Official: Mac OS X Snow Leopard doesn't support PowerPC Macs - Page 4

Of course, and you can safely bet that there will be frequent Leopard updates (mostly about security and individual applications) even after the Snow Leopard release. Today and occasionally, some updates show up even for Panther.

Well, yeah, this definitely settles it.

Intel only is the right move in my opinion... but i know G5 user will be disappointed.

I imagine someone who bought a brand new 32-bit Mac Mini in July 2007 would be a little miffed at not being able to run the latest operating system only two years later.

If Apple continue to support 10.5 with "point release" updates and minor improvements at the same time as supporting 10.6, then a "64-bit Intel only" 10.6 would be less of an issue.

It is likely that any application which requires 10.6 will be doing so for performance reasons, and with the exception of high-end G5s, PowerPC and 32-bit Intel models aren't likely to have enough grunt to be able to run this sort of application anyway.

Yet it's a pretty strong indication. Why would they have built it as Intel only when it's no harder for them to have built it universal. All signs are pointing to the end of PPC binaries. But for G5 owners it's not that bad, Snow Leopard isn't out for another year and Leopard is still pretty good...it's not like "OMG I've gotta go out and buy a new Mac NOW!!"

I totally agree.

Not to the large number of users that embraced Apple's switch to Intel. I can see the logic for eliminating an older architecture like PPC from this OS upgrade, but I can't see how it would be good to drop the initial Core Duo Macs as well. It's hard to believe Apple would exclude machines only 2 years old...

I read an article last week, which I can't find now, that opined about Apple's strategy with Snow Leopard. The author suggested that Apple might use 10.6 as a lever to move users toward Intel machines exclusively, and would give the update away.

This makes sense to me. From the day that Apple announced the Intel transition, we knew that a day would come when PPC was no longer supported. Any one who bought a Power Mac during the summer of 06 had to know that they were buying a machine that would have a shorter supported life span than a typical Mac.

By giving 10.6 way, Apple would be able to increase the performance of the newest computers, while not completely ostracizing the PPC folks. Furthermore, there would be no surprise when 10.7 debuts as Intel only. I'm not sure how revenue will affect this decision. Judging from Apple's approach to the iPod Touch's SW updates, I could see Apple charging something for SL. However, I think it will be, as the name implies, an extension of Leopard instead of a full-blown replacement.

To turn the tables, how do we know it's not your eyes that suck?

That's nice. My experience with edu is that they don't spend money to keep their systems up to date, anyway. And many servers also just keep running on the system that they were purchased with. If it's a mission critical server, then they're likely to be buying new hardware periodically, anyway. So neither of those is very convincing arguments for keeping PPC.


Not quite true. OpenCL and Exchange support might be very important features for some people.


So we're supposed to take advice from someone who's illegally running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware? Sorry, I don't listen to criminals.


I agree, but for another reason. The amount of work to maintain PPC in addition to Intel is substantial. The amount of work to maintain 32 bit as well as 64 bit Intel isn't that much. Since the amount of work is minimal, it makes sense to keep 32 bit.


Who the heck is rixstep and why should I believe their whining? According to Consumer Reports, customer satisfaction with Leopard is huge. While there are some problems with Leopard, they're being fixed and there's no evidence of widespread problems.


Those businesses aren't going to care. There were very few PPC computers in business. The gains in business are recent.

Furthermore, you're wrong about 'real enterprises'. We routinely replace computers in 3-4 years at our small business and that appears to be typical. And we almost never upgrade OSs on computers. The computer runs whatever OS it came with until it's time to replace the computer.

Furthermore, to claim that Apple has abandoned old hardware throughout their history is absurd. The Apple II was supported for over a decade after the computer stopped being sold. Being able to install the latest OS on 7-10 year old computers is not that unusual for Macs.

If Apple 'only' supports 3.5 year old computers once in their history due to an architecture change, it's not going to be a big deal.


You're making a lot of strange assumptions. Why not wait until you know something before complaining?

Macs have generally done exceptionally well at supporting intercompatibility between OS versions. Running Mac OS 6 and 10.x on the same network was a piece of cake. I don't see any reason to think 10.5 and 10.6 on the same network would be any different.

Worst case scenario is that you might need a new Time Machine - but even that is very unlikely.


Sounds great to me. Go Nittany Lions.

Well, if you haven't had a problem, then no one else has either. hahaha

well if you've had a problem, everyone else must have as well!

Same here, but I'm not willing to state that it's 'Official'.

Given Apple's history on dumping outdated technology, an elimination of PowerPC after 2+ years of Intel availability seems reasonable and is to be expected. Afterall Macs stopped booting OS 9 as soon as 10.2 was released in 2003 and eliminated Classic Mode altogether just two years later with the introduction of Intel Macs. Here's a link to the cNET UK article: http://news.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39...9189808,00.htm

As a Mac user you should expect these things by now. Apple lives on the bleeding edge; they'd be dead by now if they didn't. They depend on Mac users buying new Macs every two years and you'll get no sympathy from them if you don't. That's pretty much the idea behind the Airbook. They figure after two years you'll need a new battery and you'll just go get the newer version of the Airbook to be current with the latest technology.

It's not about right or wrong, it's just business. Don't like it, go buy a Windows PC.

My biggest concern is new apps that are 10.6 only, or devs all dumping PPC support once apple does. That's a huge deal.

And there are other features completely unrelated to hardware.

And you're making a big assumption that 10.5 will keep getting improved and supported after 10.6 ships. What would make you think that? Apple has never done it before other than some security fixes and iTunes updates (which they only do because it lets them keep selling content and iPods). Apple has never supported OS's beyond the next one shipping with the exception of 10.4.11, which only shipped a couple weeks after 10.5.


I said MOST, not all. There are many intel macs slower than yours.


Are you sure that the optimizations only apply to dual CORE machines and not dual processor machines? From a software standpoint, aren't they virtually the same? There were plenty of dual G5 machines out there that could benefit from this as well. And there are benefits beyond multicore optimization such as exchange support.


Then why did they build the first dev releases of 10.5 as intel only?

I agree that it doesn't look good for PPC support, but to call it "official" simply isn't true.

So has anyone at the dev conference asked Apple if PPC will be supported or not?

This seems pretty silly that Apple has said nothing and people are having to guess based on various things - has there been any other info to clarify one way or another?

Yeah, but its all covered by NDA's. Developers at WWDC know, but can't say.

Well, of course. No developer would ever violate an NDA. There's NEVER pre-release information about OS X.

I think it's more likely that Apple has made a preliminary decision to drop PPC, but doesn't want to announce it as a formal decision yet, for 2 reasons:
1. There might be some reason to change their mind later - keeping the option open is a good idea.
2. If they announce today that they're dropping PPC, there will be a lot more complaints than if they wait a year to announce it when they release the product.

That's right, it will be **official** when Apple officially will say so.

Exactly, all computers have a short lifespan, in my eyes, 3 years is old enough.

If they really do know, anyone willing to share that info?

Intel Macs weren't made until 2006. That makes it closer to 3 years between 10.2. More than four years between 10.1 and 10.4 on Intel.



Unless the battery is defective, it should last three or four years. I know it's pushing it, but I have a five year old notebook that's still using the original battery. Replacement battery for the Air probably won't be an expensive service through a reputable shop.



Two years is about two times more often than even high-spenders do on average, it's really close to four years. Overall market, home users replace their computers on average once every 5 years or so. My dad used my old workstation until it was nine years old. I am still using a workstation at my workbench that's maybe about six years old now.

Your advice goes against the "value argument" that Mac fans use in saying that their machines last longer and are thus getting more value. It's quite hard to argue the value if the machines cost more and have to be abandoned sooner for support reasons.

There's a fair point there and I know that machines don't stop working after just two years, but, as an individual, I usually upgrade computers in about 2 years after purchasing it.

I will however be prepared to eat my words as this is my first mac, and consequently i'll have to wait a few years until I can truly say whether I want to change...

I imagine Leopard will get updates etc. even when 10.7 is out.

I'd like to see your evidence that even high spenders only replace their computers every 4 years. I have 3 Macs in my house and the oldest one is under 2 years old. My company replaces computers routinely about every 3 years.

More importantly, there's nothing that says that a computer needs to run the latest operating system. Those 9 year old Macs will continue to work just fine (barring something like a hard disk failure) for quite a while. Home users, in particular, don't need most of the features that Snow Leopard will offer (unless you have an Exchange server set up for your home email). They're going to be quite happy with Leopard (or even Tiger) for quite some time.

The won't be getting point updates that far ahead, but security, firmware and app updates will come like they do now in Tiger.

Yes, because one data point per user type is applicable. I said average, there are those that replace earlier, others replace later.

A lot of businesses do replace every three years. Looking around a bit, I've seen three to eight years for educational institutions. But I was referring to home users.

Page 42 & 44 of this paper:

http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/market...t%20Cycles.pdf

It was 3.5 years as of 2004 for high end models, with a pretty good upward trend still. The low end was 4.5 years, trending upward just as much.

I'm not really convinced computers need to be replaced that often, it really depends on the use. I think it's ostensibly done because of maintenance, I'm not sure if the cost of maintenance really goes up that much for the fourth year.

A comment posted on David Zellers column at.. http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/busi...l_purr_ov.html

>They did hand out a developer's preview of Snow Leopard. You will hear more about this as details trickle out over time but the NDA is pretty strict. However, I will say the speed improvements are stunning. The entire system utilizes the core OS technologies (Image core, animation core, etc) so it is super small and blindingly fast. The basic operating system (without libraries, etc) would fit on a floppy disk. The engineering coming out of Cupertino these days is amazing.
> - Posted by: dave | June 12, 2008 11:52 AM

I've been slapped down a couple of times for saying this, but now put these core functions in dedicated hardware accelerators and Apple will deliver performance that we can't even imagine. I believe it's coming.

My HW authentication idea gets shot down too and that is a much easier proposition. I can't wait to see exactly what Snow Leopard will be offering and what come of the P.A. Semi acquisition.

A) Nobody seems to have mentioned it, but for anyone owning a business, there are good reasons to change desktop every 3 years and laptops every 4 years. These good reasons have a name too : tax deductions !

B) On another subject, there is something really weird about this discussion about the importance of supporting older hardware : people with older computers usually are not up-to-date freaks. Many times, if you go in a home with an older computer (Mac or Win) and you check the OS or the installed software, you'll see that the computer's software is totally out-of-date. And if you dare saying that their software should be updated, you'll often get a blank look and a reply along the lines of "why should I update ? It does what I want !" What can be replied to this perfectly valid and respectable argument ? Nothing ! Considering such a mindset, however, why should Apple go out of their way to support old Macs when their owners are not even interested in keeping up-to-date ???

C) Finally, I want to say this : not being supported by the latest version of the OS does not mean that your computer is going to implode. Let's say that my PowerBook G4 allows me to do everything I want and is sufficiently fast for my needs. So what if it only runs Tiger ? Tiger is still a very good and stable OS... FWIW, it's still way better that Vista ! OK, I may not be able to run the latest and greatest software, but in the end I may not lose much not being able to do so : the latest and greatest would probably run too slowly on my older hardware anyway...

While much of what you say has merit, smart people don't run their business for tax deductions. In fact, many large corporations judge their managers solely on PRE-TAX results to avoid allowing deductions to mess up your decision making.

Even if you want to let tax deductions skew your decision making, it lessens the cost of the computer over several years, but does not gain you anything. Essentially, if you buy a $1,000 computer, you'll get about a third of it back over the next 5 years. If buying a computer makes sense, that's a nice bonus. If buying a computer doesn't make sense, the tax deductions rarely change that.

It would certainly be possible for Apple to continue to develop 10.5 after the release of 10.6, however, it would be a nutty business decision because Apple can retire most of the PPC hardware they are running when they stop developing 10.5. Between the release of 10.6 and the release of 10.7, only the security team will need to keep PPC hardware around. Once 10.7 has been released, even the security team can retire their PPC hardware. Keeping all that old hardware around is very expensive and running through all the regression testing takes a lot of time. Also, Apple would like customers to replace their PPC Macs sooner rather than later.

I would bet that there is a PPC build, there almost has to be as they were selli ng them as new like 18 months ago.

THIS IS A MARKETING MOVE: only seed devs with Intel builds because Apple wants to kill off all new PPC dev work asap. they need to support current installations for 3-4 years from install, but after that, nota.

Hell, wait till fall 2009 to release and it would be like 3-ish years since PPCs shipped so they would have a solid case for no support in 10.6

I believe the last Mac to be discontinued was the Power Mac in August 2006. But I think all the other PowerPC Macs are over 2 years at this point. Add another year for Snow Leopard to be released and you have 3 years.


In your argument's favour, there is the fact that the SDK is only supported on Intel Macs.



[/quote]
From a financial standpoint, delaying Snow Leopard by 3 months would give a window of 3 years, but there is an aspect that is being missed here. Just because they are releasing Snow Leopard as Intel only doesn't mean they have to stop point releases on Leopard. This is supposed to be a relatively feature-less release that is designed to add performance and efficiency, not bells and whistles.

Oh, it is quite the other way around. Apple now has a 66% share of PC sales $1,000 and up. Intel relies on Apple to drive the commercial market for cutting edge innovation. What Apple has done with Intel is less like a defeat than a conquering of rival territory, like Pixar did with Disney.

As far as 5 years of support goes, Apple better take a generous definition of the word "support" or people will be lining up to sue. I myself, as the owner of a G5 Quad, will not feel supported unless the multi core innovations of Snow Leopard are adapted for these multicore machines.

Wow, no offense, but I'm glad most Mac users aren't this precious about things. This reminds me of the people who moaned and moaned endlessly about the happy face startup going away with the switch from OS 9 to OS X. Seriously, how does it really matter?

The "megahertz myth" thing was true for a while with the PPC, but as time moved forward, it became a harder and harder argument to make. Apple jumped ship at the right time. The PPC was in a death spiral and there was no reason for the entire Mac platform to go down with it.

One major reason it's necessary is the ability to run the latest apps, which often requires the latest OS. As someone who is still running a machine that lost support years ago, I know first hand that while the machine is still useful in some ways, it gets more and more limited as new things are released.


Did apple promise any length of support, much less five years? I'm not sure what anyone would sue over unless apple made a promise and broke it.

I definitely think apple should support machines for a decent length of time (longer than 3 years) but I think if it happens it will be to keep customers happy instead of alienating them, and not because of legal obligation.


That's only half true. The portable PPC line was definitely struggling in a huge way. But the G5 in desktops, particularly the dual and quad configurations, was very competitive, and those machines still run current OS and apps very well. The main reason for the switch was portables.

I think the keywords here about 10.6 are Grand Central and OpenCL. The general description of Snow Leopard sounds like a weak update in laymen's terms, but it's very significant in the back-end.

Considering their goals for 10.6, it's no wonder they're dumping PPC. Most of the PPC systems still at large probably couldn't handle the potential of what REAL multi-core optimized software will do, and they also needed to draw the line in the sand somewhere to move on from PPC anyway.

Besides, they're not adding any major new features. 10.6 will be like the 10.5 for quad- and octo-core systems. If they're still stuck on PPC a year from now, 10.5 will continue to serve them well anyway because they're not actually missing all that much feature-wise.

And people should also understand that since 10.6 will be optimized for multi-core systems, it's possible that it could very well run like crap on most PPC systems anyway.

Here's another me too.

A more responsible headline would have been:
Official: Mac OS X Snow Leopard Developer Preview doesn't support PowerPC Macs

Or even better:
Mac OS X Snow Leopard Developer Preview doesn't support PowerPC Macs

... but I suppose that wouldn't be as sensational now would it.
Come on Apple Insider, you're better than that. (Or at least you can be)

I'd like to second those sentiments... I was going to write something very similar but you have saved me the effort!

In our house we have a PowerMac Dual G4 MDD, an iMac G5 and a MacBook (1st gen). The G5 I bought this week on eBay, totally concious of the knowledge Snow Leopard is on the horizon. It is perfect for my needs and was cheap. The MacBook may get Snow Leopard, it may not. But what exactly has been advertised for Snow Leopard everyone feels like they are going to miss out on? Extra power and speed for the machines it doesn't apply to?

Leopard runs fine on all my machines and it will continue to do so for a long time to come. I'm sure the dual G4 (which is essentially a media server - and a wind tunnel to boot) will carry on running fine in terms of OS and compatibility until the day its hardware is no longer up to the challenge.

Bring it on Apple!