel versions to save on downloading times for those of us who do know. Companies did that before during the transition from the 68k processor. There was the regular download or install and the fat binary version. Downloading trials such as adobe's are outlandish in size because there only being a ub version.

++++1

[minderbinder]

Originally Posted by NasserAE

Well I guess they will when they release it. If you own PPC you have two choices either you keep your PPC machine or buy a new Intel Mac.

The big choice is WHEN to buy an intel mac. Right now the G5 quad can handle everything I need to do. If 10.6 supports it, I can probably go much longer, but if it doesn't, and software follows suit, it can force an upgrade before the machine has lost its usefulness. This is particularly a big question for corporate purchases that are budgeted well in advance.

I just don't get the reasoning for Apple not just coming out and saying that it will be intel only, other than they expect a backlash and are being cowards about it.

[Phone-UI-Guy]

Originally Posted by bdkennedy1

If it's not on the box that GarageBand doesn't fully support PPC, then those people should be allowed to get their money back if they want.

It is clearly stated in the system requirements on the side of the box.

[floccus]

Originally Posted by minderbinder

The big choice is WHEN to buy an intel mac. Right now the G5 quad can handle everything I need to do. If 10.6 supports it, I can probably go much longer, but if it doesn't, and software follows suit, it can force an upgrade before the machine has lost its usefulness. This is particularly a big question for corporate purchases that are budgeted well in advance.

Your implication is that you MUST have the newest version of the software that you currently use. But if your G5 w/ Leopard running whatever it is you currently run works great now, why upgrade anything than simply to upgrade. Unless there are very compelling features that you can't live without (which is unlikely) there's no reason to upgrade. Apple and other software companies can't force you to stop using older programs and equipment that still work.

[NasserAE]

Originally Posted by minderbinder

If 10.6 supports it, I can probably go much longer, but if it doesn't, and software follows suit, it can force an upgrade before the machine has lost its usefulness.

You machine will still be useful the same way even after SL is released. Apple will not come to your home or work and force you to replace your PPC machine to use SL. This is your choice.

This is particularly a big question for corporate purchases that are budgeted well in advance.

How is that?! If they plan to purchase their new Macs tomorrow their machine will be Intel and will for sure be compatible with SL when released. Furthermore, we don't know exactly when SL will be released but we know it will be during the second half of this year. They have waited 3 years so I guess they can wait few months.

[wilco]

Originally Posted by IQatEdo

I guess, in the light of the ever increasing demand on performance that these applications seem to require, support for older systems will decline.

You think?

[IQatEdo]

Originally Posted by wilco

You think?

Captain Obvious!

[RoboNerd]

Originally Posted by MotherBrain

File sizes are already twice their size now! Three times their size?!? Oh lord!

Though nice to have UBs for simplicity's sake for those who don't know the difference, I just wish companies would break apart the downloads into PPC and Intel versions to save on downloading times for those of us who DO know. Companies did that before during the transition from the 68k processor. There was the regular download or install and the FAT binary version. Downloading trials such as Adobe's are outlandish in size because there only being a UB version.

For downloads I think it would be wiser to split the binaries as you mentioned, but for disc-based installs, there's no reason to skimp. You could simply build in a feature that performs the same function as Monolingual or similar applications that strip unnecessary language files and legacy binary code.