I think Apple would drop Native 32-bit support. I'm not saying that 10.6 won't run 32-bit apps but it would likely have to use a 64-bit version of Rosetta that runs 32-bit apps in a compatibility mode.
Just because it would only support 64 bit hardware doesn't mean that it wouldn't support 32 bit software. 64 bit hardware supports 32 bit software just fine. I don't think it needs anything like rosetta because the code should run natively in a hardware virtual machine.
Totally agree, have never been through a year where Apple were going to do something like this and no notice. This rumor appears to be a test for feeding frenzy, see if we take the bait. I could buy the demo of an early alpha in 5 days, but if it were more than that we would have heard about it prior to this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella
I think the real situation is that Apple will demo an alpha of 10.6 at WWDC.
By January 2009 they will ship a beta to Apple Select Developers.
By WWDC 2009 they will demo a polished beta of 10.6.
10.6 will ship in late 2009/early 2010.
And Apple bought the chip maker to support the iPhone and to help extend battery life in portables. They could help Apple design all in one low power communication chips that the iPhone and 'books could use, just a guess. But the iPhone business, like the iPod business, is going to be huge, maybe larger than what Apple is now, counting everything except the iPhone. Apple can splurge on custom communication or iPhone chips that will help them address a market that is this large.
But the iPhone business, like the iPod business, is going to be huge, maybe larger than what Apple is now, counting everything except the iPhone. Apple can splurge on custom communication or iPhone chips that will help them address a market that is this large.
Most definitely larger. The number of cell phones being sold outnumber PMPs by several factor.
I think Apple would drop Native 32-bit support. I'm not saying that 10.6 won't run 32-bit apps but it would likely have to use a 64-bit version of Rosetta that runs 32-bit apps in a compatibility mode.
Apple needs to provide the developer tools to easily create optimized 64-bit apps but they would indeed be foolish by not offering a "bridge" from the 32-bit world.
The better question is "what's the advantage of keeping PPC and 32-bit support?" Apple is in the business of selling computer hardware and software. Why should they extend so many developer resources towards hardware they sold 4 years ago? Leopard will be fine for most PPC machines and those that need power will be looking to refresh to 64-bit soon enough. May as well give'em something stable to move to.
I'm sorry. This makes no sense to me. As long as the hardware can run a 32-bit app, why on earth would Apple go out of their way to break that? What I see with 10.6 is that the kernel will be 64-bit only with the consequence that it will not run on the oldest Intel Macs.
Just paid 1800.00 dollars for the CS3 design premium package about 3 weeks ago. There can't be a situation where it would simply stop working with OS 10.6 could there? Wouldn't there be some patch? Adobe upgrades aren't cheap and CS4 is supposed to be 32-bit.
Anyone twisting your arm to upgrade the OS?
Everyone here seems to be assuming an awful lot, and assuming the worst. There will be a transition period, there always has been.
Just because it would only support 64 bit hardware doesn't mean that it wouldn't support 32 bit software. 64 bit hardware supports 32 bit software just fine. I don't think it needs anything like rosetta because the code should run natively in a hardware virtual machine.
Exactly,
You CAN run 32-bit applications on Windows-64 and Vista-64 now.
Everyone here seems to be assuming an awful lot, and assuming the worst. There will be a transition period, there always has been.
These boards tend to follow an all-or-nothing mantra. It seems the most likely situation for 10.6 would be to exclude support for 32-bit PPC, while keeping 64-bit PPC and full Intel support. Then the next version excluding PPC completely. Already, the limitations of 32-bit PPC make running Leopard less than ideal for many who have not maximized their RAM and I can't see how it would be better in the next version.
As someone with a iBook 1.42 G4 (bought it right before the announcement that Apple is switching to Intel) I don't see the big problem.
Its almost 3 years old, still runs fine with an extra 512 MB of ram, and i use 10.4.
Now, if i'm someone who needs 10.6 for the latest support, I'm probably someone who wants something faster than this old iBook G4.
I never bothered with Leopard because I didn't want to spend the 70 bucks (Edu discount at the Uni here in Canada) because the features didn't really appeal to me.
Same kettle of fish. Leopard will run fine for those who don't want (or can't use) 10.6, and a year or two later all of a sudden PPC macs are 5+ years old and so buy a new machine for 10.7.
Its perhaps not completely ideal, but perfectly understandable. You might say I fall under the category "have a PPC, but would pay for new hardware to run 10.6" - but mostly because by then my computer (one of the latest PPCs) will be almost FOUR years old, which I find reasonable.
This rumor seems totally bogus to me. 'No new features and enhanced security and stability' sound like a 'point' update to me. I wonder if TUAW isn't describing 10.5.4?
Its really a non-starter IMO. Who would upgrade to 10.6 with no new features, significant major apps broken (office, FCS, CS3) and many machines unsupported?
That was my thought when I saw this. It seems a bit soon for a major overhaul but totally expected for things we were hoping would have been in 10.4.
64-bit won't necessarily mean discontinue 32-bit support, it could simply be that they will make the system fully 64-bit i.e. the Carbon API, which currently isn't.
I guess they could discontinue 32-bit support as it would only affect the Core Duo models but that's still a lot of machines so I don't see it.
I would agree with a decision to drop PPC support. It does seem a bit early to do that but it's for the best. It cuts down code bloat and it lets developers focus on x86 specific optimization.
I think it is too early to drop Power PC support. What exactly does the Intel CPU provide that the Power PC doesn't? (leave performance aside). The universal binaries have been working very well for several years now. Is there is a compelling reason to ditch universal binaries?
You seem to think that the performance advantage offered up by Intel is only marginal, frankly it is not marginal but rather substantial even when the first Intel machine arrived. There is a reason Apple use to focus on Alt-Vec performance all those years ago, that is simply due to PPC's crappy integer performance. It is integer performance that makes for snappy workstation performance for the main stream.
As to universal binaries sure they have been around for a while but frankly so what. You don't see Apple supporting 68000 any more do you?
The fact is Apple needs to make a break form the past. Of course they need to do that in a way that doesn't offend the customer so I suspect that we will see 10.5.x go into some sort of long term support. Maybe they will commit to supporting 10.5 till the end of 2010
In any event I suspect that Apple is in a position where they simply don't have much of a choice form the standpoint of what is feasible for a 64 bit OS. There is a lot of technology built into current generation CPU's that simply isn't in the older generation. Apple needs to leverage some of that technology to improve Mac OS/X and the user experience. I could actually see them dropping support for some classes of Intel hardware also. In any event this is nothing to get worked up about as it will be two years out before users are impacted.
If this is true it may be for ONLY new systems that also support hardware authentication since they don't need PPC or 32-bit code. That would probably mean 10.7 would come out at the same time as 10.8 but 10.7 would be for older systems without the HW authentication chip and 10.8 for the machines that have it, with 10.7 being the last version of OS X that supports Macs without the chip. (just a theory)
New ArsTechnica article. They say it will be called Snow Leopard and all drop Carbon support:
Apple lack of a good desktop and the weak screens in the imacs is keeping people on PPC. The high price of the mini for it's hardware is a trun off as well.
$799.00 for 1gb of ram, 120GB 5400 rpm hd, 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, no Keyboard & Mouse, and pos old intel gma x950 What a joke.
64-bit won't necessarily mean discontinue 32-bit support, it could simply be that they will make the system fully 64-bit i.e. the Carbon API, which currently isn't.
They already announced they were dropping 64bit Carbon support LAST WWDC which caught Adobe out somewhat. Now the rumour is Carbon goes entirely because they're dropping 32bit support for any technology. That'll please Adobe, who's CS4 apps are still 32bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
New ArsTechnica article. They say it will be called Snow Leopard and all drop Carbon support:
If true, dropping Carbon is because they've dropped 32bit. Carbon is 32bit only. That makes sense.
I think it's highly unlikely given all the 32bit apps still around and major apps that are still going to be 32bit.
The suggestion that 32bit apps run in some kind of WOW 32bit virtual machine like Windows 64bit does is just silly. OSX doesn't do that now so why would they adopt that crappy system?
I still think this isn't 10.6. Someone has got their wires crossed and 'Snow Leopard' is Apple's OS for their consumer devices like the AppleTV/iPod/iPhone where they don't need carbon or 'legacy' 32bit compatibility.
They already announced they were dropping 64bit Carbon support LAST WWDC which caught Adobe out somewhat. Now the rumour is Carbon goes entirely because they're dropping 32bit support for any technology. That'll please Adobe, who's CS4 apps are still 32bit.
If true, dropping Carbon is because they've dropped 32bit. Carbon is 32bit only. That makes sense.
I think it's highly unlikely given all the 32bit apps still around and major apps that are still going to be 32bit.
The suggestion that 32bit apps run in some kind of WOW 32bit virtual machine like Windows 64bit does is just silly. OSX doesn't do that now so why would they adopt that crappy system?
I still think this isn't 10.6. Someone has got their wires crossed and 'Snow Leopard' is Apple's OS for their consumer devices like the AppleTV/iPod/iPhone where they don't need carbon or 'legacy' 32bit compatibility.
They dropped Carbon 64 to force the developers to move to Cocoa. Cocoa as 32 bit has always been. It's not a Cocoa is 64 only issue.
I think Apple would drop Native 32-bit support. I'm not saying that 10.6 won't run 32-bit apps but it would likely have to use a 64-bit version of Rosetta that runs 32-bit apps in a compatibility mode.
Apple needs to provide the developer tools to easily create optimized 64-bit apps but they would indeed be foolish by not offering a "bridge" from the 32-bit world.
The better question is "what's the advantage of keeping PPC and 32-bit support?" Apple is in the business of selling computer hardware and software. Why should they extend so many developer resources towards hardware they sold 4 years ago? Leopard will be fine for most PPC machines and those that need power will be looking to refresh to 64-bit soon enough. May as well give'em something stable to move to.
you don't need Rosetta to run 32bit x86 apps on 64bit x86 cpus.
And what is the point some of there systems only ship 1gb base ram at the most the base systems have 2gb.
The laptop ram and only 2 ram slots in the imac, mini, and there laptop makes ram use over 4gb not likely any time soon. You can get 2x2gb ddr2 desktop ram for around $100 and for around $200 you can get 4x2gb ddr2 desktop ram. But 2x4gb laptop ram will cost A LOT MORE.
Comments
I think Apple would drop Native 32-bit support. I'm not saying that 10.6 won't run 32-bit apps but it would likely have to use a 64-bit version of Rosetta that runs 32-bit apps in a compatibility mode.
Just because it would only support 64 bit hardware doesn't mean that it wouldn't support 32 bit software. 64 bit hardware supports 32 bit software just fine. I don't think it needs anything like rosetta because the code should run natively in a hardware virtual machine.
I think the real situation is that Apple will demo an alpha of 10.6 at WWDC.
By January 2009 they will ship a beta to Apple Select Developers.
By WWDC 2009 they will demo a polished beta of 10.6.
10.6 will ship in late 2009/early 2010.
And Apple bought the chip maker to support the iPhone and to help extend battery life in portables. They could help Apple design all in one low power communication chips that the iPhone and 'books could use, just a guess. But the iPhone business, like the iPod business, is going to be huge, maybe larger than what Apple is now, counting everything except the iPhone. Apple can splurge on custom communication or iPhone chips that will help them address a market that is this large.
But the iPhone business, like the iPod business, is going to be huge, maybe larger than what Apple is now, counting everything except the iPhone. Apple can splurge on custom communication or iPhone chips that will help them address a market that is this large.
Most definitely larger. The number of cell phones being sold outnumber PMPs by several factor.
I think Apple would drop Native 32-bit support. I'm not saying that 10.6 won't run 32-bit apps but it would likely have to use a 64-bit version of Rosetta that runs 32-bit apps in a compatibility mode.
Apple needs to provide the developer tools to easily create optimized 64-bit apps but they would indeed be foolish by not offering a "bridge" from the 32-bit world.
The better question is "what's the advantage of keeping PPC and 32-bit support?" Apple is in the business of selling computer hardware and software. Why should they extend so many developer resources towards hardware they sold 4 years ago? Leopard will be fine for most PPC machines and those that need power will be looking to refresh to 64-bit soon enough. May as well give'em something stable to move to.
I'm sorry. This makes no sense to me. As long as the hardware can run a 32-bit app, why on earth would Apple go out of their way to break that? What I see with 10.6 is that the kernel will be 64-bit only with the consequence that it will not run on the oldest Intel Macs.
Just paid 1800.00 dollars for the CS3 design premium package about 3 weeks ago. There can't be a situation where it would simply stop working with OS 10.6 could there? Wouldn't there be some patch? Adobe upgrades aren't cheap and CS4 is supposed to be 32-bit.
Anyone twisting your arm to upgrade the OS?
Everyone here seems to be assuming an awful lot, and assuming the worst. There will be a transition period, there always has been.
Just because it would only support 64 bit hardware doesn't mean that it wouldn't support 32 bit software. 64 bit hardware supports 32 bit software just fine. I don't think it needs anything like rosetta because the code should run natively in a hardware virtual machine.
Exactly,
You CAN run 32-bit applications on Windows-64 and Vista-64 now.
Everyone here seems to be assuming an awful lot, and assuming the worst. There will be a transition period, there always has been.
These boards tend to follow an all-or-nothing mantra. It seems the most likely situation for 10.6 would be to exclude support for 32-bit PPC, while keeping 64-bit PPC and full Intel support. Then the next version excluding PPC completely. Already, the limitations of 32-bit PPC make running Leopard less than ideal for many who have not maximized their RAM and I can't see how it would be better in the next version.
Its almost 3 years old, still runs fine with an extra 512 MB of ram, and i use 10.4.
Now, if i'm someone who needs 10.6 for the latest support, I'm probably someone who wants something faster than this old iBook G4.
I never bothered with Leopard because I didn't want to spend the 70 bucks (Edu discount at the Uni here in Canada) because the features didn't really appeal to me.
Same kettle of fish. Leopard will run fine for those who don't want (or can't use) 10.6, and a year or two later all of a sudden PPC macs are 5+ years old and so buy a new machine for 10.7.
Its perhaps not completely ideal, but perfectly understandable. You might say I fall under the category "have a PPC, but would pay for new hardware to run 10.6" - but mostly because by then my computer (one of the latest PPCs) will be almost FOUR years old, which I find reasonable.
Its really a non-starter IMO. Who would upgrade to 10.6 with no new features, significant major apps broken (office, FCS, CS3) and many machines unsupported?
Who would pay for that?
give me my damned ZFS!
That was my thought when I saw this. It seems a bit soon for a major overhaul but totally expected for things we were hoping would have been in 10.4.
64-bit won't necessarily mean discontinue 32-bit support, it could simply be that they will make the system fully 64-bit i.e. the Carbon API, which currently isn't.
I guess they could discontinue 32-bit support as it would only affect the Core Duo models but that's still a lot of machines so I don't see it.
I would agree with a decision to drop PPC support. It does seem a bit early to do that but it's for the best. It cuts down code bloat and it lets developers focus on x86 specific optimization.
When did Mac users become a bunch of Chicken Littles?
When we got a massive influx of switchers who still haven't shaken off the PTSD inflicted by MS.
When we got a massive influx of switchers who still haven't shaken off the PTSD inflicted by MS.
Yeah...that is what I was pretty much hinting at.
I think it is too early to drop Power PC support. What exactly does the Intel CPU provide that the Power PC doesn't? (leave performance aside). The universal binaries have been working very well for several years now. Is there is a compelling reason to ditch universal binaries?
You seem to think that the performance advantage offered up by Intel is only marginal, frankly it is not marginal but rather substantial even when the first Intel machine arrived. There is a reason Apple use to focus on Alt-Vec performance all those years ago, that is simply due to PPC's crappy integer performance. It is integer performance that makes for snappy workstation performance for the main stream.
As to universal binaries sure they have been around for a while but frankly so what. You don't see Apple supporting 68000 any more do you?
The fact is Apple needs to make a break form the past. Of course they need to do that in a way that doesn't offend the customer so I suspect that we will see 10.5.x go into some sort of long term support. Maybe they will commit to supporting 10.5 till the end of 2010
In any event I suspect that Apple is in a position where they simply don't have much of a choice form the standpoint of what is feasible for a 64 bit OS. There is a lot of technology built into current generation CPU's that simply isn't in the older generation. Apple needs to leverage some of that technology to improve Mac OS/X and the user experience. I could actually see them dropping support for some classes of Intel hardware also. In any event this is nothing to get worked up about as it will be two years out before users are impacted.
Dave
New ArsTechnica article. They say it will be called Snow Leopard and all drop Carbon support:
Apple lack of a good desktop and the weak screens in the imacs is keeping people on PPC. The high price of the mini for it's hardware is a trun off as well.
$799.00 for 1gb of ram, 120GB 5400 rpm hd, 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, no Keyboard & Mouse, and pos old intel gma x950 What a joke.
Yup, troll sighting confirmed...
64-bit won't necessarily mean discontinue 32-bit support, it could simply be that they will make the system fully 64-bit i.e. the Carbon API, which currently isn't.
They already announced they were dropping 64bit Carbon support LAST WWDC which caught Adobe out somewhat. Now the rumour is Carbon goes entirely because they're dropping 32bit support for any technology. That'll please Adobe, who's CS4 apps are still 32bit.
New ArsTechnica article. They say it will be called Snow Leopard and all drop Carbon support:
If true, dropping Carbon is because they've dropped 32bit. Carbon is 32bit only. That makes sense.
I think it's highly unlikely given all the 32bit apps still around and major apps that are still going to be 32bit.
The suggestion that 32bit apps run in some kind of WOW 32bit virtual machine like Windows 64bit does is just silly. OSX doesn't do that now so why would they adopt that crappy system?
I still think this isn't 10.6. Someone has got their wires crossed and 'Snow Leopard' is Apple's OS for their consumer devices like the AppleTV/iPod/iPhone where they don't need carbon or 'legacy' 32bit compatibility.
They already announced they were dropping 64bit Carbon support LAST WWDC which caught Adobe out somewhat. Now the rumour is Carbon goes entirely because they're dropping 32bit support for any technology. That'll please Adobe, who's CS4 apps are still 32bit.
If true, dropping Carbon is because they've dropped 32bit. Carbon is 32bit only. That makes sense.
I think it's highly unlikely given all the 32bit apps still around and major apps that are still going to be 32bit.
The suggestion that 32bit apps run in some kind of WOW 32bit virtual machine like Windows 64bit does is just silly. OSX doesn't do that now so why would they adopt that crappy system?
I still think this isn't 10.6. Someone has got their wires crossed and 'Snow Leopard' is Apple's OS for their consumer devices like the AppleTV/iPod/iPhone where they don't need carbon or 'legacy' 32bit compatibility.
They dropped Carbon 64 to force the developers to move to Cocoa. Cocoa as 32 bit has always been. It's not a Cocoa is 64 only issue.
I think Apple would drop Native 32-bit support. I'm not saying that 10.6 won't run 32-bit apps but it would likely have to use a 64-bit version of Rosetta that runs 32-bit apps in a compatibility mode.
Apple needs to provide the developer tools to easily create optimized 64-bit apps but they would indeed be foolish by not offering a "bridge" from the 32-bit world.
The better question is "what's the advantage of keeping PPC and 32-bit support?" Apple is in the business of selling computer hardware and software. Why should they extend so many developer resources towards hardware they sold 4 years ago? Leopard will be fine for most PPC machines and those that need power will be looking to refresh to 64-bit soon enough. May as well give'em something stable to move to.
you don't need Rosetta to run 32bit x86 apps on 64bit x86 cpus.
And what is the point some of there systems only ship 1gb base ram at the most the base systems have 2gb.
The laptop ram and only 2 ram slots in the imac, mini, and there laptop makes ram use over 4gb not likely any time soon. You can get 2x2gb ddr2 desktop ram for around $100 and for around $200 you can get 4x2gb ddr2 desktop ram. But 2x4gb laptop ram will cost A LOT MORE.