PDA

View Full Version : Next Safari INTEL ONLY?




HyperZboy
Jul 3, 2011, 01:28 AM
I just downloaded the latest Webkit nightly and noticed it is no longer a universal binary application and does not run on PowerPC Macs.

So just a warning to PowerPC users.

DON'T UPDATE YOUR LATEST VERSION OF WEBKIT OR YOU'LL HAVE AN UNFORTUNATE SURPRISE! IT WON'T WORK AT ALL!

Fortunately, the previous nightly build r89812 which is a universal binary is still available. But don't download r90316, the latest. It is INTEL ONLY. It could be an upload error, I don't know. I found no news on the site to confirm that the change was deliberate.

The question begs though.

Does this mean the imminent end of Safari support for PowerPC Macs?

If so this would be a very sleazy move by Apple considering they still support Windows XP. It would make Apple's support for Safari better on Windows machines than for lifelong Mac owners like me that still have both Intel and PowerPC Macs, basically a kick in the balls to loyal Mac owners and buyers.



soco
Jul 3, 2011, 01:32 AM
Your excessive caps and bold make me feel like you're really hyper.

Oh wait... ;)

Honestly though, I'd like to see PPC left behind. Go spend money on shiny new Apple stuffs!

dontwalkhand
Jul 3, 2011, 01:33 AM
This would piss me off as well as I prefer using my G5 when I'm at home as opposed to my MacBook. The g5 has plenty of life left in it. Especially if they still decide to support Windows XP but not Leopard!

42streetsdown
Jul 3, 2011, 01:37 AM
I'm not surprised that they're dropping support. You could try and compile your own nightlys if you like. :)

Intell
Jul 3, 2011, 01:38 AM
Judging by Apple's support of only the current and previous Mac OS X releases. PowerPC Macs will be dead in Apple's eyes very soon. iTunes may be the last universal program to be updated once Lion ships.

HyperZboy
Jul 3, 2011, 02:02 AM
Your excessive caps and bold make me feel like you're really hyper.

Oh wait... ;)

Honestly though, I'd like to see PPC left behind. Go spend money on shiny new Apple stuffs!

Yes and meanwhile Apple continues to support Windows XP but not Leopard?

Are you kidding me???

And my usage of caps and bold was specifically to warn people they'll be downloading a useless update that won't work without warning since there is nothing on the website to tell you in advance.

The update will simply render Webkit useless without warning. I think caps/bold was important for that reason.


PS: HyperZ refers to an ATI Radeon graphics feature by the way for those not in the know. :p

HyperZboy
Jul 3, 2011, 02:30 AM
Let's not forget, this could be an error. It is a nightly.

As far as I can see, there is no official announcement that Webkit is no longer PowerPC supported that I could find.

I just know for a fact the latest nightly download is Intel only.

HyperZboy
Jul 3, 2011, 06:31 AM
Ok, the last 2 nightly builds of Webkit have been INTEL ONLY, so I think that confirms it even though no announcement has been made.

Apple will actually support Safari on Windows XP, but NOT it's OWN Macs of the same age or newer.

That is truly pathetic if it turns out true.

Caveat: Apple could easily create a PPC build of the INTEL Webkit, but I think it's unlikely.

Apple is clearly throwing its own lifelong customers under the bus again.

Sad.

burnout8488
Jul 3, 2011, 12:05 PM
Well, won't TenFourFox run better on our PPC macs anyways?

The newest versions of Safari won't necessarily be the fastest browsers for our PPCs. They're getting old now you know! There comes a point where the newest version of Safari simply won't even run well. I doubt that's come yet, (It certainly has for old old old Macs) but Apple is pulling the plug before the problem surfaces most likely.

tom vilsack
Jul 3, 2011, 01:45 PM
does anyone use safari? with tenfourfox,camino ect...it's kinda a non issue.

SuperJudge
Jul 3, 2011, 01:59 PM
Apple will actually support Safari on Windows XP, but NOT it's OWN Macs of the same age or newer.

That is truly pathetic if it turns out true.

Can we please stop trotting this out to shame Apple? It's not malice. It's percentages. Do you know what percentage of Windows users are still on XP? Between 50 and 60% depending on who you talk to. Do you know what percentage of Macs in the wild are Intel and running Leopard or better? Upwards of 75% and perhaps as high as 90%.

I don't like it, but I can understand it because it's about effective use of resources. You don't spend a great deal of time on an increasingly fringe platform. PPC is great, but it's starting to get long in the tooth on the desktop and it's not very well embraced outside of a small enthusiast set. This doesn't bother me, though. Having been a longtime Linux user, this is something to which I had grown accustomed. I will say this: if Lion is going the direction it appears to be going with regard to the App Store, Snow Leopard is the absolute end of the line for me and I'm going back to white boxen with Linux.

DesmoPilot
Jul 3, 2011, 02:24 PM
Ok, the last 2 nightly builds of Webkit have been INTEL ONLY, so I think that confirms it even though no announcement has been made.

Apple will actually support Safari on Windows XP, but NOT it's OWN Macs of the same age or newer.

That is truly pathetic if it turns out true.

Caveat: Apple could easily create a PPC build of the INTEL Webkit, but I think it's unlikely.

Apple is clearly throwing its own lifelong customers under the bus again.

Sad.

You knew this day was coming the day the Intel machines were announced half a decade ago, how on earth are you actually shocked at this? Apple is moving forward at the appropriate time. PPC machines are at least 5 years old now, sorry but time to move on. Not to mention, can only imagine the small percentage of OS X users still using PPC machines, a number which will only dwindle.

HyperZboy
Jul 3, 2011, 09:53 PM
I have an Intel Mac. I have many Macs.

I simply refuse to throw out a superior machine like a high end tricked out PowerMac G5 for a low end slower less capable Mac Mini.

Who pays money to downgrade?

I understand the percentages of PPC vs. XP. But, it's not like Apple doesn't have the cash. They just spent 2 billion on NORTEL and they can't spend less than $1 million on their lifelong customers?

Like Apple doesn't have the resources that the TenFourFox people have? PLEASE! :mad:

I do have TenFourFox by the way, but Camino is turning to webkit I read, so that won't be an option.

Is Apple really going to throw it's lifelong users under the bus with Safari?

That's pretty sad in my opinion.

VanneDC
Jul 3, 2011, 09:56 PM
i use safari, much much nicer than 10-4 or Camino.

soco
Jul 3, 2011, 09:58 PM
Yes and meanwhile Apple continues to support Windows XP but not Leopard?

Are you kidding me???

And my usage of caps and bold was specifically to warn people they'll be downloading a useless update that won't work without warning since there is nothing on the website to tell you in advance.

The update will simply render Webkit useless without warning. I think caps/bold was important for that reason.


PS: HyperZ refers to an ATI Radeon graphics feature by the way for those not in the know. :p

Yeah I was playing around. Winky wink, right?

As far as Apple's support of XP and whatnot is concerned, you have to understand that they're not trying to get Windows users to upgrade their PCs. They're simply trying to get them to use Safari. Easiest way to do that is keep supporting their old crap.

SuperJudge
Jul 3, 2011, 10:36 PM
I have an Intel Mac. I have many Macs.

I simply refuse to throw out a superior machine like a high end tricked out PowerMac G5 for a low end slower less capable Mac Mini.

Who pays money to downgrade?

I understand the percentages of PPC vs. XP. But, it's not like Apple doesn't have the cash. They just spent 2 billion on NORTEL and they can't spend less than $1 million on their lifelong customers?

Like Apple doesn't have the resources that the TenFourFox people have? PLEASE! :mad:

I do have TenFourFox by the way, but Camino is turning to webkit I read, so that won't be an option.

Is Apple really going to throw it's lifelong users under the bus with Safari?

That's pretty sad in my opinion.

Well, like Mr. Pink said, it's also a matter of them not trying to get Windows users to buy new hardware. Apple is a hardware company. They want you to buy a new computer from them. They are, in fact, selling you something. At least, that's what they're attempting. Given the support from most hardware vendors for their old crap, I'd say Apple is still doing better than most.

But honestly, it's not like desktop software seems to be a really high priority for Apple these days. See the recent fiasco with Final Cut. We're watching as Apple transitions to a new business model dominated by iOS devices. That where they see the future being.

HyperZboy
Jul 4, 2011, 03:54 AM
Complaints about Webkit are not the only PowerPC browser complaints...

http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread?tid=14516bb9389cc3cc&hl=en

People are still bugging Google about Chrome too.

It's important to note we're talking about iMac G5's and PowerMac G5's that are far more powerful still to this day than the initial series of low-end INTEL Macs and probably still on par with the low-end Macs from a year or so ago, at least any that have INTEL graphics in them.

I realize it's a platform and resources/suppport issue, but it's not like Apple is poor.

Neither is Microsoft and they're still supporting Windows XP!

I say boooooo Apple just for that reason alone.

It reminds me of the original iPhone release when Apple immediately reduced the price by $100 and people like me went nuts and they had to give $100 Apple store credits.

Just a reckless disregard for their customers in my opinion, some of which spent $4000 or more on their G5 setups.

PS: I actually got ridiculed, reported & briefly banned by MacRumors.com for ranting too much about the iPhone $100 fiasco, but guess what? I WON! I got the $100! :p

MacHamster68
Jul 4, 2011, 05:38 AM
what would Apple say to your problem :
We don't have a solution, but We do admire the problem.;)

Chundles
Jul 4, 2011, 06:01 AM
A much greater percentage of Windows users have XP than Mac users with PPC machines.

I'm sure Apple would love to dump support for XP but so long as the market share of XP is still so high I doubt they will do anything.

DesmoPilot
Jul 4, 2011, 11:29 AM
It's important to note we're talking about iMac G5's and PowerMac G5's that are far more powerful still to this day than the initial series of low-end INTEL Macs and probably still on par with the low-end Macs from a year or so ago.


iMac G5s on par with low end Macs from a year or so ago? Bahahahah! You really don't realize just how slow those machines are. Please, back up this claim, I have to watch you try.

Phil A.
Jul 4, 2011, 11:43 AM
It's important to note we're talking about iMac G5's and PowerMac G5's that are far more powerful still to this day than the initial series of low-end INTEL Macs and probably still on par with the low-end Macs from a year or so ago, at least any that have INTEL graphics in them.


If you go by geekbench (http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/) 32 bit scores, the fastest Power Mac gets a rating of 3316 and the fastest iMac G5 gets 1180.
These are both beaten by a 2009 Mac Mini with a rating of 3700.

The fastest current Mac Pro gets a rating of 21,754

The Power Macs were a great machine in their day, but their day has well and truly gone...

840quadra
Jul 4, 2011, 12:31 PM
Just a reckless disregard for their customers in my opinion, some of which spent $4000 or more on their G5 setups.

While Safari is simply a web browser, it is one of those tools that can make an old system (like this G3 running Tiger that I am typing on), feel a lot newer than it really is. If Apple does make future Safari versions (for 10.5) Intel only, it's just more proof that Apple doesn't care much about having system longevity as part of their brand image.

What's sad is the fact that the G3 B&W I am typing on, was introduced in 1999, and supported with fresh OS releases / patches until 2007, with security updates and minor software patches up until 2009 / 2010.

While the system itself wasn't supported by Apple after Applecare expired, you could still buy, and install the newest available OS for this system all the way up until the release of Leopard.

That is essentially 8 years of New OS support, while the later G5 systems only had 2 years, if you were one who purchased in late 2006.


iMac G5s on par with low end Macs from a year or so ago? Bahahahah! You really don't realize just how slow those machines are. Please, back up this claim, I have to watch you try.

Read possibly. It is obvious the OP is venting some things to relieve some frustration. Regardless, they are correct on the first point. Early Core Solo, and Core Duo systems were not that fast, especially when compared to later G5 systems for highly processor / graphics intensive applications that involve heavy disk IO.

Nameci
Jul 4, 2011, 02:41 PM
I feel pity for those people bashing the powerpc's. Before your intel macs there were the powerpc's. And they are not yet "dead" as you would like to imply.

Apple woould like to kill it to get more sales on the hardware. Apple is a hardware company not a software like microsoft. If they would end support for old hardwares, that would force "consumers" to buy the latest. Thereby forcing "us" to buy the latest h/w.

That is where the frustration of the OP came from. And in my opinion Apple should not be doing towards its loyal customers who doesn't want to upgrade.

The "latest" and the "greatest" is not needed at all for web browsing. I think everybody would agree with me.

MacHamster68
Jul 4, 2011, 05:26 PM
i agree , but from a collectors point of view i have to thank apple big time with their initiative to kill off PPC Mac's and a big thank you to all the people here on the forum bashing the PPC Mac's for beeing slow and unusable
as all that makes collecting my beloved PPC Mac's cheap as chips now :D

so dont think about what you cant do with a PPC Mac ,
think different ,
think about what you can do with them ;)

mabaker
Jul 5, 2011, 08:00 AM
While Safari is simply a web browser, it is one of those tools that can make an old system (like this G3 running Tiger that I am typing on), feel a lot newer than it really is. If Apple does make future Safari versions (for 10.5) Intel only, it's just more proof that Apple doesn't care much about having system longevity as part of their brand image.

What's sad is the fact that the G3 B&W I am typing on, was introduced in 1999, and supported with fresh OS releases / patches until 2007, with security updates and minor software patches up until 2009 / 2010.

While the system itself wasn't supported by Apple after Applecare expired, you could still buy, and install the newest available OS for this system all the way up until the release of Leopard.

That is essentially 8 years of New OS support, while the later G5 systems only had 2 years, if you were one who purchased ,...

Great post indeed! Unfortunately apple would beg to differ here, they have their own strategy which involves not supporting legacy soft and hardware. Fortunately neither yout G3 nor my G4 will be defunct or completely unusable by the time Safari 6 ships. There still be Ten4fox and camino. Still plenty more browser to cling to considering that Mac OS 9 browser choice is extremely limited.

dmr727
Jul 5, 2011, 08:43 AM
I'm a luddite, so I'm certainly not happy about further loss of PPC support. That said, this has been Apple's MO for a long, long time. It's not even remotely surprising.

Cadillac Man
Jul 5, 2011, 01:29 PM
PowerPc support is not a high priority of apple. Snow Leopard was the first nail in the coffin for PPC macs. Safari most likely won't be supported.

Kind of has me pissed off though, that Microsoft still supports as far back as Pentium 3 (1999- 2003). Even though these machines are probably super- slow, it's nice to know that a company cares enough to support an old product.

I don't see any G3 tray loaders running Lion.

chrismacguy
Jul 5, 2011, 06:02 PM
Personal View: Oh for petes sake, why are we arguing about Apple giving up on PowerPC, we've all been hanging on by a tiny little iTunes and Safari filled thread for months now. Although, Im sure as a community we'll pull together and bring WebKit Nightlies back to PowerPC. (ie Stuff Apple, us PPCUsers will keep G4s and G5s going for decades yet) - I mean if theres still homebrew software being written for the Newton and Mac OS 9, I think theres a good decade of homebrew stuff for OS X PPC at least - I mean I have no intention of abandoning Mac OS 9 just yet, and that has been unsupported and ignored by most of the world for a nearly a decade).

Also Note: G5s had more than 2 years, The last G5 you could buy new from Apple was in August 2006. Snow Leopard didnt arrive until Summer 2009, so thats 3 Years of support, and Leopard has had minor updates until now (Or about 5 Years). However, as Far as Apple was concerned, the date when you shouldve stopped buying PowerPC Macs was when they brought out the first Intel mac (ie January 2006) - And So Im sure they felt 4 years was justified (G3s were brilliant in terms of longevity of support, plenty of Beige Macs got ditched with OS X - Such as my PowerMac 7500 from 1995 (IIRC - Might be '96), which was obsolete in 2000 for the absolute current OS - Just 4/5 years - Every big transition in Apples History has shortchanged people who bought a few years before it).

Phil A.
Jul 5, 2011, 06:03 PM
That is where the frustration of the OP came from. And in my opinion Apple should not be doing towards its loyal customers who doesn't want to upgrade.


Unfortunately, if you haven't upgraded in 5 years then Apple don't consider you to be a "loyal customer" - they want "loyal customers" who upgrade every year to the latest iPhone, iPad or iMac

MacintoshMaster
Jul 8, 2011, 12:10 PM
PowerPC's are the best.

Apple are a bad company that makes good computers.
I have had endless problems with my macbook pro and it's hard to get apple to sort it out. I will never buy an apple computer again. I will buy the apple logic board and do the rest my self. When I get some money I'll buy an apple mac pro logic board and get all the other parts myself (Better ones) apple computers then selves are not that great it's just the OS that is great.

ecschwarz
Jul 9, 2011, 11:19 AM
Let me chime in…I recently re-discovered PowerPC Macs (got a G5 really cheap, even though my primary Mac has been an Intel one for the past 3 years) and I've been starting to set it up as a secondary machine. I know Apple moved on (they need to sell computers to make money, right?), but it does come across as a little frustrating that every single PPC thread has someone saying, "It's dead, move on." As far as latest-and-greatest goes, that's totally right, but for a basic web browsing machine, I'd rather see someone have an old G4 or G5 than it thrown away (or some cheap desktop PC). It's almost as bad as everyone over on the iPhone forums trying to convince people to switch to Android…

Still, I think having a good web browser is important for any fairly modern (let's say last 7 years) computer…it keeps them useful for a number of tasks. Obviously, the way Apple sees it, ever person who uses a computer should have a very recent Mac running the latest OS or the newest iPad. While this is great (keeps everything uniform), I know plenty of people who might recycle an old G5 or Mac mini as a computer for aging parents, a media center, or something for their kids. In these cases, it may mean the difference of an old, but somewhat powerful computer, or no computer.

I have "upgraded" as seems to be the mantra here, but I also can appreciate old technology that has (or should have) a lot of functionality.

sporadicMotion
Jul 9, 2011, 12:13 PM
Let me chime in…I recently re-discovered PowerPC Macs (got a G5 really cheap, even though my primary Mac has been an Intel one for the past 3 years) and I've been starting to set it up as a secondary machine. I know Apple moved on (they need to sell computers to make money, right?), but it does come across as a little frustrating that every single PPC thread has someone saying, "It's dead, move on." As far as latest-and-greatest goes, that's totally right, but for a basic web browsing machine, I'd rather see someone have an old G4 or G5 than it thrown away (or some cheap desktop PC). It's almost as bad as everyone over on the iPhone forums trying to convince people to switch to Android…

Still, I think having a good web browser is important for any fairly modern (let's say last 7 years) computer…it keeps them useful for a number of tasks. Obviously, the way Apple sees it, ever person who uses a computer should have a very recent Mac running the latest OS or the newest iPad. While this is great (keeps everything uniform), I know plenty of people who might recycle an old G5 or Mac mini as a computer for aging parents, a media center, or something for their kids. In these cases, it may mean the difference of an old, but somewhat powerful computer, or no computer.

I have "upgraded" as seems to be the mantra here, but I also can appreciate old technology that has (or should have) a lot of functionality.

True but remember that old hardware doesn't need the latest and greatest in software to be useful. Yes PPC is a dead architecture (in terms of PC's) and I'm glad resources aren't wasted developing it anymore. That said, I have an iBook G4 that faithfully chugs along and does ALMOST everything it's asked. For hardware that is from 5-6 years ago, that's fine. Don't worry about the latest and greatest software on antiquated hardware.

Moore's Law basically shows us that in computer terms; the old PPC's in terms of age and asking for support, is kinda like going back to the 2006 and expecting a computer 10 years prior (1995-1996?) to be supported.

zen.state
Jul 9, 2011, 12:29 PM
On PowerPC Macs there is only one true browser choice for me. The optimized Camino builds. Very fast and compatible browser. If find it resembles what FF and Safari mixed together might look like.

http://www.rpm-mozilla.org.uk/builds/camino/

adcx64
Jul 9, 2011, 12:32 PM
On PowerPC Macs there is only one true browser choice for me. The optimized Camino builds. Very fast and compatible browser. If find it resembles what FF and Safari mixed together might look like.

http://www.rpm-mozilla.org.uk/builds/camino/

Agreed. Out of all the other browsers I've tried, Camino is the one that works best for me.

ecschwarz
Jul 9, 2011, 01:16 PM
True but remember that old hardware doesn't need the latest and greatest in software to be useful. Yes PPC is a dead architecture (in terms of PC's) and I'm glad resources aren't wasted developing it anymore. That said, I have an iBook G4 that faithfully chugs along and does ALMOST everything it's asked. For hardware that is from 5-6 years ago, that's fine. Don't worry about the latest and greatest software on antiquated hardware.

Moore's Law basically shows us that in computer terms; the old PPC's in terms of age and asking for support, is kinda like going back to the 2006 and expecting a computer 10 years prior (1995-1996?) to be supported.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all…the "last" versions of software (iLife/iWork/Office 2008/etc.) work very well on a G4 or G5…it's really the browser thing that could be of concern. I remember when browser support for OS 9 vanished overnight, even though a lot of Carbon apps were still being written for both (and that's an entirely different operating system!)

I do think it's a little different than a 1995/1996 PC in a 2006-era world, since there is still a lot of support with universal binaries and only one OS difference (well, until Lion), as opposed to Mac OS 7.5.x/Windows 95 vs. Mac OS X 10.4/Windows XP…then again, Windows XP hung on way too long… :p

sporadicMotion
Jul 9, 2011, 01:27 PM
I'm not disagreeing with you at all…the "last" versions of software (iLife/iWork/Office 2008/etc.) work very well on a G4 or G5…it's really the browser thing that could be of concern. I remember when browser support for OS 9 vanished overnight, even though a lot of Carbon apps were still being written for both (and that's an entirely different operating system!)

I do think it's a little different than a 1995/1996 PC in a 2006-era world, since there is still a lot of support with universal binaries and only one OS difference (well, until Lion), as opposed to Mac OS 7.5.x/Windows 95 vs. Mac OS X 10.4/Windows XP…then again, Windows XP hung on way too long… :p

Yup, I think were mostly on the same page here. As far as the '95-'06 analogy, I understand that point of view... but I just see it as we're really pretty luck to have had mainstream support for PPC architecture for as long as we have. Used intel mac's can be had for as low as $200 (1.66 mac mini on craigslist) which can be purchased by the PPC users who haven't been able to afford an upgrade so low cost options for more modern software solutions are becoming quite available... but that's something else all together I guess.

/rant :p

Nameci
Jul 9, 2011, 01:42 PM
Intel Mac mini? Hmmn. I am more excited with the old PPC's...

zen.state
Jul 9, 2011, 01:46 PM
Same here Namerci!

Nameci
Jul 9, 2011, 02:06 PM
These old macs still serve their purpose very well. And it has given me an exciting time, than the latest intels. Yes, the latest are fast and powerful, but it just do not possess the character to "be different".

I am unique as a person, I am different than any other. For me every PPC mac has a character, not a consumer device. That is what Apple is doing right now, every product that comes out of Foxconn is bound to be a consumer product. To me, it doesn't have that character anymore.

So yes, I can afford the latest and the greatest, but I don't have the urge and interest. I still don't have an iphone, don't have an ipad. Not many people have PPC macs, most people have intel products, most people have iphones, ipads. I have a classic for my ipod since I can see character in it. Not flashy compared to ipod touch, but with more grunt and storage.

But going back to the topic, I will be disappointed if there will be no more safari support for PPC macs, but hey that is life. I don't care if I stopped at 5.0.5, I will still use it.

Gav2k
Jul 9, 2011, 02:18 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

In microsofts defence they did try to drop xp and issued notice to discontinue support but then netbook boom happened so xp stuck around because vista was to put it simple... ****! But with win7 starter edition unit costs dropping most of the netbook manufactures have moved over so xp will die a nice death.

As for the whole ppc thing... It's old and there should be a point where you stop updating. Tech moves on!

sporadicMotion
Jul 9, 2011, 02:21 PM
These old macs still serve their purpose very well. And it has given me an exciting time, than the latest intels. Yes, the latest are fast and powerful, but it just do not possess the character to "be different".

I am unique as a person, I am different than any other. For me every PPC mac has a character, not a consumer device. That is what Apple is doing right now, every product that comes out of Foxconn is bound to be a consumer product. To me, it doesn't have that character anymore.

So yes, I can afford the latest and the greatest, but I don't have the urge and interest. I still don't have an iphone, don't have an ipad. Not many people have PPC macs, most people have intel products, most people have iphones, ipads. I have a classic for my ipod since I can see character in it. Not flashy compared to ipod touch, but with more grunt and storage.

But going back to the topic, I will be disappointed if there will be no more safari support for PPC macs, but hey that is life. I don't care if I stopped at 5.0.5, I will still use it.

Now this is good fun PPC spirit. :apple:

Tucom
Jul 9, 2011, 05:52 PM
Aslo..there's always Linux too! Not as user-friendly necessarily, but there are the latest and greatest builds of some of the finest distros of Linux out there for the PPC architecture, I think Yellow Dog Linux is optimized FOR the G5's still, no?

It was THE Apple Linux distro and the only other OS Apple ever licensed to have installed on their machines and sold new as such.

ecschwarz
Jul 9, 2011, 08:13 PM
Aslo..there's always Linux too! Not as user-friendly necessarily, but there are the latest and greatest builds of some of the finest distros of Linux out there for the PPC architecture, I think Yellow Dog Linux is optimized FOR the G5's still, no?

It was THE Apple Linux distro and the only other OS Apple ever licensed to have installed on their machines and sold new as such.

True — I started using Ubuntu on my PC at work just because they decided that it should run Windows 7 and it doesn't have the RAM or the resources to run it properly…thankfully I can bring my MacBook Pro in if I need to do any kind of heavy-lifting.

MagnusVonMagnum
Jul 9, 2011, 08:39 PM
Yes and meanwhile Apple continues to support Windows XP but not Leopard?

Are you kidding me???

Apple is not your friend. They do what's best for their bottom line and XP still has millions and millions of users. Most Mac users just cave and upgrade like good little lemmings and so Apple figures it's a waste of their time and resources to bother. Plus Steve doesn't control Windows. He does control OSX and he HATES the past and he hates PPC.


And my usage of caps and bold was specifically to warn people they'll be downloading a useless update that won't work without warning since there is nothing on the website to tell you in advance.


Ignore the lemmings. Some people think there is no legitimate use for all caps since they complain every time they see it. There's a heck of a difference using it for effect versus using because you don't realize the caps lock key is on, but some people can't process that. They're too used to letting others think for them. It's the "me too" effect.

In any case, I would get TenFourFox. It's better than Safari anyway.

Nameci
Jul 9, 2011, 09:18 PM
Yes I have just tested it, and I agree it is quicker than safari. The question is, is it more secure than safari?

Tucom
Jul 9, 2011, 09:45 PM
Yes I have just tested it, and I agree it is quicker than safari. The question is, is it more secure than safari?

It's running on PPC so I think that alone gives it a boost in security (AS IN, outdated/not the target share of Macs currently) but if for Java exploits and the like are still applicable to the PPC platform, then that would be a valid question I'd say.

Objectivist-C
Jul 10, 2011, 12:12 AM
Ignore the lemmings. Some people think there is no legitimate use for all caps since they complain every time they see it. There's a heck of a difference using it for effect versus using because you don't realize the caps lock key is on, but some people can't process that. They're too used to letting others think for them. It's the "me too" effect.
Boldface is the correct means of conveying emphasis in media that support it. Excessive or irregular capitalization is a hallmark of clinical paranoiacs, and will tend to erode your credibility in the eyes of your readers.

burnout8488
Jul 10, 2011, 02:29 AM
Why does it matter if the latest build of Safari is supported on PPC? We have WAY better alternatives for PPC browsing.

Seriously, why does it matter?! Tell us! It isn't going to affect your PPC browsing experience one bit. If iTunes support was getting dropped, that would be another story, because it would actually AFFECT PPC users that have iPads and iPhones that need to be synced.

If you have a G4, or even most of the G5s, you shouldn't be running Safari in the first place, let alone a version created in 2011.

MacHamster68
Jul 10, 2011, 05:10 AM
PowerPc support is not a high priority of apple. Snow Leopard was the first nail in the coffin for PPC macs. Safari most likely won't be supported.

Kind of has me pissed off though, that Microsoft still supports as far back as Pentium 3 (1999- 2003). Even though these machines are probably super- slow, it's nice to know that a company cares enough to support an old product.

I don't see any G3 tray loaders running Lion.

how dare you to compare OSX with windows , windows too does not run on PPC natively so why should Apple still support PPC if Microsoft does not support it , if Microsoft would support PPC then Apple would continue to support PPC , but microsoft ditched support for PPC a long long time ago , so only a matter of time before Apple was ditching PPC too , but before Ap[ple ditched PPC first they had to convince everybody that PPC is the future and intel is only slow and unstable , and behind closed doors developed OSX to run on intel from the first day of OS 10.0

and it would be a economical disaster for Apple if people would continue to use Mac's older then 2 years , thats why Apple always comes with new ideas like thunderbold , to convince the customer base that a Mac without that new thunderbold port has just some use as museum piece , and it works people do buy new Mac's all the time even if their old one is still usable, but they need to upgrade otherwise they feel left behind by technology

ecschwarz
Jul 10, 2011, 04:26 PM
how dare you to compare OSX with windows , windows too does not run on PPC natively so why should Apple still support PPC if Microsoft does not support it , if Microsoft would support PPC then Apple would continue to support PPC , but microsoft ditched support for PPC a long long time ago , so only a matter of time before Apple was ditching PPC too , but before Ap[ple ditched PPC first they had to convince everybody that PPC is the future and intel is only slow and unstable , and behind closed doors developed OSX to run on intel from the first day of OS 10.0

and it would be a economical disaster for Apple if people would continue to use Mac's older then 2 years , thats why Apple always comes with new ideas like thunderbold , to convince the customer base that a Mac without that new thunderbold port has just some use as museum piece , and it works people do buy new Mac's all the time even if their old one is still usable, but they need to upgrade otherwise they feel left behind by technology

Haha…nice…

For those who didn't get the sarcasm, or are curious about some backstory, OS X on Intel probably came out of NeXTSTEP, which was Intel-based after NeXT got out of the hardware business…why not keep that insurance policy around if IBM/Motorola ever mess up and can't deliver? Seems to have paid off to me…

MagnusVonMagnum
Jul 10, 2011, 05:41 PM
Boldface is the correct means of conveying emphasis in media that support it. Excessive or irregular capitalization is a hallmark of clinical paranoiacs, and will tend to erode your credibility in the eyes of your readers.

Boldface requires enhanced presentation of text (or on here, extra formatting using less common keys to fast typers, throwing a monkey wrench in the rhythm). Capitals works well in ASCII text, even. I suppose one could use asterisk to *emphasize* instead. As for credibility, nothing loses it quite as fast for me as when people make anal replies complaining about ANY use of all-caps what-so-ever. :p

Nameci
Jul 10, 2011, 05:43 PM
Can we just drop it and move on?

HyperZboy
Jul 12, 2011, 08:15 AM
Personal View: Oh for petes sake, why are we arguing about Apple giving up on PowerPC, we've all been hanging on by a tiny little iTunes and Safari filled thread for months now. Although, Im sure as a community we'll pull together and bring WebKit Nightlies back to PowerPC. (ie Stuff Apple, us PPCUsers will keep G4s and G5s going for decades yet) - I mean if theres still homebrew software being written for the Newton and Mac OS 9, I think theres a good decade of homebrew stuff for OS X PPC at least - I mean I have no intention of abandoning Mac OS 9 just yet, and that has been unsupported and ignored by most of the world for a nearly a decade).

Also Note: G5s had more than 2 years, The last G5 you could buy new from Apple was in August 2006. Snow Leopard didnt arrive until Summer 2009, so thats 3 Years of support, and Leopard has had minor updates until now (Or about 5 Years). However, as Far as Apple was concerned, the date when you shouldve stopped buying PowerPC Macs was when they brought out the first Intel mac (ie January 2006) - And So Im sure they felt 4 years was justified (G3s were brilliant in terms of longevity of support, plenty of Beige Macs got ditched with OS X - Such as my PowerMac 7500 from 1995 (IIRC - Might be '96), which was obsolete in 2000 for the absolute current OS - Just 4/5 years - Every big transition in Apples History has shortchanged people who bought a few years before it).

Oh and as far as Microsoft Supporting a Pentium III: You just try running Windows 7 on a Pentium III. I have, and to put it lightly, it was the worst OS install Ive ever used, it even trumped Windows ME and Leopard on my 700Mhz eMac with 128MB RAM. As in you can barely load a single application without it freezing or dying.

You're wrong on one of your major points...

It was easy to get Panther to run on everything from Performa 6500s up to Powermac 9600s with a Quartz extreme graphics card even though they didn't meet the minimum requirements.

Hell, I had Tiger running perfectly on several Powermacs and yes I think even a 7500!

It has nothing to do with running Lion or Snow Leopard on old Macs. Nobody expects that.

It's about having an ubiquitous browser that runs on Macs across the board as far back as Microsoft is supporting Windows XP & Explorer. It's just that simple.

Apple actually has more money and resources than Microsoft now.

Shouldn't they not be disowning their longtime customers and supporting Safari for PowerPC at least as long as Microsoft is supporting Explorer for XP?

I can't think of a single reason anyone would dispute this argument other than to say the obvious...

"Go buy a new Mac and shut up" or "Apple isn't Microsoft."

And finally, people need to stop with the apples to oranges comparisons. The very fact alone that you bought an eMac pretty much discounts your opinion on this topic top to bottom. It reminds me of one of my first Mac purchases, an LCIII. I had no room to complain once it was quickly obsolete.

Now a high end PowerMac G5 or iMac G5 is a different story. All of those machines along with some G4s are clearly able to run a simple freaking SAFARI BROWSER! We're not talking Final Cut Pro here. HELLO!

Oh, one last thing... XBOX is PowerPC based! So Microsoft is supporting PowerPC better than Apple!
How ironic. LOL

HyperZboy
Jul 12, 2011, 08:32 AM
Yup, I think were mostly on the same page here. As far as the '95-'06 analogy, I understand that point of view... but I just see it as we're really pretty luck to have had mainstream support for PPC architecture for as long as we have. Used intel mac's can be had for as low as $200 (1.66 mac mini on craigslist) which can be purchased by the PPC users who haven't been able to afford an upgrade so low cost options for more modern software solutions are becoming quite available... but that's something else all together I guess.

/rant :p

You tried to make a good point but sorta failed.

Why would anyone with a tricked out PowerMac G5 or iMac G5 junk it for the cheapest $200 Mac Mini?

The only point of downgrading would be for Safari compatibility.

What fool does that?

I'd like to see that fool try to run an HDMI cable to an HDTV set and run 720p or 1080p to an HDTV set. Yeah, some G5s can still do that.

Original Intel Mac Mini's? I don't think so. Sorry, FAIL.

Tucom
Jul 12, 2011, 08:46 AM
Actually, with all due respect, for that logic you failed, as all Intel Mac Minis have DVI out thus HDMI out as good as any G5, and that's attested to there being a PowerMac G5 Dual Core 2.3 Ghz (JUST traded a Core 1 Duo Mini for..in many aspects blows the Mini out of the water) and a C2D Mini (processor wise Mini probably tops it, but G5 beats any Mini when it comes to amount of RAM). So I'm saying don't get me wrong, nothing but respect and agreeance that PPC machines, esp. alter G4's and ESP. G5's can blaze through even some very heavy lifting tasks, and IMO should still be supported with at LEAST iTunes and Safari (and for the record, Safari is far better than TenFourFox I've found).


Point is, all can do HDMI, and typing this response on this beautiful just still very capable G5 machine, while it will suck to have PPC support fully pulled, the day was coming.

And, the only reason XP stuck around as long as it did was BECAUSE Vista sucked so hard, and MS actually planned to pull the plug far earlier, so if anything, I'd say Apple has done the legacy support aspect better.


And to any argument "but Win 7 installs on m@h Pentium Tree! (3)"...yeah, care to show one hint of logic of using a $10 computer that would bog down at boot up (Win 7 tho is respectably agile) vs. getting a $100 Pentium D? Illogical argument IMO.

HyperZboy
Jul 12, 2011, 08:56 AM
Actually, with all due respect, for that logic you failed, as all Intel Mac Minis have DVI out thus HDMI out as good as any G5, and that's attested to there being a PowerMac G5 Dual Core 2.3 Ghz (JUST traded a Core 1 Duo Mini for..in many aspects blows the Mini out of the water) and a C2D Mini (processor wise Mini probably tops it, but G5 beats any Mini when it comes to amount of RAM). So I'm saying don't get me wrong, nothing but respect and agreeance that PPC machines, esp. alter G4's and ESP. G5's can blaze through even some very heavy lifting tasks, and IMO should still be supported with at LEAST iTunes and Safari (and for the record, Safari is far better than TenFourFox I've found).


Point is, all can do HDMI, and typing this response on this beautiful just still very capable G5 machine, while it will suck to have PPC support fully pulled, the day was coming.

And, the only reason XP stuck around as long as it did was BECAUSE Vista sucked so hard, and MS actually planned to pull the plug far earlier, so if anything, I'd say Apple has done the legacy support aspect better.


And to any argument "but Win 7 installs on m@h Pentium Tree! (3)"...yeah, care to show one hint of logic of using a $10 computer that would bog down at boot up (Win 7 tho is respectably agile) vs. getting a $100 Pentium D? Illogical argument IMO.

I never said a Mac Mini couldn't PHYSICALLY connect to an HDTV set and play some video but they have INTEL graphics chips!

But there's lots of graphics card options on PowerMac G5s and the latest iMac G5s had Nvidia graphics as well.

So, there's really no comparison.

You'd have to be a complete fool to replace either of those type machines with a $200 INTEL Mac Mini, at least if you want that capability or even any gaming capability.

And by the way, I recently DOWNGRADED someone's older PC to Windows XP from VISTA. Why?

Stability and performance and XP is constantly updated still to this day.

You can't say that about Apple's support of the operating system they released that same year.

Apple should be ashamed.

Tucom
Jul 12, 2011, 09:10 AM
Do you realize what you say makes no sense in some key aspects? No diss. intended, but here, I'll point out the flaws here in that post, this is just me though (some is fact, ofcourse) -

Ok, for starters, no PPC mac - or really any OS X box - was ever designed to be a gaming platform, and whilst there are games for them, they're not designed to have that be their forte, so really, if that's the incentive, then I'd say just get a console or a Windows box, really.


However, I agree for other aspects that the beefier chips in the PPC machines vs. the Mini by far are better and worth it, so yes, agreed there.


Finally, for making no sense: XP is still around and being "supported" (actually, I've yet to see any last updates for it) because businesses have yet to upgrade and people were still stuck in the "anti-Vista" state, and actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but, it's being no more supported than Leopard or even Tiger; the udpates are still on Apple's server to updated to 10.4.11 or 10.5.8, as with XP and SP3, but any more optimizations and bug fixes coming out for XP? I've yet to see any, but then again, for point 2 -

Vista w/ SP2 leaves XP in the dust. Fact.

MS had a bumpy (ok...disasterous) start with Vista, but with the SP updates some benchmarks even beat 7, though ofcourse all around 7 is king for Windows OS's.

On any relatively modern hardware (I'd say high end P4 rig and later), Vista SP2 or 7 will leave XP in the dust, on benchmarks and security so really -

That "downgrade" really was a DOWNGRADE as now your clients computer is less secure and less compatible, so gonna get it upgraded again? ;) Just a suggestion.

However, again, it would be a bummer for Safari to not be later supported on PPC, however, Apple should really pat themselves on the back for supporting a no-longer-supported architecture for them for six years, and counting..

And speaking of no support..IE9 - currently the best browser on Windows (great bowser TBH) - laughs at XP, and IE10 will laugh at Vista, which both (OS's) more or less came out around when PPC support was announced to be phased out.

Stok3
Jul 12, 2011, 09:27 AM
You tried to make a good point but sorta failed.

Why would anyone with a tricked out PowerMac G5 or iMac G5 junk it for the cheapest $200 Mac Mini?

The only point of downgrading would be for Safari compatibility.


Original Intel Mac Mini's? I don't think so. Sorry, FAIL.

Um i sold my quad core G5 and bought an intel Mini and it was 10x faster than the G5. Newer chips/architecture blows away the G5...why do you think Apple switched to intel?

Tucom
Jul 12, 2011, 09:37 AM
No Intel Mini will be faster than a G5, at least not any but the latest and only in some areas would be at most 2-3x faster, just trying to over exaggerate much? Heh.


Esp. not a Quad G5, a C2D may beat a Dual 2.0 or 1.8, but the 2.3, 2.5, and 2.7's bench very near to the at least older plastic Mini's, some aspects the Mini will blow away the G5 (memory and HDD speed really, that's it AFAIK).



Finally, if you had a G5 Quad and downgraded to a Mini, I imagine either your need for the processing power for the G5 changed as your job must have or just didn't need all the processing power of the G5 in the first place? And some things like Flash do perform far better than the PPC machines, but that's all, 100% the crappy coding, not the fault of any architecture in question.


And as for Safari? The PPC optimized builds of Camino (NOT TenFourFox..) more or less outperform Safari hands down (been using both very recently), so honestly while I can't wait to see how said-to-be blazing Safari 6+ is, for old PPC machines, at least there's Camino :) B)

chrismacguy
Jul 12, 2011, 12:35 PM
You're wrong on one of your major points...

It was easy to get Panther to run on everything from Performa 6500s up to Powermac 9600s with a Quartz extreme graphics card even though they didn't meet the minimum requirements.

Hell, I had Tiger running perfectly on several Powermacs and yes I think even a 7500!

I was talking without drastically changing machines from their original configuration. Any 601 based Mac, including the 7500, cannot boot any iteration of OS X without upgrading the CPU. Any 604 based Mac can only boot up to 10.2 without an upgraded CPU, 10.3 AND 10.4 BOTH require you to have installed a G3 or G4, and if your upgrading the CPU, by the same logic you can tell G5 owners to just buy a Intel Motherboard and "upgrade" their G5s to Intels. Therefore I am not wrong on any of my points, especially as I was talking about in APPLE SUPPORTED CONFIGURATIONS only.

You cannot get 10.3 to boot on a 604, I have tried it (on my 7500 with a upgraded 604 (in effect a 7600), and on a 9600 with a 604ev - both will run 10.2 with some coaxing, but 10.3 doesnt work with the 604 CPU), neither XPostFacto or manual hacks will get it working, if you had 10.3 or 10.4 running on any Beige Mac, you will have upgraded their CPU, especially a 7500, as its 601 cannot boot any form of Mac OS X apart from early Rhapsody builds. Even then the system is not that stable, and again, this isnt supposed to be possible according to Apple anyway.

Also Apple should not be ashamed. You obviously have never studied Computer Science or youd realise that coding for 1 Architecture is a lot easier than for 2, especially at the OS level. Yes its a big shame Apple has given up on PowerPC, yes I am slightly annoyed, yes I will still be using my PowerPC Machines for decades to come, but I still dont think you can tell them to be ashamed. To make Lion run on PowerPC Macs would take a huge amount of work, its not as easy as the 1 click re-compile for Apps on top of the OS that external developers see, the OS itself will have a boatload of intricacies that are Architecture-Dependant, and so Apple probably only has the resources to manage one of these effectively, or Im betting they wouldve made 10.6 available for the G5 platform, just for the good PR and goodwill it wouldve got them.

sporadicMotion
Jul 12, 2011, 12:53 PM
You tried to make a good point but sorta failed.

Why would anyone with a tricked out PowerMac G5 or iMac G5 junk it for the cheapest $200 Mac Mini?

The only point of downgrading would be for Safari compatibility.


So you're saying Safari is the only piece of software that doesn't run on PPC? :rolleyes:


What fool does that?


The kind that needs to run modern software.


I'd like to see that fool try to run an HDMI cable to an HDTV set and run 720p or 1080p to an HDTV set. Yeah, some G5s can still do that.


Think outside of your little realm... your software requirements don't mirror everyone else... and that's a horrible example. Mini's can do that.

Original Intel Mac Mini's? I don't think so. Sorry, FAIL.

:rolleyes:

drorpheus
Jul 12, 2011, 01:59 PM
Um i sold my quad core G5 and bought an intel Mini and it was 10x faster than the G5. Newer chips/architecture blows away the G5...why do you think Apple switched to intel?

Apple switched to Intel because IBM told Apple if you want a bigger discount on our newest chips be more like Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft and start ordering in multiples of 10-20-50 million, not 1million and under and want the same price break without the investment. So Apple said how dare you we're Apple, and thus began emulating OSX for the SAME chipset as everyone else, congratulations, you now have a dell/hp/gateway/compaq computer that officially emulates OSX but its housed in aluminum, plus you get all the benefits of malware that come with X86, and some of the most bloated pipelining any architecture has to offer. Who wouldn't want to switch to Intel. Meanwhile POWER 5,6,7 brings you up to 5.0 ghz while Intel still floats around 3.0ghz sounds like a roadmap stuck in 2005 to me.

sporadicMotion
Jul 12, 2011, 02:28 PM
Apple switched to Intel because IBM told Apple if you want a bigger discount on our newest chips be more like Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft and start ordering in multiples of 10-20-50 million, not 1million and under and want the same price break without the investment.


Price played a part. For sure! Don't forget all the problems surrounding that architecture at the time pertaining to thermal issues. I'm still waiting for my PowerBook G5.


So Apple said how dare you we're Apple, and thus began emulating OSX for the SAME chipset as everyone else, congratulations, you now have a dell/hp/gateway/compaq computer that officially emulates OSX but its housed in aluminum, plus you get all the benefits of malware that come with X86, and some of the most bloated pipelining any architecture has to offer. Who wouldn't want to switch to Intel. Meanwhile POWER 5,6,7 brings you up to 5.0 ghz while Intel still floats around 3.0ghz sounds like a roadmap stuck in 2005 to me.

OS X is not emulated on Intel hardware. The kernel is an x86/x64... not PPC... in fact... there is no PPC anything in the newer OS X's.

Malware has nothing to do with x86... malware has everything to do with popularity of OS and the demand to write such software.

The P4's had bloated pipeline architecture... not the Core Series.

Why worry? Doesn't really matter at all anymore... this happened years ago.

If you have and enjoy a PPC Mac, then that's great! It's better than it filling up landfill and they're still capable of many jobs... just don't expect them to run the most current software.

HyperZboy
Jul 13, 2011, 04:23 PM
Well I think we can say it's official now. The next version of Safari will probably be INTEL only. However, there is no mention/announcement of this on the Webkit.org site.

The webkit nightlies have consistently been INTEL ONLY since I first started this thread so it's a good guess the next version of SAFARI will not support PowerPC for the first time, well, unless Apple specifically compiles a version, which I find unlikely.

As for the $200 Intel Mac Mini vs PowerMac G5 debate, I'm not even going to get deep into that argument since it's a ridiculously laughable "Oh my Mini is 10X faster than your G5" rant that makes no logical sense to anyone who knows what they're talking about.

When you have Nvidia Geforce 7800 or Radeon FireGL technology in your Mac Mini, get back to me on those speed tests. Hell, even the Radeon 9600 shipping graphics card probably beats the Intel graphics.

Mini 10X faster? I'm still giggling here honestly.

Regardless, a simple browser should be able to work just fine on XP, a G4, or a G5.

For Apple to discontinue PPC support while continuing to support XP, people who are not even their own customers, I think is insane & insulting, regardless of the market size. It's not like Apple is a poor company or anything or doesn't have the resources to compile a browser for PPC. Geez.

urbanrave
Jul 14, 2011, 09:36 AM
Haha

sporadicMotion
Jul 14, 2011, 05:17 PM
Well I think we can say it's official now. The next version of Safari will probably be INTEL only. However, there is no mention/announcement of this on the Webkit.org site.

The webkit nightlies have consistently been INTEL ONLY since I first started this thread so it's a good guess the next version of SAFARI will not support PowerPC for the first time, well, unless Apple specifically compiles a version, which I find unlikely.

As for the $200 Intel Mac Mini vs PowerMac G5 debate, I'm not even going to get deep into that argument since it's a ridiculously laughable "Oh my Mini is 10X faster than your G5" rant that makes no logical sense to anyone who knows what they're talking about.

When you have Nvidia Geforce 7800 or Radeon FireGL technology in your Mac Mini, get back to me on those speed tests. Hell, even the Radeon 9600 shipping graphics card probably beats the Intel graphics.

Mini 10X faster? I'm still giggling here honestly.

Regardless, a simple browser should be able to work just fine on XP, a G4, or a G5.

For Apple to discontinue PPC support while continuing to support XP, people who are not even their own customers, I think is insane & insulting, regardless of the market size. It's not like Apple is a poor company or anything or doesn't have the resources to compile a browser for PPC. Geez.

It's not about the performance comparison. It's a comparison of ability to run modern software. If you are going to compare intel to PPC

G5 PowerMac vs Mac Pro, at least it's an apples to apples comparison

Complain complain complain

Get used to it.

MagnusVonMagnum
Jul 15, 2011, 03:21 PM
It's not about the performance comparison. It's a comparison of ability to run modern software. If you are going to compare intel to PPC

G5 PowerMac vs Mac Pro, at least it's an apples to apples comparison

Complain complain complain

Get used to it.

The poster was remarking that Apple supports software for someone else's much older operating system (XP) while not supporting their own hardware running versions of their own operating system that are literally at least half as old while having no shortage of resources or other satisfactory reason to justify the lack of support for their own products while supporting competitor's products. In short, the poster makes an excellent point while your inane reply of "Complain complain and complain" and useless advice of "get used to it" adds nothing to the conversation and seems to serve no purpose other than a smug admonition and thus an illusion that your own perspective is more important than his own.

chrismacguy
Jul 16, 2011, 02:18 PM
The poster was remarking that Apple supports software for someone else's much older operating system (XP) while not supporting their own hardware running versions of their own operating system that are literally at least half as old while having no shortage of resources or other satisfactory reason to justify the lack of support for their own products while supporting competitor's products. In short, the poster makes an excellent point while your inane reply of "Complain complain and complain" and useless advice of "get used to it" adds nothing to the conversation and seems to serve no purpose other than a smug admonition and thus an illusion that your own perspective is more important than his own.

While the inane post, was pointless, the big point here is that Apple still supports XP only because its got a massive market share (about 40% or so AFAIK, definitely a lot more than us luddites on 10.3/10.4/10.5), if 40% of Mac Users were using G5s or G4s under say 10.3 you can bet your bottom dollar 10.3 would still be getting Safari and iTunes, and probably security updates to boot. (Whereas because the Mac only started getting very popular post-Intel-Switch, its actually a very small percentage of users who are still using PowerPCs, yes we're very vocal, but we are still in a much larger minority against Intel Mac Users than XP Users are against Windows 7, and its only decent business strategy to only support your users who have actually contributed to your balance sheet in the last 5 years. Windows Safari is also, basically, a XP application, and due to the way Windows has progressed, it runs dandy under 7 with all the features it needs (and its always going to be a loss leader - no/very few Mac sales for XP Safari users) - the situation is very different on the OS X side of the fence due to system architecture, and the massive changes under the Hood between Intel OS X and PPC OS X.)

Also, while Apple might not be poor, they do have finite resources, and I dont think (m)any of you actually know how much effort it takes to keep 2 different architecture versions of a OS Framework (Which is what WebKit actually is, its a lot closer to a framework of the OS than it is a normal application on Mac OS X - it runs a lot deeper is my point), especially when the 2 versions would have to be relatively different as the Intel Build would gain features that depend on OpenCL, or some other Intel-Only feature. And remember getting employed at Apple Corporate is so difficult, they can have all the money in the world, but if you want the calibre of developers they have (ie you want the same quality of product), there are a lot less of them kicking around than you would think, so their manpower is limited by the number of capable software developers, not by money.

urbanrave
Jul 16, 2011, 03:48 PM
Hoho

Jessica Lares
Jul 16, 2011, 07:04 PM
If they were to continue to support PPC, less of the newer models would be sold. And that's really the main issue for Apple. There are a lot of people in the world that just want a Mac that runs OS X period, just for the show. There are a lot of people who come here asking if a $50-100 G3/G4 iBook/PowerBook is a good buy for their first Mac and it's 2011.

MagnusVonMagnum
Jul 17, 2011, 03:12 PM
Well they can deal with no Mac sold from me either way at this point. I want USB3 and so the current models are no good (if I go Hackintosh, not only can I get expansion for a reasonable price, but I can get USB3 now and add the driver when it's ready. I don't know if a USB3 chip can run under USB2 drivers, but I could always plug in a cheap USB2 card for now, if necessary (I believe I already have one here sitting around unused).

In any case, my PowerMac is simply an audio/video server for the house right now (and 24/7 Internet terminal). I see no reason to replace it until I have no other choice (i.e. Itunes no longer supports it). The current 3TB media drive is USB3/2 so that's the primary reason I want USB3 on the next server (although I don't want to use slower 2 on any computer in the future if I don't have to; most things will NOT support Thunderbolt so Apple needs to get on board with USB3 regardless, IMO).

My MBP will run Lion, but I've got a Hackintosh Netbook that will not be able to run it (Apple doesn't offer a Netbook and an iPad just isn't the same thing and costs 2x the price. I use it for travel when I don't want to risk a $2k computer just to surf the Net and what not while on the road. I want OSX because it's more secure than Windows and while Linux would normally do, I use iTunes on it so Linux isn't really an option either). Personally, I think if Apple doesn't want to offer models for various market segments (i.e. Netbooks and mid-range towers), they should license those specific segments to someone else to produce. I simply will not buy an iPad when I need a Netbook or a Mac Pro when I don't need a workstation nor will I buy an iMac because it's underpowered for gaming, etc. on the Windows side.

Apple's move to shorten the life-span of its computers artificially in recent years just means I'm less likely to consider their hardware since it costs a premium over other brands and so I expect more support, not less. A Mac-Mini would make a really nice little server since it's small enough that I can fix it on my desktop and still use the tower space for a 2nd computer with more power for gaming ,etc. and just use a switchbox to share monitors, etc. (it would free up a 2nd desk over the current setup), but the lack of USB3 on the Mini means I won't consider it at this time.

cocacolakid
Jul 17, 2011, 04:29 PM
Well they can deal with no Mac sold from me either way at this point. I want USB3 and so the current models are no good (if I go Hackintosh, not only can I get expansion for a reasonable price, but I can get USB3 now and add the driver when it's ready.



Thunderbolt is faster than USB 3 and can run multiple devices. I don't understand the appeal of building a Hackintosh to use a slower interface that doesn't have the true expandability of Thunderbolt, not to mention the constant headaches of a Hackintosh.

MagnusVonMagnum
Jul 18, 2011, 06:16 PM
Thunderbolt is faster than USB 3 and can run multiple devices. I don't understand the appeal of building a Hackintosh to use a slower interface that doesn't have the true expandability of Thunderbolt, not to mention the constant headaches of a Hackintosh.

Thunderbolt doesn't have much support yet (and probably never will in a mainstream consumer sense) and all indications is that devices for it will cost a heavy premium over USB3 ones. And if the device doesn't not NEED the extra speed (very few ever will any time soon), it's utterly pointless to pay more for Thunderbolt if the cheaper USB3 device runs just as well.

USB3 can run multiple devices too so that point makes no sense. And unlike Thunderbolt, they don't have to be daisy-chained (horrible in practice; I have yet to see a 'hub' of any kind for Thunderbolt. It's not clear if they're even possible.

More to the point, my 3TB media drive I'm already using is USB3. It will not connect to Thunderbolt (at least without a currently non-existent adapter) and there is no replacement for it yet. Hence, I want USB3, not Thunderbolt right now. Preferably, I'd like to have both, but that doesn't appear to be an option yet either. I imagine it will be soon, though, but not on Apple products (probably at last another year, maybe longer there).

As for Hackintoshes being a pain, my Dell Netbook has been simple to update. Normally, I just use Software Update like any other Mac. Twice over the past two years, an update required a running a little program to fix the audio driver (since the software update overwrote a patched part of the OS). Other than that, it's been no trouble at all.

urbanrave
Jul 19, 2011, 10:01 AM
IOOOOooooo!!!!

raysfan81
Jul 19, 2011, 11:34 AM
No reason to use safari on a PPC mac anyways. TenFourFox is far superior anyways. :cool:

zen.state
Jul 19, 2011, 11:44 AM
No reason to use safari on a PPC mac anyways. TenFourFox is far superior anyways. :cool:

Not sure why there are a few so high on TFF. I find the G3/G4/G5 builds of Camino far superior overall. Faster, less memory footprint and much more of a native Mac look and feel than any FF offspring.

Although based on the Mozilla project at certain levels Camino is much more it's own app compared to TFF or other FF offspring. TFF is simply the end result of a PowerPC coder that obviously likes FF and want to keep it going and performing well. I respect that a lot but Camino is still better.

Even my very computer illiterate Aunt with her G4 500MHz running 10.4 loves Camino for G4 7400 chips and can tell it's better.

raysfan81
Jul 20, 2011, 08:09 PM
Not sure why there are a few so high on TFF. I find the G3/G4/G5 builds of Camino far superior overall. Faster, less memory footprint and much more of a native Mac look and feel than any FF offspring.

Although based on the Mozilla project at certain levels Camino is much more it's own app compared to TFF or other FF offspring. TFF is simply the end result of a PowerPC coder that obviously likes FF and want to keep it going and performing well. I respect that a lot but Camino is still better.


No I totally understand where you are coming from and I still use Camino but I like the look and feel of TFF better. To each his own I guess. :rolleyes:

SuperJudge
Jul 20, 2011, 08:43 PM
Not sure why there are a few so high on TFF. I find the G3/G4/G5 builds of Camino far superior overall. Faster, less memory footprint and much more of a native Mac look and feel than any FF offspring.

Although based on the Mozilla project at certain levels Camino is much more it's own app compared to TFF or other FF offspring. TFF is simply the end result of a PowerPC coder that obviously likes FF and want to keep it going and performing well. I respect that a lot but Camino is still better.

Even my very computer illiterate Aunt with her G4 500MHz running 10.4 loves Camino for G4 7400 chips and can tell it's better.

For me, it's rather simple: I know that Camino is the better browser (I used it extensively when I first started using Macs as my primary machines about 6 or 7 years back), but I've gotten so used to Firefox from my Linux boxen and my Intel Macs at work, it's hard to not have things like NoScript and Greasemonkey Plus, it works with Firefox Sync which is easily the best feature added in FF4. Browsing across four machines and a smartphone that get used regularly would be a much bigger pain in the ass without it.

HyperZboy
Jul 24, 2011, 03:54 PM
Here is the latest WebKit r91186-[NERD-ZooN,inc]™ for PPC 10.5 Leopard only. replace it in the apps folder

➥ WebKit r91186-[NERD-ZooN,inc]™ for PPC 10.5 Leopard (http://www.mediafire.com/?0ubv3npapunaim1)

And where is this coming from? Explanation?

I have still found no announcement that Webkit or Safari is going Intel only.
I understand why Apple isn't saying anything. That's par for the course.

But why doesn't Webkit.org have some warning that upgrading your Webkit nightly will BRICK it?

That's just crazy. I googled all around for a PowerPC nightly of Webkit and could not find one.

As for the suggestions for Camino, I will check those out. Thanks.

As for all the insults like "My Mini is 10X faster than your G5 and I only paid $200",
"Why don't you just move up to 2011", etc... I'll just let those comments stand on their own lack of validity.

I have an Intel Mac, but I've done enough reading to know that replacing my high end G5 home media server with 2TB and upgraded graphics to a $200 used old Mini, well that's just insane and the new Mini doesn't even have a SuperDrive, so I see no point.

At some point, I will upgrade to a Mac Pro, if Apple even sells them anymore by then.

PS: That file appears to have the same date as the r89812 release, yet it is half the size ???
That seems odd since my last PPC version is Xslimmed and this is still twice the size ???
I'm confused.

urbanrave
Jul 24, 2011, 05:31 PM
And where is this coming from? Explanation?

I have still found no announcement that Webkit or Safari is going Intel only.
I understand why Apple isn't saying anything. That's par for the course.

But why doesn't Webkit.org have some warning that upgrading your Webkit nightly will BRICK it?

That's just crazy. I googled all around for a PowerPC nightly of Webkit and could not find one.

As for the suggestions for Camino, I will check those out. Thanks.

As for all the insults like "My Mini is 10X faster than your G5 and I only paid $200",
"Why don't you just move up to 2011", etc... I'll just let those comments stand on their own lack of validity.

I have an Intel Mac, but I've done enough reading to know that replacing my high end G5 home media server with 2TB and upgraded graphics to a $200 used old Mini, well that's just insane and the new Mini doesn't even have a SuperDrive, so I see no point.

At some point, I will upgrade to a Mac Pro, if Apple even sells them anymore by then.

PS: That file appears to have the same date as the r89812 release, yet it is half the size ???
That seems odd since my last PPC version is Xslimmed and this is still twice the size ???
I'm confused.

use it if u want. im using it... and the size is bekose i have super duper Xslimmed the file.... daaah=? O_o

goMac
Jul 24, 2011, 05:38 PM
Apple discontinued their PowerPC compiler, which is likely why the nighties are now Intel only. It's either that or they stick with an older compiler that produces less optimized code.

This alone should be a major reason to get off PowerPC. It won't be long before developers won't even have tools to write PowerPC apps anymore.

urbanrave
Jul 24, 2011, 05:47 PM
Here is the latest WebKit r91642-[NERD-ZooN,inc]™ for PPC 10.5 Leopard only. replace it in the apps folder

➥ WebKit r91642-[NERD-ZooN,inc]™ for PPC 10.5 Leopard (http://www.mediafire.com/?6bmd234gufc474b)

PS: Now the date stuff is fixed its no longer the same date as the r89812 release : )

HyperZboy
Jul 24, 2011, 07:48 PM
Apple discontinued their PowerPC compiler, which is likely why the nighties are now Intel only. It's either that or they stick with an older compiler that produces less optimized code.

This alone should be a major reason to get off PowerPC. It won't be long before developers won't even have tools to write PowerPC apps anymore.

Ok, does that mean Xbox development is ended too?
It does use PowerPC chips last I checked.

And by the way, I did try out the G5 optimized version of Camino and I'm using it now in fact and it is incredibly faster than Apple's Safari, so clearly Apple and Webkit.org have thrown Safari for PowerPC under the bus.

And guess what? FLASH video from Youtube plays better as well in Camino TOO!

So I think I'm officially switching browsers now for all my PowerPC machines.
I'll still use Safari on the Intel Mac for now, but this Camino build proves Steve Jobs claims of Safari being the fastest browser on the earth are bunk.

Camino beats it on an OLDER MAC! LOL

urbanrave
Jul 24, 2011, 08:18 PM
Ok, does that mean Xbox development is ended too?
It does use PowerPC chips last I checked.

And by the way, I did try out the G5 optimized version of Camino and I'm using it now in fact and it is incredibly faster than Apple's Safari, so clearly Apple and Webkit.org have thrown Safari for PowerPC under the bus.

And guess what? FLASH video from Youtube plays better as well in Camino TOO!

So I think I'm officially switching browsers now for all my PowerPC machines.
I'll still use Safari on the Intel Mac for now, but this Camino build proves Steve Jobs claims of Safari being the fastest browser on the earth are bunk.

Camino beats it on an OLDER MAC! LOL



Nope, u are SO wrong. here is acid 3 test from Safari/WebKit

http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/4648/upshotmjwahfwo.png

And here is from Camino with same pages open...

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/4871/upshotlyinwz8z.png

So i say WebKit wins, camino blääää!!!! LOL
And if u want smooter YouTube on your PPC mac go in to http://www.youtube.com/html5 and activate it, then u get the html5 verision of YouTube..... but u maby alredy know that....

zen.state
Jul 24, 2011, 09:30 PM
Keep in mind this is the 5.0x Safari/Webkit and not the current 5.1 that is truly Intel only.

I ran an available Safari update on my Sawtooth G4 about 4-5 days ago that updated it to 5.06. My point is that even Apple released this and it would be more stable than nightly builds.

JoniLW
Jul 24, 2011, 10:16 PM
I feel pity for those people bashing the powerpc's. Before your intel macs there were the powerpc's. And they are not yet "dead" as you would like to imply.

Apple woould like to kill it to get more sales on the hardware. Apple is a hardware company not a software like microsoft. If they would end support for old hardwares, that would force "consumers" to buy the latest. Thereby forcing "us" to buy the latest h/w.

That is where the frustration of the OP came from. And in my opinion Apple should not be doing towards its loyal customers who doesn't want to upgrade.

The "latest" and the "greatest" is not needed at all for web browsing. I think everybody would agree with me.

Old post yes. But my exact sentiments. I have a G5 and its not ready for any junk heap. It moves quickly... I don't need to be impressed by lightning speed. What I need to be impressed by is the product support of Apple. I feel that Apple is about the most money hungry bunch of thieves, ever.

I had a performa 460 that lasted longer than any of these new machines. Lasted longer in all the updates, patches, fixits. So why is that Apple so easily abandon those of us who gave them that one chance to try their product? I can't stay in love with a product that will cost me 3 month's rent, to purchase ever 2 years. Screw that.

PC's aren't as expensive and they aren't slouches. I own both a PC and an Mac. 80 % of my time is spent on the PC because I can't do anything with my G5 anymore that is cost effective.

Nameci
Jul 24, 2011, 11:38 PM
All the time I use my Macs to get the job done(I don't personally own a PC anymore). I have PC at work. To me apple is ditching support because as I have said previously they are making money out of hardware not software. So if they can force the consumer to buy brand new hardware every so often, that will be good to the company. Other reason is apple is a listed company, the company is bound to do every concievable way to earn money to satisfy it shareholder. So goodbye with the Safari support for PPC. 5.0.6 might be the last update that we can get.

Anyway, about the other browsers, Camino specifically compiled for G5 is really faster than Safari, starting up and loading a page, I don't have the numbers to prove but they are way faster visually. Camino plays flash content better than Safari, the only downside, it doesn't support html5 video content. It plays hulu better than Safari... :D

HyperZboy
Jul 25, 2011, 01:39 AM
Keep in mind this is the 5.0x Safari/Webkit and not the current 5.1 that is truly Intel only.

I ran an available Safari update on my Sawtooth G4 about 4-5 days ago that updated it to 5.06. My point is that even Apple released this and it would be more stable than nightly builds.

I found the Safari 5.05 release from Apple less stable than the last PowerPC Webkit build and I normally run both simultaneously due to running multiple websites/blogs on the same sites and the need to separate cookies. I will extensively check out Safari 5.06, but I seriously doubt it will improve performance on PowerPC machines, but maybe stability.

Now as for Camino vs. Safari on Acid3, I've never used the test and I don't deal in George W.'s fuzzy math.

The facts on the ground speak for themselves on all the websites I normally go to including Youtube and Facebook, among others. An optimized G5 Camino build is significantly faster than Apple's universal binary build of Safari. That's not my opinion, it's just reality. Now if I compared the standard Camino build vs. the standard Apple Safari build, well maybe it would be different, but I think I just found my browser of choice now that Apple is discontinuing Safari for PowerPC and I like the speed.

And as for the suggestion of using the HTML5 version of Youtube instead, everything I've read about HTML5 vs. FLASH has proven that HTML5 videos are larger, so I doubt that would be that much of a difference and last I checked there is no HTML5 version of Facebook.

Finally, there are several things that bother me most about this whole issue...

#1: Apple has made no announcement to its customers, yet continues to update Safari for Windows XP.
#2: Webkit.org made no official announcement of dropping PowerPC support in Webkit either, at least not on their main webpage.
#3: Webkit updates actually BRICKED Webkit for PowerPC users when the trunk change happened without warning. That's just insulting to my intelligence and makes me want to scream, "What *****S!"

PS: And even Macrumors.com runs faster on an optimized G5 Camino build than on the latest Safari. If this works as well on a G4 (which I've yet to test), I'm switching some relatives and friends away from SAFARI (people who only use their computers for webmail as that's also faster on Camino than Safari).

JoniLW
Jul 25, 2011, 01:40 AM
Anyway, about the other browsers, Camino specifically compiled for G5 is really faster than Safari, starting up and loading a page, I don't have the numbers to prove but they are way faster visually. Camino plays flash content better than Safari, the only downside, it doesn't support html5 video content. It plays hulu better than Safari...

I am using Camino right now. ;) have to agree with that.

Gmail is acting up too. Its now only loading for upgraded Firefox (which I am not using... because I've run out of options for even that... with 10.3.9, but hey, never mind that :P ) and it still has the same behavior as if Camino was firefox.

I can't upgrade anything using panther. For internet use, this machine is about dead. For everything else... its all good. And I can't afford leopard. So... what to do? know where I can get someone's old leopard upgrade? *LOL*

*sigh*

urbanrave
Jul 25, 2011, 09:41 AM
I found the Safari 5.05 release from Apple less stable than the last PowerPC Webkit build and I normally run both simultaneously due to running multiple websites/blogs on the same sites and the need to separate cookies. I will extensively check out Safari 5.06, but I seriously doubt it will improve performance on PowerPC machines, but maybe stability.

Now as for Camino vs. Safari on Acid3, I've never used the test and I don't deal in George W.'s fuzzy math.

The facts on the ground speak for themselves on all the websites I normally go to including Youtube and Facebook, among others. An optimized G5 Camino build is significantly faster than Apple's universal binary build of Safari. That's not my opinion, it's just reality. Now if I compared the standard Camino build vs. the standard Apple Safari build, well maybe it would be different, but I think I just found my browser of choice now that Apple is discontinuing Safari for PowerPC and I like the speed.

And as for the suggestion of using the HTML5 version of Youtube instead, everything I've read about HTML5 vs. FLASH has proven that HTML5 videos are larger, so I doubt that would be that much of a difference and last I checked there is no HTML5 version of Facebook.

Finally, there are several things that bother me most about this whole issue...

#1: Apple has made no announcement to its customers, yet continues to update Safari for Windows XP.
#2: Webkit.org made no official announcement of dropping PowerPC support in Webkit either, at least not on their main webpage.
#3: Webkit updates actually BRICKED Webkit for PowerPC users when the trunk change happened without warning. That's just insulting to my intelligence and makes me want to scream, "What *****S!"

PS: And even Macrumors.com runs faster on an optimized G5 Camino build than on the latest Safari. If this works as well on a G4 (which I've yet to test), I'm switching some relatives and friends away from SAFARI (people who only use their computers for webmail as that's also faster on Camino than Safari).

the Webkit updates dont BRICK it like u are saying, u make it sound like its ower forever. u can just tanke the old one from trach and put it back an applications folder.

And HTML5 videos are maby larger but if u activate it on YT it will run much smoother... i have a PowerBook G4 1.5GHz and when i wach a youtube web klip it is wery slow, but with html5 it runs like hell. and Flash is soon ower, in a near future html5 is going to dominate. and flash will be ower.

goMac
Jul 25, 2011, 02:44 PM
Ok, does that mean Xbox development is ended too?
It does use PowerPC chips last I checked.

Apple doesn't use Microsoft's compilers, how is this relevant?

PowerPC compilers still exist, but Apple no longer supports or supplies them for Mac OS X. That's how it works. Even if there are PowerPC compilers, Apple still has to write a PowerPC runtime for the latest versions of Cocoa.

zen.state
Jul 25, 2011, 02:56 PM
Anyone still interested in PowerPC development on Mac simply just needs to use a slightly older Xcode. Since any apps made now for PowerPC are going to run on older hardware and pre-10.6 OS it wouldn't matter at all that it's outdated. Only if you wanted to make it universal and work in 10.6/10.7 also.

adcx64
Jul 25, 2011, 03:02 PM
I still use Xcode 3.1.4 on my iBook and eMac, I have no need for my apps to run on intel hardware..........

VanneDC
Jul 25, 2011, 03:03 PM
I just updated safari on leopard, works fine on ppc!

adcx64
Jul 25, 2011, 03:10 PM
Honestly, I don't care if Apple decides to drop support for Safari in the near future. There are far superior browsers optimized for PPC.

MagnusVonMagnum
Jul 25, 2011, 03:37 PM
Nope, u are SO wrong. here is acid 3 test from Safari/WebKit

Yeah, as if the Acid 3 test had a darn thing to do with real world features on a browser. That is SO something that a person would say if they had no clue about browsers. Firefox 5 is way better than Safari in a lot of ways and it isn't 100 on Acid 3 either and it doesn't matter in the real world. :rolleyes:

Frankly, I'm more concerned about iTunes being supported on PowerPC than Safari. iTunes 10.4 works on PowerPC, but I had a freeze within an hour of installing it (while the same PowerMac had run for 4 months without a reset before that point so iTunes is the likely culprit. An earlier version behaved similarly unstable and I so I had stuck with iTunes 10.1 for quite some time, but I finally tried iTunes 10.3.1 a few weeks ago and surprisingly, it is just as stable as 10.1 as far as I can tell so I was disappointed to find 10.4 seemingly unstable (I reverted back to 10.3.1 for now).

Meanwhile, I had also upgraded to Safari 5.0.6 on the same PowerMac the same time as iTunes 10.4 at least that version of Safari still supports PowerPC (10.4 iTunes isn't 64-bit on anything but Lion, so obviously they've forked off the builds to some extent for now).

VanneDC
Jul 25, 2011, 03:45 PM
Meh I prefer safari on ppc
:apple:

fabian9
Jul 25, 2011, 04:14 PM
I simply refuse to throw out a superior machine like a high end tricked out PowerMac G5 for a low end slower less capable Mac Mini.


Why not just keep the software as is - it's working for you, isn't it? You don't always have to be on the latest software release to be able to use it...

zen.state
Jul 25, 2011, 04:26 PM
Why not just keep the software as is - it's working for you, isn't it? You don't always have to be on the latest software release to be able to use it...

What you're saying is very true for a lot of creative apps like music, video or photography based stuff. When it comes to security and compatibility the browser is the one app you want to keep as current as possible.

This is why Camino is a better option. The PowerPC optimized builds.

adcx64
Jul 25, 2011, 05:49 PM
http://www.rpm-mozilla.org.uk/builds/camino/
A better browser.

Nameci
Jul 25, 2011, 06:18 PM
It's true, it's true. It is my main browser nowadays. Safari is good and fast but Camino is much snappier on PPC... despite the fact that it is a gecko not a webkit...

Anonymous Freak
Jul 25, 2011, 06:42 PM
Try TenFourFox (http://www.floodgap.com/software/tenfourfox/). It's based on later codebases than Camino, although less stable. It even has support for WebM and Ogg Vorbis video direct in the browser, fully G4-optimized.

goMac
Jul 25, 2011, 06:44 PM
Anyone still interested in PowerPC development on Mac simply just needs to use a slightly older Xcode. Since any apps made now for PowerPC are going to run on older hardware and pre-10.6 OS it wouldn't matter at all that it's outdated. Only if you wanted to make it universal and work in 10.6/10.7 also.

But again, optimizations made available to apps would not be available under the old Xcode. Recent releases of 4 have introduced new compilers which can produce faster code.

Given that Safari is speed focused, they are likely planning on adopting these optimizations, which would permanently break PowerPC builds, as these optimizations are not available on PowerPC.

zen.state
Jul 25, 2011, 07:16 PM
But again, optimizations made available to apps would not be available under the old Xcode. Recent releases of 4 have introduced new compilers which can produce faster code.

Given that Safari is speed focused, they are likely planning on adopting these optimizations, which would permanently break PowerPC builds, as these optimizations are not available on PowerPC.

You're forgetting that you can only run up to OS 10.5.8 on PowerPC Macs. What optimizations would there ever currently be for a 4 year old OS and it's apps?

zen.state
Jul 25, 2011, 07:21 PM
Try TenFourFox (http://www.floodgap.com/software/tenfourfox/). It's based on later codebases than Camino, although less stable. It even has support for WebM and Ogg Vorbis video direct in the browser, fully G4-optimized.

I find the Camino 7450 build running on my G4 1.8GHz 7448 is noticeably faster than TFF and just as compatible. I actually kept TFF around for a month or so and tried it every so often just to see if I could get all the fuss. I deleted it weeks ago.

I have no blind faith to Camino at all but the truth is it's faster and just better in general. I think the differences in opinion can only be explained by some either using the standard build from the Camino site or a different perception of time. :)

Nameci
Jul 25, 2011, 07:28 PM
So going back to the question, "next Safari Intel Only?", I could care less. As long as there are still developers optimizing code for PPC I am not so worried about it. And besides all I do with my browser is to browse for MR Site... lol. :D

Anonymous Freak
Jul 25, 2011, 07:56 PM
I find the Camino 7450 build running on my G4 1.8GHz 7448 is noticeably faster than TFF and just as compatible. I actually kept TFF around for a month or so and tried it every so often just to see if I could get all the fuss. I deleted it weeks ago.

I have no blind faith to Camino at all but the truth is it's faster and just better in general. I think the differences in opinion can only be explained by some either using the standard build from the Camino site or a different perception of time. :)

huh. On my slower G4s, it's the other way around. (800 MHz and 1 GHz.)

adcx64
Jul 25, 2011, 08:53 PM
Another plus with Camino is it has a built in Ad and Flash blocker to make things even faster.

MagnusVonMagnum
Jul 25, 2011, 08:56 PM
I never saw anything in Camino to help me comprehend why so many like it. TenFourFox seems very stable here to me and lets me use all the Firefox add-ons I like so much.

adcx64
Jul 25, 2011, 09:02 PM
On my iBook, Flash on Camino runs faster than TFF and Safari. It is actually semi-watchable:rolleyes:

It also launches faster. Four bounces on the dock for TFF, one for Camino.

Obviously these are machine specific but this is why I chose Camino.

goMac
Jul 26, 2011, 03:02 AM
You're forgetting that you can only run up to OS 10.5.8 on PowerPC Macs. What optimizations would there ever currently be for a 4 year old OS and it's apps?

I'm pretty sure this is exactly my point. The optimizations Apple is likely planning to take advantage of support neither 10.5 or PPC.

As soon as the Safari team adopts LLVM 2 or LLVM 3, or the latest version of Obj-C, PowerPC support is permanently broken, and Safari won't compile with a PowerPC compiler.

This is likely why Apple disabled PowerPC compiles now. They're going to break permanently sometime in the near future.

zen.state
Jul 26, 2011, 07:48 AM
I'm pretty sure this is exactly my point. The optimizations Apple is likely planning to take advantage of support neither 10.5 or PPC.

As soon as the Safari team adopts LLVM 2 or LLVM 3, or the latest version of Obj-C, PowerPC support is permanently broken, and Safari won't compile with a PowerPC compiler.

This is likely why Apple disabled PowerPC compiles now. They're going to break permanently sometime in the near future.

You may be right about Apple being able to stop PowerPC development on Safari but certainly not in general.

Anyone with an older xcode that still compiles PowerPC code can still code their own 3rd party apps and there is nothing Apple would ever be able to stop about that.

goMac
Jul 26, 2011, 12:39 PM
You may be right about Apple being able to stop PowerPC development on Safari but certainly not in general.

Anyone with an older xcode that still compiles PowerPC code can still code their own 3rd party apps and there is nothing Apple would ever be able to stop about that.

Only if the code in question is supported by older Xcode.

A lot of advancements introduced in Xcode 4 and 4.1 are not compatible with older XCodes. Even a lot of nice stuff that reduces the amount of code you have to write. If you take advantage of them, you can no longer compile your code in an older version of Xcode. The older compilers simply aren't compatible with the new advancements.

If people adopt these advancements, the existence of an older version of Xcode won't matter.

zen.state
Jul 26, 2011, 12:45 PM
Only if the code in question is supported by older Xcode.

A lot of advancements introduced in Xcode 4 and 4.1 are not compatible with older XCodes. Even a lot of nice stuff that reduces the amount of code you have to write. If you take advantage of them, you can no longer compile your code in an older version of Xcode. The older compilers simply aren't compatible with the new advancements.

If people adopt these advancements, the existence of an older version of Xcode won't matter.

Once again.. those new advancements wouldn't run on anything PowerPC in the first place anyway. You're looking at writing PowerPC apps like they need to work with new code advancements.

Old xcode, old mac, old OS. It's very simple to understand you don't need to be currently compatible in that situation. Not sure what you're missing here.

goMac
Jul 26, 2011, 02:09 PM
Once again.. those new advancements wouldn't run on anything PowerPC in the first place anyway. You're looking at writing PowerPC apps like they need to work with new code advancements.

Old xcode, old mac, old OS. It's very simple to understand you don't need to be currently compatible in that situation. Not sure what you're missing here.

I'm not sure what you're missing here...

If I write an app with the latest version of Obj-C, which runs faster than the older versions, it won't work in Xcode 3, and won't compile for PowerPC.

In order to write code that would compile on PowerPC, I'd have to use an old version of Obj-C.

This isn't just "I'll leave out optimizations for PowerPC." Newer versions of Xcode have you write entirely different code that won't work on PowerPC and doesn't back port. These aren't optional nicities.

MagnusVonMagnum
Jul 26, 2011, 03:26 PM
I'm not sure what you're missing here...

If I write an app with the latest version of Obj-C, which runs faster than the older versions, it won't work in Xcode 3, and won't compile for PowerPC.

In order to write code that would compile on PowerPC, I'd have to use an old version of Obj-C.

This isn't just "I'll leave out optimizations for PowerPC." Newer versions of Xcode have you write entirely different code that won't work on PowerPC and doesn't back port. These aren't optional nicities.

This whole line of thinking is hilarious. Optimized code? Where? Since when have we seen code get faster and more optimized over time as a whole? In practice (speaking as someone whose first computer was Commodore Vic-20 and who has been around to see the home computer industry develop in its entirety), I've seen just the opposite. As time goes on, hardware gets faster and faster and code gets sloppier and sloppier, slower and slower, less optimized and taking up obscene amounts of space, often with very little improvement to justify it overall at any given stage.

I mean what was so much better in Office 2008 over Office 2004 to explain why Office 2008 (with Intel code) ran slower than Office 2004 ran under emulation through Rosetta? I mean seriously. That's just 4 years. I remember when my Amiga 500 could run a WYSIWYG word processor with 1 Meg of ram with no problems or when a lowly C64 could produce professional looking documents with a whopping 64k of ram, not to mention thousands of games that were more fun than half the crap put out today that is all eye candy and little gameplay.

Was Leopard faster than Tiger? No. Was Snow Leopard faster than Leopard? No. (and that one is particularly funny since it was supposed to be an "optimized" version of OSX) Is OSX getting slimmer with each release? Is its ram requirements going down? So exactly where is this so-called "optimized" code at? Why was Leopard literally half the GUI speed of Tiger? How is that improved or optimized? You didn't notice? Yeah, if you bought a new computer with it, I guess not.

I've seen improvements in Safari for Javascript, but it seems that's all people look at. I guarantee that other aspects of Safari have been getting slower with every release. It's much more noticeable on a PowerPC machine because it doesn't have as much CPU power to waste. Things take longer to scroll while loading. Windows take longer to draw. It takes longer than it used to for my home page to come up (apparently other things are loading), etc. That's optimized?

Frankly, I watch how long it takes my MBP with dual-core 2.4GHz CPUS to draw an average web page today and think back about how web pages using simpler methods achieved the same information delivery and yet could run on a 25MHz 68030 with 18MB ram (i.e. my Amiga 3000) just fine. I can only imagine how information could come up literally instantly if all that newer unnecessary CRAP weren't on every web page out there.

goMac
Jul 26, 2011, 06:19 PM
This whole line of thinking is hilarious. Optimized code? Where? Since...(snip)

Doesn't matter how you feel about it. That's the reality. Obj-C has changed over the past few years, with stuff like ARC being added that changes the code entirely, and those features aren't available in any PowerPC compiler.

If I write a project using ARC, it will never run on PowerPC, and it won't compile at all in Xcode 3.

You can say all you want how worthless optimizations are (and I tend to agree with you that Office is bad example of optimization), but Xcode 3 can't even compile new code even with all the optimizations removed.

MagnusVonMagnum
Jul 27, 2011, 02:33 PM
And whose fault is it that PowerPC isn't supported in the latest Xcode? It's Apple's fault and therefore Apple sucks since they won't support their own computers half as well as they support Microsoft's computers. Case closed.

chrismacguy
Jul 27, 2011, 06:48 PM
And whose fault is it that PowerPC isn't supported in the latest Xcode? It's Apple's fault and therefore Apple sucks since they won't support their own computers half as well as they support Microsoft's computers. Case closed.

Not quite, because last time I checked Apple doesn't support Microsoft's computers more outright. The ONLY reason MS has a longer support frame in reality is because Apple has gone thru a massive architectural shift in the past decade, and the same applies to their executable format and programming language (.app has changed, as has Obj-C - and in many cases the changes wouldn't make much sense on the PowerPC platform). Whereas Windows NT Executables have barely changed in terms of making something work on XP, Vista and 7, only because the .NET Framework is relatively portable between Windows versions as they all share a common architecture (ie If the compiler tells the program to use an x86 register - it will be there). Porting a language with the amount of low-level control Obj-C has between architectures is "an absolute nightmare", and expecting Apple to continue it any longer than they absolutely had too is unreasonable. Say whatever you like, but the truth, from a CS and Business perspective, is that this day has come at a time when Apple isnt going to aggravate 90%+ of its user base, and in business thats the time you can get away with something)