or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Official: Mac OS X Snow Leopard doesn't support PowerPC Macs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official: Mac OS X Snow Leopard doesn't support PowerPC Macs - Page 3

post #81 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Because it's not that old a platform, and the increase in speed isn't all that much yet. The quad G5s are still faster than most intel models.

Not to mention that there are still some apps and plugins that aren't universal yet. It's bad enough to have to dump a perfectly good machine to get the latest OS, but it's worse to have some things run worse if at all.

You have a good point but all of this not supporting PPC talk is a bit overrated and blown out of proportion. Snow Leopard simply does not offer enough for Intel Mac owners to care a great deal about upgrading much less a PPC Mac owner.

10.5 will continue to be improved and supported by Apple for several years to come. It's the NEXT OS after 10.6 that you need to think about. That is most likely going to be a screaming kick butt OS with a ton of new features worth upgrading to. Obviously 10.7 will not support PPC either but hopefully by that time most Mac users are on Intel Macs. So Snow Leopard really isn't a big deal at this point.
Switching From Windows on Nov. 30th 2007
-------------------------------------
MacBook Pro 13" 2011
Reply
Switching From Windows on Nov. 30th 2007
-------------------------------------
MacBook Pro 13" 2011
Reply
post #82 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by dadsgravy View Post

The fact that apple care only last for three years tells ya that apple could give a fiddlers fart about your computer after that. So why is this so shocking or surprising? By the time 10.6 comes out, the last G5's will be about three years old, and in computer years that's about six years.

I'm putting my money on Apple not releasing 10.6 until September 2009. This way, anyone who bought a G5 in August of 2006 will have run out of support and Apple wont have to deal with you. This will also exclude first gen macbooks running 32bit only.

I love Apple, but I think they would have no problem treating you and your three year old computer pretty poorly. They are the cutting edge of technology, so I'm never surprised at the decisions they make regrading it.

Very good point. We all know Apple makes their own hardware obsolete pretty quick.
Switching From Windows on Nov. 30th 2007
-------------------------------------
MacBook Pro 13" 2011
Reply
Switching From Windows on Nov. 30th 2007
-------------------------------------
MacBook Pro 13" 2011
Reply
post #83 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

According to the people at rixstep.com...

First of all, there are no "people" at rixstep.com. It's one guy, a disgruntled (as in AK-47 from a bell tower disgruntled) former NeXT engineer who has been frothing venom at everything in OS X that isn't a NeXTSTEP legacy for the last ten years. Ignore him.

Secondly, I think the nomenclature is very significant. I'll be very surprised if Leopard goes away when Snow Leopard debuts. In fact, the very small minority of changes in SL that are relevant to non-quad or octo-core machines will probaby be folded into Leopard as point updates. SL won't come out until at least Q3 09, right? Leopard and Snow Leopard will both be avavilable for their appropriate customers until the next update comes out at the end of 2010 at the earliest. And that's the five years they promised! Who knows, maybe Lion (?) and Mountain Lion (?) will also run in parallel for a couple of years after that. My Centris 610 won't run Leopard, either, but you don't hear me complaining. (I assume it's still in the basement somewhere....)
post #84 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by internetworld7 View Post

Very good point. We all know Apple makes their own hardware obsolete pretty quick.

What are we talking about?

Leopard works on 800mhz G4. How old are those? 7, 8 years old?

Tiger....works on G3. How old were the first generation G3's? 10 years old now?

With that kind of track record, I am pretty sure 10.6 will run on at least G5.
post #85 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post

I'll be very surprised if Leopard goes away when Snow Leopard debuts... SL won't come out until at least Q3 09, right? Leopard and Snow Leopard will both be avavilable for their appropriate customers until the next update comes out at the end of 2010 at the earliest. And that's the five years they promised! Who knows, maybe Lion (?) and Mountain Lion (?) will also run in parallel for a couple of years after that. My Centris 610 won't run Leopard, either, but you don't hear me complaining. (I assume it's still in the basement somewhere....)

I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking that. I've even stated the Lion/Mountain Lion comment if Apple were to come out with another major update that supports PPC, but I think extending Leopard point updates and support for PPC is the most likely outcome at this point.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #86 of 161
Wow. Lots of interesting comments. Whining and crying about Snow Leopard not supported on the PowerPC. This is not something new. It was speculated months ago. Why would Apple support a FIVE year old processor? The PowerPC G5 came out 5 years ago. I am sure Mac OS X has reached a limit on PowerPC optimization. However, they can further optimize the OS for Intel, since that is the platform for the future, and has been for the past TWO years. With each new Intel processor, the OS can further be optimized. This cannot be done with the G5.

Any Mac running Leopard will have the same features as an Intel Mac running Snow Leopard. There are no new features! You are not being left behind by Mac OS 10.6. There are a few Macs that have wide support of the Mac OS, but most only support two versions. Some only supported ONE version of the Mac OS. Some Macs in the 68030 family only supported System 7 (System 7.1, 7.5, and 7.6 were not all that different). My Mac Centris 650 only supported System 7.1 through 8.1. Early Power Macs only supported System 7.1 through 9.1. Apple dropped 68040 developement in 1996, two years after the PowerPC transition. So they are dropping PowerPC development two years after the Intel transition. They dropped OS 9 development in 2003, two years after 9.2.2 was released. See a trend?

My current iMac G5 only supports 10.4 and 10.5. Is it dead? No. Apple will still provide support for 10.5 and they still support 10.4. They are now moving towards dropping support of 10.3 (the new MobileMe to replace .Mac will not support 10.3 syncing).

So stop whining and crying. Your G5 Mac will still run just fine with 10.4 or 10.5. I re-installed Tiger on my PowerBook G4 because Tiger runs better on the G4. Just because something new comes out, doesn't mean your Mac will die without it.

I am glad they are dropping PowerPC code. When I decide to get an Intel Mac in a few years, then the OS won't be bloated with dead code.
post #87 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG4G View Post

Wow! Its official.

Now watch as all the complaints from G5 users stream in.

I agree with the move, however.

I'm a G5 owner and i think this is the logical step to keep engineers working on forward technology, and not dragging the company recourses with old weight.

I guess i'll have to get a new Mac. DAMN!
[CENTER]Diana Rein
Putting the Soul back into Rock 'n Roll
[/CENTER]

[CENTER]"The Back Room"

Diana Rein Available on iTunes for $8[/CENTER]
Reply
[CENTER]Diana Rein
Putting the Soul back into Rock 'n Roll
[/CENTER]

[CENTER]"The Back Room"

Diana Rein Available on iTunes for $8[/CENTER]
Reply
post #88 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

My current iMac G5 only supports 10.4 and 10.5. Is it dead? No. Apple will still provide support for 10.5 and they still support 10.4. They are now moving towards dropping support of 10.3 (the new MobileMe to replace .Mac will not support 10.3 syncing).

So stop whining and crying. Your G5 Mac will still run just fine with 10.4 or 10.5. I re-installed Tiger on my PowerBook G4 because Tiger runs better on the G4. Just because something new comes out, doesn't mean your Mac will die without it.

Hear, hear! My g3 iMac on my bedside table (I use it for light web browsing and as an e-book reader) is still happily running Panther. It does everything I want it to do, and I'm not interested in forcing it to do things it would be slow and inept at. Up until a couple of months ago, it was still being offered at least "security" updates. For Panther! It must have ignored the kill signals that everyone seems to think Cupertino sends out to brick every computer running OS X 10.x when OS X 10.x+1 comes out. Seriously, if your g4 or g5 is running the software you want to run, what's the problem? It's probably the next update of your apps that are going to leave you behind, not Apple. And only because they require more horsepower than your old machine can muster. It's just a fact of life in the computer world. That being said, I'd hate to tell you how recently I used WordStar 5.5 on my 12 MHz 286 DOS machine. (I just liked Wordstar, what can I say?)
post #89 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post

I'll be very surprised if Leopard goes away when Snow Leopard debuts. In fact, the very small minority of changes in SL that are relevant to non-quad or octo-core machines will probaby be folded into Leopard as point updates. SL won't come out until at least Q3 09, right? Leopard and Snow Leopard will both be avavilable for their appropriate customers until the next update comes out at the end of 2010 at the earliest. And that's the five years they promised! Who knows, maybe Lion (?) and Mountain Lion (?) will also run in parallel for a couple of years after that. My Centris 610 won't run Leopard, either, but you don't hear me complaining. (I assume it's still in the basement somewhere....)

No, it's Lion and Nittany Lion. Why not name an OS for extinct computers after an extinct mountain lion?
post #90 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by bedouin View Post

I bought this machine in 2002, and it's running solid with Leopard (albeit with a CPU upgrade and a few other additions) even today. Getting 7 to 8 years out of a machine isn't something to be mad about. Just because your Mac won't run the latest and greatest OS anymore doesn't mean it's by any means obsolete or useless. I can easily see this machine being speedy and useful until the end of 2009.

If your Mac can run 10.4 or greater I'd say you'll be safe for sometime to come. The latest bells and whistles? Perhaps not, but your day to day computing grind won't be hindered.


NO!! I totally disagree. I will HAVE to buy a new Mac with SL as my G5 will be too old and too slow. Now lets just stick with the plan ok.
[CENTER]Diana Rein
Putting the Soul back into Rock 'n Roll
[/CENTER]

[CENTER]"The Back Room"

Diana Rein Available on iTunes for $8[/CENTER]
Reply
[CENTER]Diana Rein
Putting the Soul back into Rock 'n Roll
[/CENTER]

[CENTER]"The Back Room"

Diana Rein Available on iTunes for $8[/CENTER]
Reply
post #91 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by justThorne View Post

I'm a G5 user, but I won't complain. (I will complain if CS4 leaves G5's behind, however.) But I am a bit surprised. After all the trouble to make the OS more chipset-agnostic, why bother to leave the G5s behind so quickly?

Seems a little blatantly hardware sales-driven, on one hand, but a ways down the line on the other, thankfully.

Clones are coming!
post #92 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnqh View Post

What are we talking about?

Leopard works on 800mhz G4. How old are those? 7, 8 years old?

Tiger....works on G3. How old were the first generation G3's? 10 years old now?

With that kind of track record, I am pretty sure 10.6 will run on at least G5.

Well what I meant by obsolete is that Apple doesn't take long at all before they're releasing both a new OS and new hardware. My MacBook was purchased just 10 months ago but the MacBook line has already been updated with bigger HD's, better graphics cards, Penryn processors ect.

But one thing that is good as you pointed out is that Macs run reliably for years and unlike Vista, Mac OS X works good with much older hardware.
Switching From Windows on Nov. 30th 2007
-------------------------------------
MacBook Pro 13" 2011
Reply
Switching From Windows on Nov. 30th 2007
-------------------------------------
MacBook Pro 13" 2011
Reply
post #93 of 161
Official? Hardly. These requirements are merely the requirements for the developers version of Snow Leopard. *sigh*
post #94 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkAllan View Post

My G5 has four cores. Quad 2.5 GHz and it's a damn fast machine. Much faster than the dual core intel iMac (with the stupid reflective screen) I have at work, so it's still a machine which is very much worth keeping. Why should I be forced to upgrade to a slower intel machine?

According to this site : Primatelabs, Mac performance (april 2008), the 4 cores PowerMac G5 has a compound score of 3217 while the Dual Core Intel iMac have a compound score between 2652 (Intel Core 2 Duo T7300 2.0 GHz, early 2007) and 3608 (Intel Core 2 Extreme X7900 2.8 GHz, mid 2007). So, yes, your G5 is still a very capable machine by today's standard (by comparison, my PowerBook G4 is a joke at 759), but not very impressive anymore. It is as good as any average iMac in fact. So your (expensive) G5 is not much faster than the dual core intel iMac on sale today, sorry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkAllan View Post

I'd be interested to see them try and abandon us. I seem to remember Steve Jobs saying PPC Mac would be supported for 5 years after the intel ones arrived. The lawyers must be rubbing their grubby hands in glee - can anyone say "class action"?

For anyone to say "class action", Apple should first say "PPC are unsupported". Since Apple hasn't yet said so, no one can say "class action" yet.

Besides, supporting the PPC, doesn't mean that they have to do so with an OS numbered 10.6. They could easily choose to continue to update 10.5 for as long as they support 10.6...
post #95 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkAllan View Post

My G5 has four cores. Quad 2.5 GHz and it's a damn fast machine. Much faster than the dual core intel iMac (with the stupid reflective screen) I have at work, so it's still a machine which is very much worth keeping. Why should I be forced to upgrade to a slower intel machine?

Some people are quite concerned as to whether the cooling systems in those things would hold up for very long.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

While they might not support PPC with consumers I think they will support it internally. As we know from the Intel "surprise", Apple always keeps another processor platform handy in case a switch is needed.

OK, so they're somehow going to spend the R&D necessary to keep PPC up to date, only to have it ready just in case their x86 plans wither? That's a needless expense. Keeping OS X Intel compatible all those years was probably not that expensive, maintaining CPU architectures like that is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by internetworld7 View Post

Well what I meant by obsolete is that Apple doesn't take long at all before they're releasing both a new OS and new hardware. My MacBook was purchased just 10 months ago but the MacBook line has already been updated with bigger HD's, better graphics cards, Penryn processors ect.

On the hardware side, that's not Apple making them obsolete. If they didn't keep their hardware reasonably up to date, then what they sell would be obsolete.
post #96 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by guest View Post

Yeah, well.
After they acquired PA Semi I was hoping the PowerPC would stay in, or even end this unfortunate Intel alliance!

Good grief. I doubt PA Semi could keep Apple supplied with adequate designs for all their systems, considering that Intel spends (IIRC) billions every year in R&D.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bedouin View Post

I think many of us feel bitter about the death of PPC for two reasons.

First, it's a defeat or sorts. PPC was something Apple had a personal investment in. It was made, to some extent, for us (though, obviously not exclusively). x86 never felt good enough for Macs because it wasn't custom, it wasn't something made specifically with us in mind. The move to x86 just marked this feeling of mediocrity, and the failure of PPC: the great hope.

You have too much of an attachment to an architecture. You've bought way too much into the RDF on this, Jobs had to make Intel seem bad. Apple for all it's trying couldn't make it viable enough to justify remaining. The architecture of the CPU isn't that important. As long as the CPU fit the specs, it almost doesn't matter except for legacy concerns, because switching architectures is a costly business. All software needs is a CPU that will run it. Processors are quite neutral. If you give it crap instructions, then it will behave badly. Give them good instructions and they will behave well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

...unless you consider that Apple was still selling G5's as recently as 2 years ago.

By the time SL is out, that will be three years. And those systems will probably be supported by most software for another two years. Five years is a pretty good run if you're the type that actually needs to keep up with the latest software. If you're the kind that needs to keep up with software like that, then I'd wager that on or before the fifth year, you're about due for a new computer to keep the software running smoothly anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmeister View Post

If you're concerned about this, start saving now. You've got several months.

Officially, I think a year and a bit more.
post #97 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by zanshin View Post

Nice article on what to do with your aging PPC... maybe NASA can use them? The article is about the programming team on the Mars Phoenix project who had to write code for an 11-year old PPC chip in the latest interplanetary scientific lander. Obviously, Phoenix will not be able to run Snow Leopard.

BTW, my JPL amigo mentioned in the article uses a MacBook Pro for his duties; excellent fodder for the next time your boss or IT "guru" tells you "nobody uses a Mac except for artsy stuff..."

http://www.computerworld.com/action/...ticleId=319748

I also work on a NASA mission that runs on several PPC chips, but they're not really close to a G5, more like what was in the old beige PPC Macs (it only runs at 33Mhz), the chip is a RAD6000 if you're interested. BTW - almost all the scientists who work for NASA have Mac laptops. Go to any Astrophysics conference, and I'd say almost 70% of the audience is on Mac laptops. Our mission operations centre uses Mac Pros for many of our mission critical tasks.
post #98 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pascal007 View Post

According to this site : Primatelabs, Mac performance (april 2008), the 4 cores PowerMac G5 has a compound score of 3217 while the Dual Core Intel iMac have a compound score between 2652 (Intel Core 2 Duo T7300 2.0 GHz, early 2007) and 3608 (Intel Core 2 Extreme X7900 2.8 GHz, mid 2007).

Those are only up to April 2008. Since then new iMacs have been released. Primate labs lists even the slowest and cheapest iMac at only $1100 as scoring a 3220 with only 1GB RAM.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #99 of 161
Even as a G4 user, I say let it die.

PPC is just a legacy ball-and-chain weighing down OS X. Plus, "Grand Central" sounds like it's going to be the killer "app" of 10.6 and how many PPC chips are multi-core?

Exactly.

-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #100 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

Even as a G4 user, I say let it die.

PPC is just a legacy ball-and-chain weighing down OS X. Plus, "Grand Central" sounds like it's going to be the killer "app" of 10.6 and how many PPC chips are multi-core?

Exactly.

-Clive

The last generation of PowerMac G5s had dual core PPCs.

Also high end Macs have had dual CPUs for ages, I doubt that there any specific difference between a 4 CPU machine and a machine with a 4 core CPU when it comes to Grand Central.
post #101 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmeister View Post

If you're concerned about this, start saving now. You've got several months.

Or you could be like those of us that now have yet another reason to not upgrade to 10.5, which appears to have some issues. Great, I wait for about a year and get an OS that is feature equal to 10.5 plus QTX and new file system and grand central and big bonus it's best feature is that lacks the problems that 10.5 has although those problems appear to be going away slowly.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #102 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Those are only up to April 2008. Since then new iMacs have been released. Primate labs lists even the slowest and cheapest iMac at only $1100 as scoring a 3220 with only 1GB RAM.

You are right, and this proves my point even more ! The professional Quad G5 is now floored by the amateur's iMac !

Intel Core 2 Duo @ 3.06GHz : 3995
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.40GHz (entry level) : 3220
PowerPC G5 (970MP) 2.5 GHz (4 cores) : 3217
post #103 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pascal007 View Post

You are right, and this proves my point even more ! The professional Quad G5 is now floored by the amateur's iMac !

Intel Core 2 Duo @ 3.06GHz : 3995
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.40GHz (entry level) : 3220
PowerPC G5 (970MP) 2.5 GHz (4 cores) : 3217

Wow! And remember: the G3 iMac didn't need a fan. The G4 iMac did need a fan. The G5 iMac had to be liquid cooled. Presumably, the G6 iMac, if there had been one, would have had to be kept in a separate, air-conditioned room and cooled with liquid helium! And a quad-core G6? The mind boggles! I don't think you have to look any further than that for the reason for the Intel transition.
post #104 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelhot View Post

Why are they people who is hoping Mac OS X to be on PCs? Cant you see that Apple wants to be in control of the hardware spec of their product.

They acquire PA to develop processor for the iPhone and iPod.

Anyway, I know some PPC users will be hurt with Apple move but hey, maybe the reason Apple is not really going to introduce any new big feature for Snow Leopard is cause they want to let the public know that they are moving towards Intel only support so asking the users to get ready to buy a new Mac the following year (Im talking after SL, Mac OS X 10.7 (Or Mac OS 11))

First off, I skimmed the page wheelhot links to in his/her sig (arguing Apple will never just sell software). Granted, I didn't read the whole thing in detail, but doesn't that author also claim on the same page that the switch to Intel won't happen? Not only is the article quite dated in its view point, it's wrong. Not very compelling.

Another critique on that article:
Quote:
The only way to see the Mac as unsuccessful is to compare it to Windows on Microsoft’s terms — market share and raw profit. And that’s exactly how analysts and the PC press cover the Mac.

What they miss is that the Mac’s primary purpose is to be better. Windows’s (sic) primary purpose is to be ubiquitous.

Both companies exist to make money, and certainly Apple wants Macs to be better. I think Apple will sell its OS to run on non-Apple hardware. This will make them a lot of money. When they do this, they will also make sure that Macs are better. This is how I see PA Semi fitting in. They will ensure that the OS is optimized for Apple hardware.

I haven't finished reading the thread about Steve's claim that PA is going to make iPhone chips, but my initial impression is that this is a weird comment to make when you've just introduced a new phone. A phone that obviously doesn't use this hardware technology. It seems like bait and switch to me. --Not that the statement is a lie. I just doubt that's the real reason.

Back to Snow Leopard:
I'm ambivalent in my opinion about whether or not PPC will be supported; I can see the argument from both sides and I feel strongly both ways. I'll need to cogitate on it more. However, I think PPC will ultimately be supported. My thinking is that the line of reasoning that says it's too hard (PPC 32 bit/64 bit & same w/Intel) is overblown. They've done it before and they've done it when they were working on big new projects--read: "iPhone". Sure, Leopard was delayed a while--a short while.

And here Apple has just finished with the new iPhone. They've already developed it and manufactured it. What's going to prevent them from concentrating on Snow Leopard for all relevant hardware? Those quad G5s are still relevant hardware. Also, I'm in agreement with those who can't see leaving Leopard as the last OS for the PPC--it's just not good enough for it.

10.6 for Intel only is not abandoning support for PPC as others have argued. So that mind-walk is moot. But the fact that Apple has committed to supporting the PPC for 5 years is ample reason to make Snow Leopard support PPC. That would be an easier way of providing support than having to maintain two different OSs for two sets of hardware. I submit that that approach would be harder to implement than just getting 10.6 to work on 32/64 PPC/Intel.

While I'm firm in my belief that Apple will open its OS to non-Apple hardware, I don't think this will happen straight-off with the release of 10.6. It will either be the next version of the OS or Apple will do it with 10.6 after some delay post introduction.

I think the plan is to optimize Snow Leopard for the hardware that PA is going to add to Macs--not iPhones. At the same time, Snow Leopard will be optimized for multiple cores, period--be they PPC or Intel. They need both to provide enough hype and oomph to get people to buy it, because I agree there won't be very many owners of current hardware that will feel they really need it. Basically, Apple will hype how optimized it is for existing hardware. People will buy it. [EDIT]People with PPC computers will especially buy it if Apple says "this is it; no maintenance on any other OS X versions supported by PPC."[/EDIT] After they've milked it for all they can to existing Apple owners, then they'll open it to other hardware. And that's when they'll also unveil their own new hardware with PA stuff so that they can maintain the Mac performance edge and cachet.

I wouldn't worry too much about developers dropping PPC. Even if this happens, by the time it does the OS will work on anything and the requisite hardware will be inexpensive--more so than it already is. That's when the PPC will be obsolete. Even if they're still "relevant" machines, it will be so cheap to work with developer software that doesn't support PPC that the idea of there still being good G5s won't even matter. They'll go to JPL or whatever and the tax write-off will pay for the new systems.
When will the governments realize it's got to be funky, sexy ladies?
-Flight of the Conchords
Reply
When will the governments realize it's got to be funky, sexy ladies?
-Flight of the Conchords
Reply
post #105 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pascal007 View Post

You are right, and this proves my point even more ! The professional Quad G5 is now floored by the amateur's iMac!

Note: Someone will say it so I'm going to beat them to the punch... It should be made clear that PPC Macs are still quite viable machines. Benchmark tests and real world tests are different; there are undoubtedly several programs or processes within certain programs that would run better on a Power Mac G5 than the entry new level iMac. Also, your PPC Macs are obsolescing but are not obsolete. That word gets misused so often in the computer industry.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #106 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post

Wow! And remember: the G3 iMac didn't need a fan. The G4 iMac did need a fan. The G5 iMac had to be liquid cooled. Presumably, the G6 iMac, if there had been one, would have had to be kept in a separate, air-conditioned room and cooled with liquid helium! And a quad-core G6? The mind boggles! I don't think you have to look any further than that for the reason for the Intel transition.

Only the top model of the G5 Power Mac in three product iterations was liquid cooled (2.5 dual, 2.7 dual, 2.5 quad). The G5 iMac just had a regular heat sink as far as I remember. But it did run warm.
post #107 of 161
I think there are plenty of viable PPC based computers and I feel like Leopard is a viable OS for them.

If Apple decides to make Snow Leopard Intel only in it's finality I understand that decision. I think the decision would very much stem from resources at Apple. Up until a year ago Apple had but one OS platform to run. Now they have 3 and could end up with more.

I'm for putting Leopard into maintenance mode and maintaining security updates until 10.7 comes.

The main draw to Snow Leopard will likely be centered around Quicktime X, Grand Central and OpenCL.

While these features and further optimizations will be desired by PPC users their hardware, quite honestly, will not sufficiently benefit from the features in all likelyhood.

We really need to see what Apple can do when giving a more singular focus on optimizing OS X. The bugs in the API the niggling glitches and areas that haven't seen much work need to be be ironed out.

Eventually those PPC Macs will be replaced with Intel based Macs and at that time the PPC users who've felt abandoned will finally experience the fruits of Apple's labor and their own sacrifice.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #108 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Because it's not that old a platform, and the increase in speed isn't all that much yet. The quad G5s are still faster than most intel models.

um, no. our 2.4 core2duo imacs here smoke our quad g5's in encoding, and most - if not all - other non-GPU uses.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #109 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Only the top model of the G5 Power Mac in three product iterations was liquid cooled (2.5 dual, 2.7 dual, 2.5 quad). The G5 iMac just had a regular heat sink as far as I remember. But it did run warm.

Sorry, my bad!
post #110 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post

Sorry, my bad!

No problem, but your main point was valid in other ways. The G5 chip did run pretty hot. We got as good performance and much lower heat with the Core Duo iMac. The G5 quad was reputed to have a monster heat output, the Mac Pros consume considerably less power, and thus less heat output, for about the same compute strength and lower cost.
post #111 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

No problem, but your main point was valid in other ways. The G5 chip did run pretty hot. We got as good performance and much lower heat with the Core Duo iMac.

And power usage. I wonder how much money that saves over the lifetime of the Mac. Not a big difference in most upgrades but those were pretty substantial power usage differences as I recall.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #112 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkAllan View Post

My G5 has four cores. Quad 2.5 GHz and it's a damn fast machine. Much faster than the dual core intel iMac (with the stupid reflective screen) I have at work

your lighting must suck.

ive never ONCE had an issue with the screen. its really nice. get a new job. hahaha.
post #113 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pascal007 View Post

According to this site : Primatelabs, Mac performance (april 2008), the 4 cores PowerMac G5 has a compound score of 3217 while the Dual Core Intel iMac have a compound score between 2652 (Intel Core 2 Duo T7300 2.0 GHz, early 2007) and 3608 (Intel Core 2 Extreme X7900 2.8 GHz, mid 2007).

It depends on what you benchmark - the G5 has much higher throughput performance. The iMac is still a laptop remember and I find that the G5 is still generally faster.

Anyway, the major issue will be that the Mac Pro was released in August 2006. This will be less than 3 years after someone could have bought a G5 tower - in other words, it could still have Applecare warranty.

It's fair enough to drop support for old machines like G4 towers but not machines still under warranty.

I still think they should do it though because Snow Leopard is a performance upgrade and could easily just be the Intel optimized version of Leopard. Leopard works on PPC already. There will be no new features to speak of that PPC Leopard owners will be lacking relative to the Intel counterparts.

So I don't think it's so much dropping support as just focusing optimization on the Intel architecture. The real question will be whether you can target universal binaries from Snow Leopard and whether those binaries run ok on Leopard. If both are true then PPC owners have nothing to worry about.
post #114 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_lha View Post

The last generation of PowerMac G5s had dual core PPCs.

So the answer "one" would have worked.

Meanwhile all but one model of Intel Macs has multiple cores (the Core Solo Mac Mini).

Why develop legacy compatibility for an entire OS if it will only benefit one obscure model?

-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #115 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Some people are quite concerned as to whether the cooling systems in those things would hold up for very long.

rightly so. i had a quad g5 and two of my friends had dual 2.5s. all three machines failed within a couple months of each other this year. all three were replaced with macpros. i like my mac pro much more than i did my quad g5. i can hear other things in the room again, which is nice.
post #116 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontlookleft View Post

im not sure what all the complaints are for. if it's just like a SP, 10.6 will be useless to most people and in their eyes, not worth the 130-150 dollar price tag.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bedouin View Post

I'm an Apple fan, but charging $139 for what seems to be the equivalent of an MS service pack doesn't jive too well with me.

I love the way people keep listing the price of a developer preview of software that's at least a year away from release.
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
post #117 of 161
Either way I think that the irritation of the Leopard experience and the news that they are looking to stabilise it and power it up, not to mention the quite-exciting-sounding new technologies, will bring forth the $NZ199 from me quite easily .
post #118 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post

True. However, the point stands that looking at the requirements for a Developer Preview of a technology as the final requirements is not valid.

Again true, but it does not imply that the PPC will be finally supported (of course you don't say that either). In fact, although I did not follow this from the beginning, I remember that the 867 MHz G4 requirement for Leopad showed up in some development builds many months before release and guess what, that was it.

Weighing other factors too explained before by the others here, I am inclined to believe that Kasper is right.
post #119 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by bedouin View Post

With all this cutting back why is Snow Leopard a 8gb install?

Because it is still under development?
post #120 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunMike View Post



I'm not surprised at this development at all. I have a maxed-out Dual-1GHz G4, and since installing Leopard, my machine's response has become appallingly sluggish. Running iTunes, Mail, Safari and iPhoto will slow the machine to a crawl, especially when changing apps. In addition, my 2GB of RAM is almost always running about 1200-1300MB used. Pre-Leopard OS X didn't every use this much RAM, even with a dozen apps running simultaneously.

Mind you, your system is a little above the minimum requirements for processing power (G4 867 MHz). Plus, Leopard eats RAM for breakfast. Really. 2 GB will give you pain because of frequent page outs if you do anything demanding or keep the machine running without rebooting for a long time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunMike View Post

Leopard appears to be quite disk-intensive on the PPC platform;

I see no reason why this would be so, but with "only" 2 GB you probably have many page outs. This will slow down considerably even a fast system, let alone yours. Check out what is listed in /var/vm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunMike View Post

maybe the code to run Leopard on PPC is not at all efficient, not to mention the processors simply don't have the firepower of the Intel chips.

Although I don't know, I would not be surprised to find out that this is the case. Apple has to move on and focus on Intel optimizations.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Official: Mac OS X Snow Leopard doesn't support PowerPC Macs