This is the right move at the right time. Well done Apple!
The other question is whether or not Snow Leopard will run on 32bit Intel Macs. I think it would be a good time to drop support for them too.
I imagine someone who bought a brand new 32-bit Mac Mini in July 2007 would be a little miffed at not being able to run the latest operating system only two years later.
If Apple continue to support 10.5 with "point release" updates and minor improvements at the same time as supporting 10.6, then a "64-bit Intel only" 10.6 would be less of an issue.
It is likely that any application which requires 10.6 will be doing so for performance reasons, and with the exception of high-end G5s, PowerPC and 32-bit Intel models aren't likely to have enough grunt to be able to run this sort of application anyway.
Yet it's a pretty strong indication. Why would they have built it as Intel only when it's no harder for them to have built it universal. All signs are pointing to the end of PPC binaries. But for G5 owners it's not that bad, Snow Leopard isn't out for another year and Leopard is still pretty good...it's not like "OMG I've gotta go out and buy a new Mac NOW!!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_lha
Yes! Its absolutely possible. This "It's Official" stuff is pure crap. It will only be official when Apple announces that Snow Leopard is Intel only. Right now a developers preview first release working on Intel only is not good enough evidence in my mind.
This is the right move at the right time. Well done Apple!
The other question is whether or not Snow Leopard will run on 32bit Intel Macs. I think it would be a good time to drop support for them too.
Not to the large number of users that embraced Apple's switch to Intel. I can see the logic for eliminating an older architecture like PPC from this OS upgrade, but I can't see how it would be good to drop the initial Core Duo Macs as well. It's hard to believe Apple would exclude machines only 2 years old...
I read an article last week, which I can't find now, that opined about Apple's strategy with Snow Leopard. The author suggested that Apple might use 10.6 as a lever to move users toward Intel machines exclusively, and would give the update away.
This makes sense to me. From the day that Apple announced the Intel transition, we knew that a day would come when PPC was no longer supported. Any one who bought a Power Mac during the summer of 06 had to know that they were buying a machine that would have a shorter supported life span than a typical Mac.
By giving 10.6 way, Apple would be able to increase the performance of the newest computers, while not completely ostracizing the PPC folks. Furthermore, there would be no surprise when 10.7 debuts as Intel only. I'm not sure how revenue will affect this decision. Judging from Apple's approach to the iPod Touch's SW updates, I could see Apple charging something for SL. However, I think it will be, as the name implies, an extension of Leopard instead of a full-blown replacement.
bad for edu and xserve. lots of g5s recent in both ecosystems
That's nice. My experience with edu is that they don't spend money to keep their systems up to date, anyway. And many servers also just keep running on the system that they were purchased with. If it's a mission critical server, then they're likely to be buying new hardware periodically, anyway. So neither of those is very convincing arguments for keeping PPC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maddan
Actually I will be disappointed if Snow Leopard doesn't support that handful of Macs because Apple has made a big deal about the portability of OS X! Quite frankly it doesn't look like Snow Leopard will pay off with any 2 core or less machines except perhaps as a Intel machine bug fix.
Not quite true. OpenCL and Exchange support might be very important features for some people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Freddy
Steve, I wish you happy milking the Macintosh for all it's worth. You are th true Pied Piper of Hamelin. The rats will follow you.
Tiger running on an eeePC.
So we're supposed to take advice from someone who's illegally running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware? Sorry, I don't listen to criminals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling
This is the right move at the right time. Well done Apple!
The other question is whether or not Snow Leopard will run on 32bit Intel Macs. I think it would be a good time to drop support for them too.
I agree, but for another reason. The amount of work to maintain PPC in addition to Intel is substantial. The amount of work to maintain 32 bit as well as 64 bit Intel isn't that much. Since the amount of work is minimal, it makes sense to keep 32 bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad
I have two big problems with 10.5.x as the last PPC OS:
1. According to the people at rixstep.com Leopard sucks. Apple made serious under-the-hood mistakes that affect the very foundation of the OS and I know that 10.5.5 or even 10.5.65 won't fix that. Those in the PowerPC camp are going to be left with crappy OS for the rest of time.
Who the heck is rixstep and why should I believe their whining? According to Consumer Reports, customer satisfaction with Leopard is huge. While there are some problems with Leopard, they're being fixed and there's no evidence of widespread problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad
Apple is making big steps toward market share in enterprise with the iPhone, Exchange support and push technology. Telling the business world that 3 year old computers are obsolete is an insane move that will further convince CIOs and their IT departments not to take Apple seriously. Real enterprises use 6 year old hardware and it runs the same OS as their 6 day old hardware. Apple's game of abandoning older hardware, something they've been doing their entire history, is going to hold them back big time.
Those businesses aren't going to care. There were very few PPC computers in business. The gains in business are recent.
Furthermore, you're wrong about 'real enterprises'. We routinely replace computers in 3-4 years at our small business and that appears to be typical. And we almost never upgrade OSs on computers. The computer runs whatever OS it came with until it's time to replace the computer.
Furthermore, to claim that Apple has abandoned old hardware throughout their history is absurd. The Apple II was supported for over a decade after the computer stopped being sold. Being able to install the latest OS on 7-10 year old computers is not that unusual for Macs.
If Apple 'only' supports 3.5 year old computers once in their history due to an architecture change, it's not going to be a big deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
That's fine for professional users where an investment in a new Mac is an investment your business. But what about all the families with multiple Macs? I have a new MBP, but with the purchase, the PPC PowerBook went to the grandparents. A PPC mini is serving as a file server for iTunes, Time Machine, and FrontRow files. Kids have the old iBook, and a neice as the old PPC minitower. For us, all those "old platforms" are perfectly serviceable because "speed and performance" are not critical. The household budget is critical!
If there are truly no new features and Leopard is compatible with Snow Leopard, then it's really not an issue. But what if a Time Machine backup from a Snow Leopard machine can only be done if the target disk is hosted by another Snow Leopard machine? Then I'd have to buy a new file server, too. Or what if a MobileMe or iChatAV feature become dependent on having 10.6? All those other machines would need to be upgraded, too. You could simply say to not upgrade any machine to 10.6. But then if I need to get a new Mac a year from now, and 10.6 is the only option, what then?
I really don't think it'll be a big issue (but if the Time Machine senario comes true I'll be upset about having to replace a perfectly capable server). I expect that Apple would continue service upgrades and support for 10.5 users. But if some compatibility issue does come up, it's not as simple as just buying a single new computer if you are a family or small business.
You're making a lot of strange assumptions. Why not wait until you know something before complaining?
Macs have generally done exceptionally well at supporting intercompatibility between OS versions. Running Mac OS 6 and 10.x on the same network was a piece of cake. I don't see any reason to think 10.5 and 10.6 on the same network would be any different.
Worst case scenario is that you might need a new Time Machine - but even that is very unlikely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maddan
No, it's Lion and Nittany Lion. Why not name an OS for extinct computers after an extinct mountain lion?
We only have an specification list for the Developer Preview though, not Snow Leopard itself. I personally won't believe it until its listed on the Apple Snow Leopard page that its Intel only, anything up to then is speculation only. Apple could well have their reasons for limiting the DP to Intel only right now after all, we don't know their internal process.
Given Apple's history on dumping outdated technology, an elimination of PowerPC after 2+ years of Intel availability seems reasonable and is to be expected. Afterall Macs stopped booting OS 9 as soon as 10.2 was released in 2003 and eliminated Classic Mode altogether just two years later with the introduction of Intel Macs. Here's a link to the cNET UK article: http://news.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39...9189808,00.htm
As a Mac user you should expect these things by now. Apple lives on the bleeding edge; they'd be dead by now if they didn't. They depend on Mac users buying new Macs every two years and you'll get no sympathy from them if you don't. That's pretty much the idea behind the Airbook. They figure after two years you'll need a new battery and you'll just go get the newer version of the Airbook to be current with the latest technology.
It's not about right or wrong, it's just business. Don't like it, go buy a Windows PC.
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.
My biggest concern is new apps that are 10.6 only, or devs all dumping PPC support once apple does. That's a huge deal.
And there are other features completely unrelated to hardware.
And you're making a big assumption that 10.5 will keep getting improved and supported after 10.6 ships. What would make you think that? Apple has never done it before other than some security fixes and iTunes updates (which they only do because it lets them keep selling content and iPods). Apple has never supported OS's beyond the next one shipping with the exception of 10.4.11, which only shipped a couple weeks after 10.5.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen
um, no. our 2.4 core2duo imacs here smoke our quad g5's in encoding, and most - if not all - other non-GPU uses.
I said MOST, not all. There are many intel macs slower than yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
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?
Are you sure that the optimizations only apply to dual CORE machines and not dual processor machines? From a software standpoint, aren't they virtually the same? There were plenty of dual G5 machines out there that could benefit from this as well. And there are benefits beyond multicore optimization such as exchange support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.metcalf
Yet it's a pretty strong indication. Why would they have built it as Intel only when it's no harder for them to have built it universal.
Then why did they build the first dev releases of 10.5 as intel only?
I agree that it doesn't look good for PPC support, but to call it "official" simply isn't true.
So has anyone at the dev conference asked Apple if PPC will be supported or not?
This seems pretty silly that Apple has said nothing and people are having to guess based on various things - has there been any other info to clarify one way or another?
Yeah, but its all covered by NDA's. Developers at WWDC know, but can't say.
Well, of course. No developer would ever violate an NDA. There's NEVER pre-release information about OS X.
I think it's more likely that Apple has made a preliminary decision to drop PPC, but doesn't want to announce it as a formal decision yet, for 2 reasons:
1. There might be some reason to change their mind later - keeping the option open is a good idea.
2. If they announce today that they're dropping PPC, there will be a lot more complaints than if they wait a year to announce it when they release the product.
As a Mac user you should expect these things by now. Apple lives on the bleeding edge; they'd be dead by now if they didn't. They depend on Mac users buying new Macs every two years and you'll get no sympathy from them if you don't. That's pretty much the idea behind the Airbook. They figure after two years you'll need a new battery and you'll just go get the newer version of the Airbook to be current with the latest technology.
It's not about right or wrong, it's just business. Don't like it, go buy a Windows PC.
Exactly, all computers have a short lifespan, in my eyes, 3 years is old enough.
Comments
Well I guess it is now safe to say that there will be no PowerBook G5.
Don't forget : you read it here first !
Well, yeah, this definitely settles it.
This is the right move at the right time. Well done Apple!
The other question is whether or not Snow Leopard will run on 32bit Intel Macs. I think it would be a good time to drop support for them too.
I imagine someone who bought a brand new 32-bit Mac Mini in July 2007 would be a little miffed at not being able to run the latest operating system only two years later.
If Apple continue to support 10.5 with "point release" updates and minor improvements at the same time as supporting 10.6, then a "64-bit Intel only" 10.6 would be less of an issue.
It is likely that any application which requires 10.6 will be doing so for performance reasons, and with the exception of high-end G5s, PowerPC and 32-bit Intel models aren't likely to have enough grunt to be able to run this sort of application anyway.
Yes! Its absolutely possible. This "It's Official" stuff is pure crap. It will only be official when Apple announces that Snow Leopard is Intel only. Right now a developers preview first release working on Intel only is not good enough evidence in my mind.
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.
I totally agree.
This is the right move at the right time. Well done Apple!
The other question is whether or not Snow Leopard will run on 32bit Intel Macs. I think it would be a good time to drop support for them too.
Not to the large number of users that embraced Apple's switch to Intel. I can see the logic for eliminating an older architecture like PPC from this OS upgrade, but I can't see how it would be good to drop the initial Core Duo Macs as well. It's hard to believe Apple would exclude machines only 2 years old...
This makes sense to me. From the day that Apple announced the Intel transition, we knew that a day would come when PPC was no longer supported. Any one who bought a Power Mac during the summer of 06 had to know that they were buying a machine that would have a shorter supported life span than a typical Mac.
By giving 10.6 way, Apple would be able to increase the performance of the newest computers, while not completely ostracizing the PPC folks. Furthermore, there would be no surprise when 10.7 debuts as Intel only. I'm not sure how revenue will affect this decision. Judging from Apple's approach to the iPod Touch's SW updates, I could see Apple charging something for SL. However, I think it will be, as the name implies, an extension of Leopard instead of a full-blown replacement.
your lighting must suck.
ive never ONCE had an issue with the screen. its really nice. get a new job. hahaha.
To turn the tables, how do we know it's not your eyes that suck?
bad for edu and xserve. lots of g5s recent in both ecosystems
That's nice. My experience with edu is that they don't spend money to keep their systems up to date, anyway. And many servers also just keep running on the system that they were purchased with. If it's a mission critical server, then they're likely to be buying new hardware periodically, anyway. So neither of those is very convincing arguments for keeping PPC.
Actually I will be disappointed if Snow Leopard doesn't support that handful of Macs because Apple has made a big deal about the portability of OS X! Quite frankly it doesn't look like Snow Leopard will pay off with any 2 core or less machines except perhaps as a Intel machine bug fix.
Not quite true. OpenCL and Exchange support might be very important features for some people.
Steve, I wish you happy milking the Macintosh for all it's worth. You are th true Pied Piper of Hamelin. The rats will follow you.
Tiger running on an eeePC.
So we're supposed to take advice from someone who's illegally running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware? Sorry, I don't listen to criminals.
This is the right move at the right time. Well done Apple!
The other question is whether or not Snow Leopard will run on 32bit Intel Macs. I think it would be a good time to drop support for them too.
I agree, but for another reason. The amount of work to maintain PPC in addition to Intel is substantial. The amount of work to maintain 32 bit as well as 64 bit Intel isn't that much. Since the amount of work is minimal, it makes sense to keep 32 bit.
I have two big problems with 10.5.x as the last PPC OS:
1. According to the people at rixstep.com Leopard sucks. Apple made serious under-the-hood mistakes that affect the very foundation of the OS and I know that 10.5.5 or even 10.5.65 won't fix that. Those in the PowerPC camp are going to be left with crappy OS for the rest of time.
Who the heck is rixstep and why should I believe their whining? According to Consumer Reports, customer satisfaction with Leopard is huge. While there are some problems with Leopard, they're being fixed and there's no evidence of widespread problems.
Apple is making big steps toward market share in enterprise with the iPhone, Exchange support and push technology. Telling the business world that 3 year old computers are obsolete is an insane move that will further convince CIOs and their IT departments not to take Apple seriously. Real enterprises use 6 year old hardware and it runs the same OS as their 6 day old hardware. Apple's game of abandoning older hardware, something they've been doing their entire history, is going to hold them back big time.
Those businesses aren't going to care. There were very few PPC computers in business. The gains in business are recent.
Furthermore, you're wrong about 'real enterprises'. We routinely replace computers in 3-4 years at our small business and that appears to be typical. And we almost never upgrade OSs on computers. The computer runs whatever OS it came with until it's time to replace the computer.
Furthermore, to claim that Apple has abandoned old hardware throughout their history is absurd. The Apple II was supported for over a decade after the computer stopped being sold. Being able to install the latest OS on 7-10 year old computers is not that unusual for Macs.
If Apple 'only' supports 3.5 year old computers once in their history due to an architecture change, it's not going to be a big deal.
That's fine for professional users where an investment in a new Mac is an investment your business. But what about all the families with multiple Macs? I have a new MBP, but with the purchase, the PPC PowerBook went to the grandparents. A PPC mini is serving as a file server for iTunes, Time Machine, and FrontRow files. Kids have the old iBook, and a neice as the old PPC minitower. For us, all those "old platforms" are perfectly serviceable because "speed and performance" are not critical. The household budget is critical!
If there are truly no new features and Leopard is compatible with Snow Leopard, then it's really not an issue. But what if a Time Machine backup from a Snow Leopard machine can only be done if the target disk is hosted by another Snow Leopard machine? Then I'd have to buy a new file server, too. Or what if a MobileMe or iChatAV feature become dependent on having 10.6? All those other machines would need to be upgraded, too. You could simply say to not upgrade any machine to 10.6. But then if I need to get a new Mac a year from now, and 10.6 is the only option, what then?
I really don't think it'll be a big issue (but if the Time Machine senario comes true I'll be upset about having to replace a perfectly capable server). I expect that Apple would continue service upgrades and support for 10.5 users. But if some compatibility issue does come up, it's not as simple as just buying a single new computer if you are a family or small business.
You're making a lot of strange assumptions. Why not wait until you know something before complaining?
Macs have generally done exceptionally well at supporting intercompatibility between OS versions. Running Mac OS 6 and 10.x on the same network was a piece of cake. I don't see any reason to think 10.5 and 10.6 on the same network would be any different.
Worst case scenario is that you might need a new Time Machine - but even that is very unlikely.
No, it's Lion and Nittany Lion. Why not name an OS for extinct computers after an extinct mountain lion?
Sounds great to me. Go Nittany Lions.
your lighting must suck.
ive never ONCE had an issue with the screen. its really nice. get a new job. hahaha.
Well, if you haven't had a problem, then no one else has either. hahaha
Well, if you haven't had a problem, then no one else has either. hahaha
well if you've had a problem, everyone else must have as well!
Weighing other factors too explained before by the others here, I am inclined to believe that Kasper is right.
Same here, but I'm not willing to state that it's 'Official'.
We only have an specification list for the Developer Preview though, not Snow Leopard itself. I personally won't believe it until its listed on the Apple Snow Leopard page that its Intel only, anything up to then is speculation only. Apple could well have their reasons for limiting the DP to Intel only right now after all, we don't know their internal process.
Given Apple's history on dumping outdated technology, an elimination of PowerPC after 2+ years of Intel availability seems reasonable and is to be expected. Afterall Macs stopped booting OS 9 as soon as 10.2 was released in 2003 and eliminated Classic Mode altogether just two years later with the introduction of Intel Macs. Here's a link to the cNET UK article: http://news.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39...9189808,00.htm
As a Mac user you should expect these things by now. Apple lives on the bleeding edge; they'd be dead by now if they didn't. They depend on Mac users buying new Macs every two years and you'll get no sympathy from them if you don't. That's pretty much the idea behind the Airbook. They figure after two years you'll need a new battery and you'll just go get the newer version of the Airbook to be current with the latest technology.
It's not about right or wrong, it's just business. Don't like it, go buy a Windows PC.
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.
My biggest concern is new apps that are 10.6 only, or devs all dumping PPC support once apple does. That's a huge deal.
And there are other features completely unrelated to hardware.
And you're making a big assumption that 10.5 will keep getting improved and supported after 10.6 ships. What would make you think that? Apple has never done it before other than some security fixes and iTunes updates (which they only do because it lets them keep selling content and iPods). Apple has never supported OS's beyond the next one shipping with the exception of 10.4.11, which only shipped a couple weeks after 10.5.
um, no. our 2.4 core2duo imacs here smoke our quad g5's in encoding, and most - if not all - other non-GPU uses.
I said MOST, not all. There are many intel macs slower than yours.
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?
Are you sure that the optimizations only apply to dual CORE machines and not dual processor machines? From a software standpoint, aren't they virtually the same? There were plenty of dual G5 machines out there that could benefit from this as well. And there are benefits beyond multicore optimization such as exchange support.
Yet it's a pretty strong indication. Why would they have built it as Intel only when it's no harder for them to have built it universal.
Then why did they build the first dev releases of 10.5 as intel only?
I agree that it doesn't look good for PPC support, but to call it "official" simply isn't true.
This seems pretty silly that Apple has said nothing and people are having to guess based on various things - has there been any other info to clarify one way or another?
Yeah, but its all covered by NDA's. Developers at WWDC know, but can't say.
Well, of course. No developer would ever violate an NDA. There's NEVER pre-release information about OS X.
I think it's more likely that Apple has made a preliminary decision to drop PPC, but doesn't want to announce it as a formal decision yet, for 2 reasons:
1. There might be some reason to change their mind later - keeping the option open is a good idea.
2. If they announce today that they're dropping PPC, there will be a lot more complaints than if they wait a year to announce it when they release the product.
Same here, but I'm not willing to state that it's 'Official'.
That's right, it will be **official** when Apple officially will say so.
As a Mac user you should expect these things by now. Apple lives on the bleeding edge; they'd be dead by now if they didn't. They depend on Mac users buying new Macs every two years and you'll get no sympathy from them if you don't. That's pretty much the idea behind the Airbook. They figure after two years you'll need a new battery and you'll just go get the newer version of the Airbook to be current with the latest technology.
It's not about right or wrong, it's just business. Don't like it, go buy a Windows PC.
Exactly, all computers have a short lifespan, in my eyes, 3 years is old enough.
Yeah, but its all covered by NDA's. Developers at WWDC know, but can't say.
If they really do know, anyone willing to share that info?