Originally Posted by jpellino
bad for edu and xserve. lots of g5s recent in both ecosystems
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.
Originally Posted by Maddan
Actually I will be disappointed if Snow Leopard doesn't support that handful of Macs because Apple has made a big deal about the portability of OS X! Quite frankly it doesn't look like Snow Leopard will pay off with any 2 core or less machines except perhaps as a Intel machine bug fix.
Not quite true. OpenCL and Exchange support might be very important features for some people.
Originally Posted by Fat Freddy
Steve, I wish you happy milking the Macintosh for all it's worth. You are th true Pied Piper of Hamelin. The rats will follow you.
Tiger running on an eeePC.
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.
Originally Posted by mcarling
This is the right move at the right time. Well done Apple!
The other question is whether or not Snow Leopard will run on 32bit Intel Macs. I think it would be a good time to drop support for them too.
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.
Originally Posted by Bregalad
I have two big problems with 10.5.x as the last PPC OS:
1. According to the people at rixstep.com Leopard sucks. Apple made serious under-the-hood mistakes that affect the very foundation of the OS and I know that 10.5.5 or even 10.5.65 won't fix that. Those in the PowerPC camp are going to be left with crappy OS for the rest of time.
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.
Originally Posted by Bregalad
Apple is making big steps toward market share in enterprise with the iPhone, Exchange support and push technology. Telling the business world that 3 year old computers are obsolete is an insane move that will further convince CIOs and their IT departments not to take Apple seriously. Real enterprises use 6 year old hardware and it runs the same OS as their 6 day old hardware. Apple's game of abandoning older hardware, something they've been doing their entire history, is going to hold them back big time.
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.
Originally Posted by Wiggin
That's fine for professional users where an investment in a new Mac is an investment your business. But what about all the families with multiple Macs? I have a new MBP, but with the purchase, the PPC PowerBook went to the grandparents. A PPC mini is serving as a file server for iTunes, Time Machine, and FrontRow files. Kids have the old iBook, and a neice as the old PPC minitower. For us, all those "old platforms" are perfectly serviceable because "speed and performance" are not critical. The household budget is
If there are truly no new features and Leopard is compatible with Snow Leopard, then it's really not an issue. But what if a Time Machine backup from a Snow Leopard machine can only be done if the target disk is hosted by another Snow Leopard machine? Then I'd have to buy a new file server, too. Or what if a MobileMe or iChatAV feature become dependent on having 10.6? All those other machines would need to be upgraded, too. You could simply say to not upgrade any machine to 10.6. But then if I need to get a new Mac a year from now, and 10.6 is the only option, what then?
I really don't think it'll be a big issue (but if the Time Machine senario comes true I'll be upset about having to replace a perfectly capable server). I expect that Apple would continue service upgrades and support for 10.5 users. But if some compatibility issue does come up, it's not as simple as just buying a single new computer if you are a family or small business.
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.
Originally Posted by Maddan
No, it's Lion and Nittany Lion. Why not name an OS for extinct computers after an extinct mountain lion?
Sounds great to me. Go Nittany Lions.