iLife '09 not fully compatible with PowerPC Macs

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 48
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hillstones View Post


    You would have to be pretty stupid not to realize that Snow Leopard only runs on Intel.



    So why doesn't apple just come out and announce it?



    And for the record, with 10.5, early developer releases were intel only with PPC support released later in the dev cycle, so that's not evidence of anything.
  • Reply 22 of 48
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,787member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hillstones View Post


    You would have to be pretty stupid not to realize that Snow Leopard only runs on Intel. It is no secret. Ever since it was first announced and developers were testing early versions, it was documented that it only ran on Intel hardware. They are not going to suddenly throw in PowerPC support at the end. The PowerPC is not in Apple's future, and it has already been three years since the first Intel Mac arrived. The Intel optimizations won't benefit a PowerPC Mac, and you are not getting any major features in Snow Leopard.



    But you know damn well people with PPC Macs are going to buy SL and expect it to work. Not everyone in the world follows Mac news 24/7.



    Apple should just come out and say (perhaps when they release it for pre-order) Snow Leopard will be Intel Mac only. I'm sure developers are up to speed with this already but the agreement they have with Apple prevents them from saying so?
  • Reply 23 of 48
    Well, I guess I'll point it out since no one else has yet.



    This quote (the first words of the first sentence of the article!):

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Apple is slowly dropping PowerPC compatibility with its latest software releases ...



    ... is total BS and based on nothing.



    You guys need a few lessons in logic and writing. The single data point of one application, in one of two suites of apps made by Apple, having one feature that is not supported on PPC in no way supports the assertion that "Apple is slowly dropping PowerPC compatibility with it's latest software releases."



    What are you guys, nuts?



    You can speculate that this is the case, you can talk about the inevitability of this happening someday, you can even whine on about your "feelings" or have a "hunch," but you shouldn't just be making crap up like this.



    You could even be 100% right about the trend, but if you put a statement like that in an article you have an obligation to back it up with something. (anything!)



    It's also, as many have pointed out, old news.
  • Reply 24 of 48
    cubertcubert Posts: 728member
    Apparently (I don't have iLife '09 yet), the free lessons can be played on a PPC by finding the files buried down in the Application Support folder under the user's library folder. Just double-click.
  • Reply 25 of 48
    cubertcubert Posts: 728member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


    If Apple is dumping PPC support, they need to find the balls to come out and announce it instead of leaving everyone in the dark, both users and developers.







    Actually, less than 3 years, the tower didn't switch from G5 to intel until august 2006.



    My biggest concern is that there will be apps that won't run on 10.5, say if Logic 8.1 ships this fall.



    EXACTLY! If Apple ships Snow Leopard in June, that will be less than 3 years of support for a hardware product. Very Microsoftian if you ask me.
  • Reply 26 of 48
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macxpress View Post


    But you know damn well people with PPC Macs are going to buy SL and expect it to work. Not everyone in the world follows Mac news 24/7.



    Apple should just come out and say (perhaps when they release it for pre-order) Snow Leopard will be Intel Mac only. I'm sure developers are up to speed with this already but the agreement they have with Apple prevents them from saying so?



    On every product that Apple sells, there is full disclosure re system requirements. Are you suggesting that Apple would change this standard policy?



    Are you suggesting that PPC owners are so stupid that they would unilaterally buy any product without checking the system requirements first?



    Or are you just saying that people are so stupid there should be a 'black' box warning on everything we buy? Would it matter? Perhaps for most, but there will always be stupid people, just like those that buy cigarettes.
  • Reply 27 of 48
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,153member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


    If Apple is dumping PPC support, they need to find the balls to come out and announce it instead of leaving everyone in the dark, both users and developers.



    Well I guess they will when they release it. If you own PPC you have two choices either you keep your PPC machine or buy a new Intel Mac. It's not like you are going to buy a new PPC Mac, which does not exist anymore, if Apple announces that SL is compatible with PPC! I don't think it is leaving anyone in the dark since your choices won't change. IMO they are doing you a favor by keeping you from buying a new Mac until this issue is finalized. Maybe new machine will be available that take full advantage of SL when they release it.
  • Reply 28 of 48
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cubert View Post


    EXACTLY! If Apple ships Snow Leopard in June, that will be less than 3 years of support for a hardware product. Very Microsoftian if you ask me.



    Actually Microsoft's biggest problem is adherence to legacy systems which prevent them from making large architectural changes. They still use a registry for chrissakes.



    A decade ago a computer was likely expected to last 4-5 years and you spent a couple of grand on the thing.



    Today an Intel Mac is $799 and I think computers are expected to last about 3 years. It comes down to the point where I feel like "why the hell am I suffering because someone wants to keep a hold of their legacy Mac for 4 years?"



    If Intel is delivering a new architecture every 24-32 months then Apple certainly needs to be pushing 36 month refresh cycle for their OS IMO.
  • Reply 29 of 48
    pmjoepmjoe Posts: 565member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Apple is slowly dropping PowerPC compatibility with its latest software releases as evidenced by a major new feature of iLife '09 that will function only on Intel-based Macs.



    [...]



    System requirements found on the Apple Store website say, in fine print, "GarageBand Learn to Play requires an Intel-based Mac with a dual-core processor or better."



    That would also exclude single-core Intel-based Macs.
  • Reply 30 of 48
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RoboNerd View Post


    The Universal binary tactic actually has quite a few upsides: we could see three binaries for a while -- PPC, Intel, and an Intel-Snow Leopard binary, optimized for multi-core stations with Grand Central and OpenCL. That would be sweet.



    File sizes are already twice their size now! Three times their size?!? Oh lord!



    Though nice to have UBs for simplicity's sake for those who don't know the difference, I just wish companies would break apart the downloads into PPC and Intel versions to save on downloading times for those of us who DO know. Companies did that before during the transition from the 68k processor. There was the regular download or install and the FAT binary version. Downloading trials such as Adobe's are outlandish in size because there only being a UB version.
  • Reply 31 of 48
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    System requirements found on the Apple Store website say, in fine print, "GarageBand Learn to Play requires an Intel-based Mac with a dual-core processor or better."



    Not if you looked in the right place in the first place. http://www.apple.com/ilife/systemrequirements.html
  • Reply 32 of 48
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by motherbrain View Post


    file sizes are already twice their size now! Three times their size?!? Oh lord!



    Though nice to have ubs for simplicity's sake for those who don't know the difference, i just wish companies would break apart the downloads into ppc and intel versions to save on downloading times for those of us who do know. Companies did that before during the transition from the 68k processor. There was the regular download or install and the fat binary version. Downloading trials such as adobe's are outlandish in size because there only being a ub version.



    ++++1
  • Reply 33 of 48
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


    Well I guess they will when they release it. If you own PPC you have two choices either you keep your PPC machine or buy a new Intel Mac.



    The big choice is WHEN to buy an intel mac. Right now the G5 quad can handle everything I need to do. If 10.6 supports it, I can probably go much longer, but if it doesn't, and software follows suit, it can force an upgrade before the machine has lost its usefulness. This is particularly a big question for corporate purchases that are budgeted well in advance.



    I just don't get the reasoning for Apple not just coming out and saying that it will be intel only, other than they expect a backlash and are being cowards about it.
  • Reply 34 of 48
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post


    If it's not on the box that GarageBand doesn't fully support PPC, then those people should be allowed to get their money back if they want.



    It is clearly stated in the system requirements on the side of the box.
  • Reply 35 of 48
    floccusfloccus Posts: 138member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


    The big choice is WHEN to buy an intel mac. Right now the G5 quad can handle everything I need to do. If 10.6 supports it, I can probably go much longer, but if it doesn't, and software follows suit, it can force an upgrade before the machine has lost its usefulness. This is particularly a big question for corporate purchases that are budgeted well in advance.



    Your implication is that you MUST have the newest version of the software that you currently use. But if your G5 w/ Leopard running whatever it is you currently run works great now, why upgrade anything than simply to upgrade. Unless there are very compelling features that you can't live without (which is unlikely) there's no reason to upgrade. Apple and other software companies can't force you to stop using older programs and equipment that still work.
  • Reply 36 of 48
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,153member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


    If 10.6 supports it, I can probably go much longer, but if it doesn't, and software follows suit, it can force an upgrade before the machine has lost its usefulness.



    You machine will still be useful the same way even after SL is released. Apple will not come to your home or work and force you to replace your PPC machine to use SL. This is your choice.



    Quote:

    This is particularly a big question for corporate purchases that are budgeted well in advance.



    How is that?! If they plan to purchase their new Macs tomorrow their machine will be Intel and will for sure be compatible with SL when released. Furthermore, we don't know exactly when SL will be released but we know it will be during the second half of this year. They have waited 3 years so I guess they can wait few months.
  • Reply 37 of 48
    wilcowilco Posts: 985member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post


    I guess, in the light of the ever increasing demand on performance that these applications seem to require, support for older systems will decline.



    You think?
  • Reply 38 of 48
    iqatedoiqatedo Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wilco View Post


    You think?



    Captain Obvious!
  • Reply 39 of 48
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MotherBrain View Post


    File sizes are already twice their size now! Three times their size?!? Oh lord!



    Though nice to have UBs for simplicity's sake for those who don't know the difference, I just wish companies would break apart the downloads into PPC and Intel versions to save on downloading times for those of us who DO know. Companies did that before during the transition from the 68k processor. There was the regular download or install and the FAT binary version. Downloading trials such as Adobe's are outlandish in size because there only being a UB version.



    For downloads I think it would be wiser to split the binaries as you mentioned, but for disc-based installs, there's no reason to skimp. You could simply build in a feature that performs the same function as Monolingual or similar applications that strip unnecessary language files and legacy binary code.
  • Reply 40 of 48
    No surprises here. iMovie '08 didn't run on PPC Macs either. This is not a new trend.
Sign In or Register to comment.