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

245678

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 160
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Your story does show precedence, but I hope you are wrong this time.



    Though it's hard to argue with a psychic who is replying to your posts before you even make them. What's up with timestamps AI?



    I'd like to take credit for my prescience and powers of prognostication, but yeah... wth?
  • Reply 22 of 160
    IF this is true then apple better have a $800 to $2100 tower then the old g4 and g5 uses can move to as the Imac screen are not that good and the mini is a POS.
  • Reply 23 of 160
    I don't see this as a bad thing really. I mean the feature set is going to stay the same right? Safari 4 will most likely come out for all platforms back to 10.4.



    I work in education and our G5 machines really are starting to seem a little sluggish in comparison to the newer Intel based machines. But in terms of compatibility we'll still be getting Leopard (which we're only upgrading to this year) which will have its usual bug fixes and our newer hardware will be getting an even more optimised version of Leopard (Snow Leopard) to run alongside it.



    If they really are not adding features then to our end users they'll all be Leopard.



    10.7 is when PPC people have to start thinking about "end of life" hardware issues.



    Or am I bonkers?



    Perhaps some people don't realise but with Leopard Server, some features already only work correctly/are officially supported with Intel hardware as it is, Podcast Producer being one of them.



    I think this idea rocks! I wasn't expecting 10.6 for a long time and really it's probably better to think of 10.7 as 10.6..... if you know what I mean.



    Of course, what they do in terms of charging for it is going to be interesting!
  • Reply 24 of 160
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,351member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post


    IF this is true then apple better have a $800 to $2100 tower then the old g4 and g5 uses can move to as the Imac screen are not that good and the mini is a POS.



    Joe



    This is June of 09 , not today friend.





    I think it's a tough but necessary decision from Apple. While they want to support PPC you have yet another platform (iPhone) taking up an immense amount of resources. Apple likely does not have the headcount to continue throwing engineers on legacy engineering so Carbon must give way to Cocoa and PPC must give way to Intel.



    I do agree with Joe_the_dragon on one thing. With the GPU finally gaining some credibility as a general purpose processor it would be nice to see the return of a sub $2k Mac Pro.
  • Reply 25 of 160
    boogabooga Posts: 1,081member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post


    Wrong. The early Rhapsody builds, the Dev Previews handed out at WWDC, required certain *models* of Macs to run on. This is normal. They haven't *removed* PPC support, it's that, to minimize their testing at this point in time, they haven't *done* PPC support. They simply turned it off. Checkbox in Xcode.



    And no shipping Mac that wasn't one of those models was supported by MacOS X 10.0. They did not add support for any shipping Macs... they added support for new Macs, but not any that were already shipping. In fact, they removed support for a couple before 10.0 finally came out.



    Apple almost never adds additional support between developer previews and final releases. (Can you actually name a model that support was added for in any preview->final MacOS X release?)
  • Reply 26 of 160
    I say let PPC die. Do it now.



    Before anyone starts to whine, I own 6 of them.



    Intel is here to stay for the Mac platform. Microsoft is beginning to learn (we knew it) their OS sucks and they need really to fix it (pronounced "total redo"). MS could possibly beat out OS X 10.6 due to a lack of "touchiness" on the Macs part. But I doubt it.



    Apple has said it will focus on enhancing and cleaning up OS X. I agree this is the perfect time to do it. But what they also say is "... Apple is said to be interested less in new features and more on improving the overall speed, stability and security of Macs." Well, since the iPhone is a close family member of OS X, maybe adding touch isn't considered a "new feature". Either way, MS will be dipping its toes in new waters while Apple is taking a system lined with bulletproof glass and replacing it with carbon nanotubes.



    If Snow Leopard is going to make Leopard the fastest, most streamlined, and of course prettiest OS out there, it's time to do it. The eye candy of Windows 7's catch-up to the iPhone is a joke. Maybe they can call it something like "Vista i Touched". The problem lies in public perception.



    Sadly many of us are fish who'll go after anything shiny even if it's bait. Apple has capitalized on this truth, except they've deviated in one major way - the products are great!
  • Reply 27 of 160
    bedouinbedouin Posts: 331member
    Well, I'm convinced. I can't say that it really bothers me though since my heavily upgraded Quicksilver doesn't take too well to OS upgrades. I still have a friend running 10.3 on a G3 iMac and the OS still gets the job done.



    I actually hesitated to upgrade to Leopard, because the perks were so marginal. If I would go back I'm not sure that I'd be missing anything at all; 10.6 seems to be even less important of an upgrade. 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.



    The real downer won't be when Apple drops PPC support from OS X, but when developers decide it's not worth their time supporting 10.5 and lower, or making universal binaries.
  • Reply 28 of 160
    k2directork2director Posts: 194member
    If you're still hoping for PPC support, you're fooling yourself.



    By the time Snow Leopard ships, Apple will have been selling Intel machines for more than 3 years. That's a significant amount of time. Plus, building PowerPC support into Snow Leopard would completely defeat the purpose of Snow Leopard, which is to create a tech foundation for years to come.



    Many of Snow Leopard's features wouldn't even apply to 3 and 4 and 5 year old Macs--for instance, Grand Central is designed to increase efficiency of multi-core Macs that use 4 cores *and beyond*. Only a handful of PPC Macs have 4 cores, much less two, so how would Grand Central really pay off for such old machines?



    Really, you think Apple is going to bother thinking about a dead architecture, more than 3 years gone, as it builds a foundation for OS X 7, OS X 8, etc.? It's just not going to happen.
  • Reply 29 of 160
    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.



    im sure by the time 10.7 comes out, most everyone will have updated their computers.
  • Reply 30 of 160
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I See no valid reason why they would remove PPC support only to add it later on.



    Here's the reason: If Apple promises PPC support now, then tests it later and finds out performance is too buggy/slow, it can't pull that support without angering the G4/G5 masses. Best to wait to test actual builds (as well as gauge actual demand a year from now) before making an official decision. Then developers can find out exactly where the "end of life" hardware line should be drawn.



    Every OS X version has been cross-ported on both PPC and Intel internally at Apple, I don't see why that would change now. I do think 10.6 will be the last PPC OS though: The first "true" Intel-only OS will be a different name because it'll be that big of a marketing deal from Apple's viewpoint.
  • Reply 31 of 160
    bedouinbedouin Posts: 331member
    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.
  • Reply 32 of 160
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by k2director View Post


    Many of Snow Leopard's features wouldn't even apply to 3 and 4 and 5 year old Macs--for instance, Grand Central is designed to increase efficiency of multi-core Macs that use 4 cores *and beyond*. Only a handful of PPC Macs have 4 cores, much less two, so how would Grand Central really pay off for such old machines?



    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?



    Quote:

    Really, you think Apple is going to bother thinking about a dead architecture, more than 3 years gone, as it builds a foundation for OS X 7, OS X 8, etc.? It's just not going to happen.



    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"?
  • Reply 33 of 160
    joedrcjoedrc Posts: 86member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Charybdis View Post


    If they really are not adding features then to our end users they'll all be Leopard.



    10.7 is when PPC people have to start thinking about "end of life" hardware issues.




    Personally I don't understand why some users are clinging to their PPC systems for dear life.

    Its an old platform and in terms of speed and performance it makes sense to upgrade.



    New systems might be expensive but with a better spec its an investment in my eyes
  • Reply 34 of 160
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Booga View Post


    And no shipping Mac that wasn't one of those models was supported by MacOS X 10.0. They did not add support for any shipping Macs... they added support for new Macs, but not any that were already shipping. In fact, they removed support for a couple before 10.0 finally came out.



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



    Quote:

    Apple almost never adds additional support between developer previews and final releases. (Can you actually name a model that support was added for in any preview->final MacOS X release?)



    XGrid. When it first came out in preview, my PowerBook G4 was not supported. I was quite cross, because I was looking forward to trying it out with my research tools. It was supported in a later build, and the final version. Not a full OS, but there is precedent for adding models closer to shipping. This makes sense, really - hammer out the testing of the main functionality on a subset to limit your testing load, then add in new, broader support once the basics are in place. Slower hardware that is useful for preview may get left behind as unsuitable for performance reasons for the final release, of course, but I don't think that's the case here.



    Now, if the headline was "Official: MacOS X Snow Leopard Developer Preview doesn't support PowerPC Macs" I'd consider it a true statement. But that's not the thrust of the article. Until the final version ships, I don't think we can call this one way or another. Is it possible PPC will be dropped? Absolutely. It is OFFICIAL? Hardly.
  • Reply 35 of 160
    ktappektappe Posts: 808member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    There is nothing unfortunate about the move to Intel.



    ...unless you consider that Apple was still selling G5's as recently as 2 years ago. Yes, Apple has over the years abandoned old hardware as new OS'es were released. But I cannot think of a time when the gap between hardware sale and OS abandonment was this short. Heck, Tiger still booted G3's. Leopard still booted 867Mhz G4's. Both of those were WAY more than 2 years old. This is unprecedented and as such is bound to set a few more people off than past releases.
  • Reply 36 of 160
    solsunsolsun Posts: 763member
    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"?



    5 years yes, think about it... Snow Leopard is not going to offer any new features.. The feature set between PPC and Intel will be the same.. While the Intel machines get a performance boost..



    Considering the last PPC machines were released in 2006 and Snow Leopard will be out in 2009, it will likely be another 1 to 2 years after that before the next big cat with actual "new features" is released..



    So were likely looking at 2011 before an OS with new features that the PPC can't run will be out.. That still gives the last of the PPC machines a 5 year lifespan.



    Pretty reasonable.
  • Reply 37 of 160
    bedouinbedouin Posts: 331member
    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.



    I don't like to see Apple at the whims of someone like Intel who has so many other interests. Not to say the situation was any better with Motorola and IBM. Perhaps this acquisition of PA Semiconductor will bring us back to the glory days when a 400mhz G3 beat the pants off a Pentium II. That's what a lot of us wish for.



    We have the upper hand the OS arena, and even in the design arena -- but when it comes to hardware, we have the same stuff the generic PC folks have. It's so similar, that the PC folks are throwing OS X onto any old beige box. A lot of us want to go back to the days when everything about Mac was better -- period, not just the OS and looks of the machines.
  • Reply 38 of 160
    solsunsolsun Posts: 763member
    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.



    I don't like to see Apple at the whims of someone like Intel who has so many other interests. Not to say the situation was any better with Motorola and IBM. Perhaps this acquisition of PA Semiconductor will bring us back to the glory days when a 400mhz G3 beat the pants off a Pentium II. That's what a lot of us wish for.



    We have the upper hand the OS arena, and even in the design arena -- but when it comes to hardware, we have the same stuff the generic PC folks have. It's so similar, that the PC folks are throwing OS X onto any old beige box. A lot of us want to go back to the days when everything about Mac was better -- period, not just the OS and looks of the machines.





    Bitter? Defeated? Thats absolutely ridiculous..



    A Mac is a Mac regardless of who is supplying the CPU chips.. When PPC fell way behind, Intel was the best decision Apple could have made. Today's machines are the best machines they've ever built. Updates are frequent and we've got amazing performance across the line, especially for notebooks.. Something that could have never been done with PPC.



    It's time to get over the nostalgia.



    And BTW: Most of the Intel chips are made, to some extent, for us as well (though, obviously not exclusively.) Think MBA. Apple told Intel what they wanted, Intel delivered it.
  • Reply 39 of 160
    For those wondering why Apple would do this when it clearly already had PPC support before, the answer is simple: resources.



    Apple currently has 4 sets of system libraries it has to maintain: 32-bit PPC, 64-bit PPC, 32-bit Intel, and 64-bit Intel. Each of these has to be completely tested with each release (including updates). That is a HUGE strain on Quality Assurance resources.



    Dropping the PPC will cut that in half, literally.



    The other thing that comes with supporting PPC/Intel and 32/64-bite environments all at the same time is OS bloat. Leopard Installer now comes on a Dual-Layer DVD. I think one of the reasons for this is because of all these system libraries that are needed.



    As a bonus, all the apps can be slimmed down as much. It won't be a 50% savings (like it is with not having to test 2 additional flavors of the OS), but it will dramatically trim down the size of the OS to more a manageable size again -- even as new features get added.



    Those saved resources ultimately leave room for better QA on future OS releases. Some folks have talked about Leopard not being ready for prime time and I think this is directly due to the QA resource issue. Apple is realizing this and solving the problem by moving to Intel-only.



    Also, I think this is good for small developers too. The QA resource squeeze affects them more as they don't usually have the money/time to test PPC/Intel the way that a larger company can.



    If you're concerned about this, start saving now. You've got several months.
  • Reply 40 of 160
    maddanmaddan Posts: 75member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by k2director View Post


    Many of Snow Leopard's features wouldn't even apply to 3 and 4 and 5 year old Macs--for instance, Grand Central is designed to increase efficiency of multi-core Macs that use 4 cores *and beyond*. Only a handful of PPC Macs have 4 cores, much less two, so how would Grand Central really pay off for such old machines?



    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.