PDA

View Full Version : Mac OS X 10.6 to Drop PowerPC Support?




Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Sep 24, 2007, 10:16 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

As we approach the release of Apple's Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard), Appleinsider suggests (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/09/24/updated_leopard_requirements_to_exclude_800mhz_systems.html) that this may be the last major Mac OS revision that supports the PowerPC architecture.
Looking ahead, those people familiar with Apple development cycles speculate that Mac OS X 10.6 will exclude support for PowerPC-based Macs entirely, requiring that users have one of the company's Intel-based systems which first began making their way to market in early 2006.
Cited as speculation, Apple may not yet have made a decision on this matter. Apple has made no announcements about Mac OS X 10.6. Based on the most recent Mac OS development cycles, Mac OS X 10.6 would not likely ship until 2009.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/09/24/mac-os-x-10-6-to-drop-powerpc-support/)



Moof1904
Sep 24, 2007, 10:18 AM
That sucks. There's a lot of life left in the PPC Macs.

bytethese
Sep 24, 2007, 10:19 AM
Makes sense...

redAPPLE
Sep 24, 2007, 10:20 AM
it will happen sooner or later, no?

chr1s60
Sep 24, 2007, 10:20 AM
I hope this is not the case. I am buying a MacBook Pro soon, but I would still like to be able to use my current iMac with the most recent OS. One of the things I really like about Apple is that they make things compatible with the new stuff and the old stuff. I think they need to continue supporting the PowerPC for at least a few more years.

kwood
Sep 24, 2007, 10:21 AM
It seems like a logical step to me. If Apple releases 10.6 in 2 years then the last Power PC computers will be 4 years old.

kbrain2929
Sep 24, 2007, 10:21 AM
Makes sense to me as well! Intel is the newest and greatest, Power PC is in the past. So sorry if you can't upgrade. What's 10.6 going to be called? Lion? :D :apple:

lunarworks
Sep 24, 2007, 10:22 AM
10.5 supposedly already removes support for the G3.

lord patton
Sep 24, 2007, 10:23 AM
Well, if they're dropping the support for 800 MHz PPC systems, what would the cutoff be in late 2009 for 10.6? 1.5 GHz? If so, nearly all PPC portables would be out of spec.

Maybe that'd be fine, but I'd think G5 iMacs and Power Macs would still be good enough. Until Apple says something definite, I'm betting 10.6 will be universal, but with specs that preclude all but the most powerful PPC systems.

edesignuk
Sep 24, 2007, 10:24 AM
OSX will have to be multi processor to keep support for the upcoming iPods and iPhones which run (quite well) on Samsung ARM processorsThe mobile version of OS X for iPhones/iPods has nothing to do with this.

benspratling
Sep 24, 2007, 10:24 AM
Let's get 10.5 on store shelves before we even start pretending rumors about 10.6 are relevant to our lives.

milo
Sep 24, 2007, 10:24 AM
While in a perfect world it would be great if they could support all hardware forever, this isn't remotely surprising. I think this is what pretty much everyone expected, some people even said apple wouldn't support PPC with 10.5.

It's not that big a deal, Intel machines have been shipping for 20 months. By the time 10.6 ships, the newest ppc machines will be upwards of 4 years old.

10.5 supposedly already removes support for the G3.

You mean the last remaining g3's. My g3 was only supported through 10.2. And it may still work with a hack like xpostfacto.

ghall
Sep 24, 2007, 10:25 AM
10.5 supposedly already removes support for the G3.

Well, then shouldn't 10.6 eliminate the G4? That seems like the most logical step to me.

Why are we even discussing 10.6 already? 10.5 isn't even out yet.

k28
Sep 24, 2007, 10:26 AM
10.5 drop G3
10.6 drop G4
10.7 drop G5

This would make more sense?

Warbrain
Sep 24, 2007, 10:26 AM
Not surprising at all, but I highly doubt that they would leave the most recent PowerMac G5 users hanging like that. At least I have a top of the line iBook that might be able to run it next time around.

longofest
Sep 24, 2007, 10:27 AM
By late 2009, it would have been 4 years since the last new PPC mac was sold.

hdsalinas
Sep 24, 2007, 10:29 AM
I think Apple should support PPC macs as long as the fastest ppc mac can keep up with whatever they come out and as long it is financially viable. Obviously if the hardware doesnt cut it anymore they should move on.

So, yes, I think that apple may drop support for PPC on OSX 10.6 if it wont run as smooth as in whatever intel's processor they use by then.

plumbingandtech
Sep 24, 2007, 10:29 AM
Rebate! Rebate! Rebate!

/snark

Object-X
Sep 24, 2007, 10:29 AM
Leopard ships October 2007 and I wouldn't expect to see a new OS X until at least 2009 or later. G4s will be really old by then and the features that the next gen OS will support will almost certainly be too advanced for such an old architecture. But I can hear the whining already. :rolleyes:

KindredMAC
Sep 24, 2007, 10:29 AM
I would hope that it would be 10.7 that would end PPC support. Think about all the PowerMac G5's out there in the industry because people couldn't wait for Adobe to release the Native CS3 apps.

That would mean that all the G5's out there sold last year would be obsolete in 2 years if 10.6 took away PPC support all together? No way. Especially when some of the last model PowerMacs still rival the current Intel line in performace and handling of applications.

Come on Apple give the G5's at least 4 more years. That's not asking a lot.

Otherwise you could easily see another lawsuit similar to the Beige PowerMac G3 suit over OS X.

rychencop
Sep 24, 2007, 10:29 AM
That sucks. There's a lot of life left in the PPC Macs.

Not really. By 2009/10 PPC's will be totally out of date.

Markleshark
Sep 24, 2007, 10:30 AM
By late 2009, it would have been 4 years since the last new PPC mac was sold.

More than enough time to warrant dropping PPC support, IMHO.

guzhogi
Sep 24, 2007, 10:32 AM
Would make sense. PowerPC is getting a little long in the tooth. Plus, this will help programming since you wouldn't have to program for 2 different architectures. While the iPod/iPhone will still be here, Apple will still have less architectures to support.

The only down side w/ going Intel only that I can see is there are a lot of really great classic only apps out there that never made the jump to Mac OS X. Kinda sad to see them go.

chaosbunny
Sep 24, 2007, 10:32 AM
Well, I guess the (few) who bought the quad G5s maybe expected them to last longer than 4 years...

Sad for them.:(

mkrishnan
Sep 24, 2007, 10:32 AM
More than enough time to warrant dropping PPC support, IMHO.

At the consumer / desktop level, sure... but OS X also runs on XServes and Power Macs used in server / networked computing environments. Four years is a long life on the desktop, but you can't expect an XGrid owner to replace a thousand XServes every four years....

NYmacAttack
Sep 24, 2007, 10:33 AM
Not really. By 2009/10 PPC's will be totally out of date.

Its a smart move on their part, not only will the PPC computers be out of date but they probably wouldn't be able to run 10.6 well. Although its really tough to speculate about these things two years down the line......

Markleshark
Sep 24, 2007, 10:34 AM
At the consumer / desktop level, sure... but OS X also runs on XServes and Power Macs used in server / networked computing environments. Four years is a long life on the desktop, but you can't expect an XGrid owner to replace a thousand XServes every four years....

Well they could keep it [PPC Support] in the server version. Will someone who owns 'a thousand' xServes also be upgrading each one with the newest version of OS X? Sounds expensive also.

decimortis
Sep 24, 2007, 10:35 AM
Fair? Not really.

Surprising? Not really.

4God
Sep 24, 2007, 10:36 AM
10.5 drop G3
10.6 drop G4
10.7 drop G5

This would make more sense?

Yup. Seems much more likely to me. It gives G5'ers plenty of time to
consider upgrading.

Cloudsurfer
Sep 24, 2007, 10:37 AM
I'd say 10.6 would at least support the G5 systems, and then drop the PowerPC altogether for 10.7

zombitronic
Sep 24, 2007, 10:37 AM
That's fine. I've been wanting a reason to transcend beyond my G4 for awhile. Maybe I'll buy a Mac Pro when 10.6 comes out. I can't wait till the rumors of this start to ramp up.

psingh01
Sep 24, 2007, 10:39 AM
10.5 drop G3
10.6 drop G4
10.7 drop G5

This would make more sense?

I agree, this makes the most sense. Maybe even slower than that. Apple has kept classic support for quite some time.

tobefirst
Sep 24, 2007, 10:39 AM
Yeah, I'm with the people who say that this isn't all that surprising. Seems about right to me.

guzhogi
Sep 24, 2007, 10:40 AM
I agree w/ those that say by the time 10.6 rolls out (2009 (?)), all PowerPCs (G4, and G5) would be really old. And to those that say 10.6 should drop G4s and keep the G5 until 10.7, that'll probably be 2011 by the earliest, meaning they'd be at least 6 years old. In computer terms, that's ancient. Plus, if Apple goes w/ just the G5, what about laptops? No Apple laptops ship w/ G5s, and laptops are a big percentage of the Mac market. So Apple would be really stupid to take out G4 support and not G5.

And before anyone says it, Powerbook G5 on Tuesday!

Data
Sep 24, 2007, 10:40 AM
Why not keep developing both versions, as they did starting from os X , in that way , if ibm would come out with something spectacular and new that Intel missed , the switch back wil be very easy. Only if it's really ,really expensive then it would be considerable, to stop the universal versions in my opinion.
But i'm not a programmer so it's basicly a big wild gues ;-) .

savar
Sep 24, 2007, 10:41 AM
Makes sense to me as well! Intel is the newest and greatest, Power PC is in the past. So sorry if you can't upgrade. What's 10.6 going to be called? Lion? :D :apple:

Still it seems a little premature. I mean there are G5s out there only a few years old that would probably like to move to 10.6.

Seems like a strange time to change too, seeing as how they've gone through all the trouble to develop the multiple architecture support in the first place, and as somebody pointed out are apparently using it in some form to support iphone/ipod.

Maybe this just means they won't be tuning for PPC anymore?

Edit: oops, I was thinking 10.6 is coming out this year. If 10.6 comes out 18 to 24 months after 10.5 (reasonable schedule), then that will be the right time to phase out PPC support. I doubt it even has as much to do with the PPC itself as it does supporting all the old chipsets in legacy macs.

Kwill
Sep 24, 2007, 10:41 AM
PPC users would be able to use Leopard a couple more years beyond the next cat's release. With an older Mac, it is not always necessary to run the latest OS and software. However, eventually software upgrades will stop supporting prior OS versions and people with 10-15 year old Macs will need to replace their dearly beloved. May she rest in environmentally-friendly pieces.

samh004
Sep 24, 2007, 10:44 AM
it will happen sooner or later, no?

True.

10.5 drop G3
10.6 drop G4
10.7 drop G5

This would make more sense?

Nothing from Apple ever makes sense :p

Well, I guess the (few) who bought the quad G5s maybe expected them to last longer than 4 years...

Sad for them.:(

They will last longer than four years, just with 10.5 only according to this speculation.

guzhogi
Sep 24, 2007, 10:44 AM
Well they could keep it [PPC Support] in the server version. Will someone who owns 'a thousand' xServes also be upgrading each one with the newest version of OS X? Sounds expensive also.

I agree, even just upgrading the OS on 1000 servers is expensive & time consuming. While I feel you shouldn't just break support just to break support, sometimes it's necessary to do that so you can move forward.

Spock
Sep 24, 2007, 10:45 AM
This is not that big of a deal, Apple needs to drop the PowerPC it will be time by 2009. Apple dropped support for 68k Macs after what, OS 8.1?

mkrishnan
Sep 24, 2007, 10:46 AM
Well they could keep it [PPC Support] in the server version. Will someone who owns 'a thousand' xServes also be upgrading each one with the newest version of OS X? Sounds expensive also.

When I mentioned the thousand XServes, I meant computers like the supercomputer at VTech (http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/vatech2/)... but to be honest, I have no idea how this works... it's not like a supercomputer needs to run the latest version of iLife. :p On the other hand, though, the level of support that Apple offers legacy OSes wouldn't seem to be enough.

I dunno... I guess my broad point was just that there might be a lot of corporate applications where G5s are still very much in use in 2009 or 2010, and there would be a reasonable expectation of continued OS support. I guess it could just be PPC OS X Server, but then considering that OS X Server is mostly a superset of OS X, it seems like it would just be crippleware to not make the workstation/client OS X available in PPC as well....

Eidorian
Sep 24, 2007, 10:46 AM
It was a nice run for PowerPC then.

yzp
Sep 24, 2007, 10:47 AM
Makes sense...

even if...

That sucks. There's a lot of life left in the PPC Macs.

However,
OSX will have to be multi processor to keep support for the upcoming iPods and iPhones which run (quite well) on Samsung ARM processors

but

it will happen sooner or later, no?

SirOmega
Sep 24, 2007, 10:47 AM
I really dont expect 10.6 until MWSF 2010. And even then, PPC owners can still run 10.5.

kainjow
Sep 24, 2007, 10:49 AM
If they ever do drop PPC support, they will still maintain compatibility internally like they've done with Intel since 10.0. What if IBM releases a killer CPU in 10 years and Intel is the one behind?

pohl
Sep 24, 2007, 10:49 AM
I can't believe how many people are saying that it would "make sense".

It would not make sense, and Apple is not going to do it. Think about it, kids: the bulk of the Apple Insider article is about a mere 67Mhz increase in the minimum requirements for Leopard...and why? Because they discovered that it simply wouldn't be performant on lesser machines -- and that's a reasonable expectation, since threading things (like the network stack) does have some overhead associated with it and the older, slower machines are going to be the ones bit by that tradeoff.

But WTF...you think a quad, or dual, or even single G5 at 2.0 Ghz is not going to run 10.6 adequately for some reason? As if. The trend in OSX from release to release is that, on most machines with adequate memory, it gets faster -- not slower. The machines that get slower are the edge cases.

It costs Apple almost nothing to maintain the PPC port of this software (which, you should recall, ran on 040, SPARC, and HP PA-RISC, and now runs on PPC, x86, and ARM and who knows what else in the lab) and they're not going to anger anybody with even a dual G4 tower for a long, long time.

I'd put money on it.

p0intblank
Sep 24, 2007, 10:50 AM
I think 10.6 should at least support the G5 and follow tradition (dropping support for each one as we go). I'm still on a PowerBook G4, but I am sure I will have an Intel Mac by the time 10.6 rolls around.

kbrain2929
Sep 24, 2007, 10:50 AM
I really dont expect 10.6 until MWSF 2010. And even then, PPC owners can still run 10.5.


Yep, but I was thinking WWDC 2009. You know, kinda in between MWSF 09' and MWSF 10'. I just don't think they will wait that long. It would seem to be too M$ like, :eek: :apple:

sblasl
Sep 24, 2007, 10:52 AM
Obviously this balloon is being floated now with the intent to give the market the heads up that it will need to make some decisions about how & when it wants to go about transitioning to the intel platform.

Apple will need to move on to be able to focus on the current technology it will be dealing with. The updates that would be forthcoming in 10.6 would have no benefit to the PPC platform.

They are not announcing that 10.5 will cease to run on the PPC platform, those machines will continue to operate just fine & dandy.

brianus
Sep 24, 2007, 10:52 AM
By late 2009, it would have been 4 years since the last new PPC mac was sold.

Not so; new PPC Macs were still being sold at least as late as August 2006, when the Mac Pro was introduced. Plenty of 17" and 12" PowerBooks and iBooks were also sold in '06, too, to say nothing of the XServes, which remained G5s until less than a year ago.

In any event, since Tiger will have been out for 2.5 years when Leopard ships (assuming it's still on time, as now appears the case), shouldn't we be expecting Cougar (or whatever) to be coming around April 2010 at the earliest?

Queso
Sep 24, 2007, 10:52 AM
It ought to be pointed out here that a large amount of software available to buy today runs on 10.3.9, and Apple are still supporting that with security updates.

So even if they do cut PPC support in 10.6, they'll probably continue supporting 10.5 for a further two years. If I haven't replaced my last-gen iMac G5 by 2011 I'll be extremely surprised.

Silencio
Sep 24, 2007, 10:54 AM
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Apple dropped all PPC support in 10.6. They've always been about drawing a firm line against over-supporting legacy hardware and software. Microsoft, on the other hand, is greatly encumbered by its efforts to accommodate legacy products in Windows.

It doesn't make much sense to me to drop G4 support, but go through the effort of compiling and bundling PPC code just for the G5s. By 2009 or whatever, the installed base of Intel Macs will completely overshadow all the old PPC Macs.

I imagine plenty of G5-class machines will still be doing productive things in Leopard long after 10.6 is out the door.

maccam
Sep 24, 2007, 10:54 AM
Maybe Mac os 11.0.0 Shark will drop Power PC.

alljunks
Sep 24, 2007, 10:55 AM
sounds like what MS is doing......

QCassidy352
Sep 24, 2007, 10:57 AM
More than enough time to warrant dropping PPC support, IMHO.

I agree. 4 years of support is not bad at all, especially when it's an entirely different architecture.

Dagless
Sep 24, 2007, 10:59 AM
If Apple gives me reason to upgrade my PowerBook (aka, a 12" aluminium laptop) then I'll be all for this! PPC's are getting on a bit. If it saves development time, cost and reduces bugs and stuff then w00t, and the likes.

WestonHarvey1
Sep 24, 2007, 11:00 AM
OSX will have to be multi processor to keep support for the upcoming iPods and iPhones which run (quite well) on Samsung ARM processors

What does that mean? There have been multiprocessor PowerPC Macs for years and years. Quad G5s anyone?

Yvan256
Sep 24, 2007, 11:00 AM
I say, forget G4 support in 10.6 without hesitation. The less backward-compatible code there is, the more bug-free and faster the result should be.

After seeing comparisons between the G4 and a Core 2 Duo, I'm only waiting for Leopard to buy a new Mac mini!

hvfsl
Sep 24, 2007, 11:00 AM
I only have PPC Macs at home and don't have a problem with this. Plus there were rumours floating around that Mac OS X for Intel isn't as optimised as it could be because they are also building with PPC in mind. So going totally Intel should mean Apple can get a bit more speed out of their x86 machines.

CalBoy
Sep 24, 2007, 11:01 AM
It seems like a logical step to me. If Apple releases 10.6 in 2 years then the last Power PC computers will be 4 years old.
Agreed, except for the 2 year thing. Jobs said Apple was going to extend the time betwee successive releases...I don't know what that means, but maybe we can expect 3 years now instead of two.

More than enough time to warrant dropping PPC support, IMHO.
Agreed. Most of the people who have PPC these days bought theirs a little before the Intel announcement, which was mid 2005. Seeing as how we can expect 10.6 sometime after October 2009, I'd say that's plenty of time.

sounds like what MS is doing......

You mean releasing an OS that bricks two month-old computers?:rolleyes: This is not even close to what Microsoft did. G4s will still run Leopard, and those machines are going to be 4 years old by the time 10.6 is out.

powderblue17
Sep 24, 2007, 11:02 AM
Now we're getting rumors for a product which doesn't even exist and is probably 3 years out. We don't want to turn into Microsoft by talking about vaporware here now do we?

viper002060
Sep 24, 2007, 11:02 AM
I thought leopard is supposed to be the last version of osx before os11. i mean seriously, how long can they possibly drag out osx.

notjustjay
Sep 24, 2007, 11:02 AM
Well, I guess the (few) who bought the quad G5s maybe expected them to last longer than 4 years...

Sad for them.:(

It's not like they'll have to stop using their quads the day 10.6 is released.

I ran on Panther (10.3) until about 3 weeks ago, when I finally made the switch to Tiger (when I had to buy a new Mac to replace a dying PowerBook). I could probably have gone on with Panther even longer. Yes, I was starting to feel the pinch for a few apps that were Tiger only, but everything I could do before, I could still do.

I'd love it if Apple could continue supporting everything ad infinitum, but at some point they have to let go of the old if they intend to continue innovating. That was the big downfall with the Wintel architecture -- they were so hung up on maintaining legacy support for everything back to the oldest 8088 chips that new features were grafted on in ways that didn't make much sense (memory addressing "interleaving" comes to mind). At some point the Rosetta emulator will hit its limits, and I'd rather Apple let go and keep going rather than twist everything new around the need to maintain the old.

pohl
Sep 24, 2007, 11:03 AM
How many G4's and G5's (for arguments sake, say 1Ghz or faster) are out there in the world?

Say that 10.6 is $129.

Say that the costs of maintaining the PPC port are negligible. (And we know they are.)


Now multiply. If you were Apple, would you leave that much revenue on the table if it were so easy to pick up?

macenforcer
Sep 24, 2007, 11:03 AM
Now watch the prices on PPC macs drop to the ground on ebay.

JFreak
Sep 24, 2007, 11:04 AM
I don't believe it. Because one has to ask: WHY? Delivering PPC code on OSX install DVD costs Apple nothing.

If somebody who owns older hardware should want to upgrade to newer OS, then that would only be plus for Apple if they can sell the new system to the old customer. If there is no PPC support, then bigger chance is the owner of the older system just simply will not upgrade anything. Not software, not hardware, no money for Apple.

Officially dropping G3 support on Leopard makes sense because there is no Altivec in it and they're slow macines by today's standards. G4/G5 has Altivec so many apps fly compared to G3. It is far more likely that they're saying one needs "1GHz" or faster to run 10.6 but I just don't believe in Apple dropping PPC code before "nobody" uses them anymore (or once they run out of spare parts and therefore drop the hardware support first).

No. Apple needs to give full support for the PPC platform for at least 5 years after the last PPC hardware was sold. Therefore I'm sure PPC support will not be dropped before 2012

MorzillA
Sep 24, 2007, 11:04 AM
Let's get 10.5 on store shelves before we even start pretending rumors about 10.6 are relevant to our lives.

I agree 100% let's really see and test Leopard to the fullest and then after all the bugs have been worked out and see what systems are not getting any support for 10.5 then MAY be we can speculate these rummors.

But all in all, really my 10.3 PMG4 runs major F:eek::eek:n circles around the PC (XP) at work and the one my G/F (XP too) uses put together!!!

Markleshark
Sep 24, 2007, 11:06 AM
Now watch the prices on PPC macs drop to the ground on ebay.

Score. Leopard compatible machines for peanuts. :D

gugy
Sep 24, 2007, 11:06 AM
I have hard time believing that.
Steve said that PPC Macs would be supported by upcoming software releases for years to come. I would say maybe after Leopard and the next OS there is a chance that then the following revision will be Intel only. So we are talking 3 to 4 years down the road.
There is a huge base of customers that still on the PPC machines, including me. So Apple will not suddenly just drop-it.

Kelmon
Sep 24, 2007, 11:08 AM
I can understand dropping support for the G4 systems but dropping support for the G5s, particularly the Power Mac line, would be bonkers. Those systems are plenty powerful enough to run pretty much anything and I'd fear for my own MacBook Pro if a G5 Power Mac wasn't enough to run the next OS revision.

I can understand why they'd want to do this but I don't agree with the proposal and I'd expect a lot of people to be unhappy. Too early in my opinion.

Genghis Khan
Sep 24, 2007, 11:09 AM
now i'm pretty sure 10.5 was to be the last of Mac OSX

so will people please rename this thread to Mac OS XI or something


and also...powerpc needs to be outdated pretty quickly so that the apple software engineers can concentrate on intel unfourtunately

guzhogi
Sep 24, 2007, 11:10 AM
Whenever Apple stops support for PowerPC, that should help speed up the development cycle since they have less architectures to work on. This means that Apple can shorten the time between upgrades and keep the same # of new features), or take the same amount of time they are now, but add even more/bigger improvements. Like Leopard is said to have 300 new features. For whatever comes after 10.5 (assuming Apple drops PowerPC in the next version), the next version can either ship in less time than Leopard took, but has 300 features. Or take the same amount of time to develop, but have more than 300 new features.

Butthead
Sep 24, 2007, 11:11 AM
Let's get 10.5 on store shelves before we even start pretending rumors about 10.6 are relevant to our lives.

X2

LOL, given how long it's taken 10.5 to as yet make it to market, I think it's very optimistic/wishful thinking on the part of the Mac community/or Mac Zealots :), to believe we'll see any 10.6 this decade.

Drop all PPC support, even G5s before 2010, I'd say very unlikely. Drop G3 of certain frequency or graphics chips too slow/not enough mem, for sure; brop G4 support, perhaps...but it's too far out in the future to even think about, even for the pro shops that really need to consider.

Overall, a dumb/useless rumor at present, come back in a few years when it might be more relevant.

chumsdock
Sep 24, 2007, 11:12 AM
Well, Apple is not a big big company, the more compatibility, the more time will be taken to kill bugs. You still remember how iPhone delays Leopard?

So dropping support for old platforms is definitely reasonable, as for the powerpc platform, it's such a pity that there is just nothing new and fast.

WannaGoMac
Sep 24, 2007, 11:12 AM
Let's get 10.5 on store shelves before we even start pretending rumors about 10.6 are relevant to our lives.


Brilliant! Spot on! :D


People are worry about something at least 2 years away?? Geesh, you may be dead by then so why worry about this... so funny.

a456
Sep 24, 2007, 11:13 AM
It seems like a logical step to me. If Apple releases 10.6 in 2 years then the last Power PC computers will be 4 years old.

A few weeks ago I would have disagreed but having just moved from a six year old PowerBook to a 20" iMac, I realize how much strain I was putting my old friend through. I had come to accept that though MS Office 2004 was better than Office v.X that it still crashed and that was just Microsoft - something you had to put up with. But having used Office 2004 on the latest base model iMac for a few weeks and not having had a crash in the whole time - even though it has to do the whole Rosetta thing - I can honestly say that it was time to upgrade.

There is of course the argument that those with expensive PowerMac setups will not have planned to change kit this quickly, but the Pros tend to upgrade less hastily. So, even though the OS comes out in 2009 they wouldn't upgrade until 2010 at the earliest. Anyway the clever ones will sell up their kit on eBay before others get wind of this and buy themselves MacPros with the proceeds.

jackc
Sep 24, 2007, 11:13 AM
Should I buy now or wait for 10.6?

mkrishnan
Sep 24, 2007, 11:14 AM
What does that mean? There have been multiprocessor PowerPC Macs for years and years. Quad G5s anyone?

I think she/he meant multi-processor as in compilable on different architectures, not as in multiple processors inside one computer. I.E. even though Apple has stopped manufacturing PPC Macs, they manufacture iPhones and iPods that run OS X variants on processors that are not binary compatible with the Intel Core architecture. So OS X has to be something that can be compiled on at least Intel + mobile device CPUs.... (with the presumable implication being that, by this point, the additional work to keep PPCs in the mix is really not that substantial).

messedkid
Sep 24, 2007, 11:15 AM
It's called progress. Get used to it!:p

kirk26
Sep 24, 2007, 11:16 AM
Weird. People complain when Microsoft drops support 7 years after their OS is released, but oh mighty apple users say, "we praise what apple tells. we have been bad and must switch to intel based macs within two years....."

milo
Sep 24, 2007, 11:16 AM
Otherwise you could easily see another lawsuit similar to the Beige PowerMac G3 suit over OS X.

Yeah, something like THAT happening again really has apple quaking in their boots. All that happened was apple ended up giving refunds to those who bought OSX, which was zero help to all the G3 owners who were still screwed because they couldn't run OSX.

ChrisA
Sep 24, 2007, 11:17 AM
The mobile version of OS X for iPhones/iPods has nothing to do with this.

Yes it does. If we assume the iPhone versoin of Mac OS X shares a common code base with the Mac version then someone is taking great care to keep the code portable. In my experience, once you put in the effort to make it portable, it is portable to many platforms. Portability is almost but not quite an all or nothing feature.

An example: Not portable code might just assume a "pointer" is 32 bits or 4 bytes long and embed the number "4" in the source code. But portable code might use a construct like "sizeof()" that evaluates to different values on different platforms.

Superdrive
Sep 24, 2007, 11:18 AM
Apple isn't really dropping "support" on the PPC machines. Even the latest G5 machine that someone bought will still do exactly what it did the first day they bought it. Just like the iPods, there is not much money in supporting legacy hardware in your upgrades. Additionally, nobody has really considered that OS X 10.6 may be in such a new direction that it isn't possible to even consider running on a PPC. Even still, 2009 is the earliest I could imagine 10.6, I'd bet late 2010. I'll run it on my 16 core MacBook.:)

The Stig
Sep 24, 2007, 11:18 AM
Negative.

But only because it is a stupid rumor. 10.5 isn't even out yet, don't start with the rumors about 10.6! Of course Apple will one day stop support PPC. It will be either for 10.6 or 10.7 at the latest. Don't act like it won't or it isn't a good idea.

The Stig

Telp
Sep 24, 2007, 11:20 AM
I would think that there would be support for atleast later generation g5s. Leopard still supports most g4s. That's just my opinion though and I'm prolly wrong.

jackc
Sep 24, 2007, 11:20 AM
Hell, the Leopard ship date seems like a long ways away. I'll probably be dead by 10.6

jellomizer
Sep 24, 2007, 11:20 AM
That sucks. There's a lot of life left in the PPC Macs.

Older versions of Mac OS Just don't die when a new version is released. Normally when you get new versions of the OS by the time you get the 3rd or fourth version, it really starts slowing down your system and you are better off with older versions. on My old Power Book Spotlight and Dashboard really killed performance on my system. If Apple keeps backwards comparability for too long they won't be able to add new features to the OS which makes people buy it, and keep OS X ahead of what Microsoft has to offer. Keeping PowerPC and Intel Version of their applications takes a lot of extra space and you can get different problems. Apple has done a stellar job of hiding this from the users but I bet it is killing them. We had Intel Hardware for over a year now by 2009 (or 10) the Intel System would be 3 years old now. And the PowerPC will be over 4. Most of the people who got the G5 for there power would most likely be ready for an upgrade because they normally need top performance. and by then a Mac Mini will outperform a old G5 Power Mac.

powderblue17
Sep 24, 2007, 11:20 AM
Weird. People complain when Microsoft drops support 7 years after their OS is released, but oh mighty apple users say, "we praise what apple tells. we have been bad and must switch to intel based macs within two years....."

Yeah but how much of a computer do you need to run Vista. A lot of the computers being released today can barely run it. While you can install Tiger on Macs going back as far as the Blue & White G3. What year were those released? Like 1999.

milo
Sep 24, 2007, 11:21 AM
Weird. People complain when Microsoft drops support 7 years after their OS is released, but oh mighty apple users say, "we praise what apple tells. we have been bad and must switch to intel based macs within two years....."

Did you even read the thread, O Straw Man?

It has already been almost two years since intel macs shipped (and intel was announced six months before that). It will probably be 4+ by the time 10.6 ships.

It's not a great thing that support is going away someday, but it's not the end of the world. I wish my G3 could support beyond 10.2, but that doesn't stop me from still using it.

originalvector
Sep 24, 2007, 11:22 AM
If this happens than this would be ok with me. I do not want to apple turn into Microsoft where it spends more time working on compatibility with older platforms then it does on improving current and new platforms.

This doesn't mean that G4 or G5 machine's will stop working, only that they can update to 10.6 or whatever release apple chooses to drop powerpc support.

zorinlynx
Sep 24, 2007, 11:22 AM
Is this really such a big deal?

I understand some of us are attached to our old PowerPC Macs. However, by the time Mac OS X 10.6 comes out, the oldest Intel macs (which are significantly faster than the fastest PPC Macs) will be quite inexpensive on the used market.

It really won't cost you that much to upgrade and you'll get a performance boost out of it.

By that time, even the fastest Quad G5s ever released will seem slow compared to *second hand* Intel Macs. Are you that sentimentally attached to your old PPC hardware?

Let it go. I'm glad Leopard supports PPC. But really, by the time 10.6 comes out these machines will be ancient.

zioxide
Sep 24, 2007, 11:23 AM
Good. PowerPC is dead. People with G4s and G5s can keep running Tiger or Leopard. Let Apple focus on Intel now, adding more performance and features instead of having to add everything for PowerPC too.

Mustafa
Sep 24, 2007, 11:23 AM
Brilliant! Spot on! :D


People are worry about something at least 2 years away?? Geesh, you may be dead by then so why worry about this... so funny.

It's short-termism like this that makes companies fail.

Bring on OS XI.

jepjepjep
Sep 24, 2007, 11:27 AM
By late 2009, it would have been 4 years since the last new PPC mac was sold.

True, but it was a quad-core G5 monster. Apple should support these for a few more years.

BTW
Sep 24, 2007, 11:28 AM
Makes sense...

Yep, no doubt. Supporting three processor platforms (ARM, PPC, and Intel) is a drain on resources. Time to shift those software engineers to other neat'o projects. :)

ezpk69
Sep 24, 2007, 11:30 AM
That sucks. There's a lot of life left in the PPC Macs.

Not really. By 2009/10 PPC's will be totally out of date.

Its a smart move on their part, not only will the PPC computers be out of date but they probably wouldn't be able to run 10.6 well. Although its really tough to speculate about these things two years down the line......


...By that time, even the fastest Quad G5s ever released will seem slow compared to *second hand* Intel Macs. Are you that sentimentally attached to your old PPC hardware?...

Is anybody seriously suggesting that there'll be anything in 10.6 that a Core Solo Mac Mini will handle just fine, but will be "too much" for a G5 Quad?

ChrisA
Sep 24, 2007, 11:30 AM
Well, Apple is not a big big company, the more compatibility, the more time will be taken to kill bugs. You still remember how iPhone delays Leopard?

So dropping support for old platforms is definitely reasonable, as for the powerpc platform, it's such a pity that there is just nothing new and fast.

There are some very fast (and expensive) Power PCs being made, just not by Apple.
Apple went to Intel for performance per dollar and the ability to run Windows inside a VM.

How many people actually upgrade the OS when a new version comes out. I'd bet it's at most half. I think a lot of user run with whatever OS version was on their system when they bought it. A lot of people still use Panther. So, when 10.6 is released in 2009 or 2010 all those G3 and G4 users, many of them will still be using 10.3 or 10.4

Not being able to upgrade the OSdoes not mean you have to stop using the computer. It will still work just as well as before.

mickeymikey
Sep 24, 2007, 11:30 AM
Let's get 10.5 on store shelves before we even start pretending rumors about 10.6 are relevant to our lives.

Well put. Why start getting concerned over something this little more than wild speculation?

Personally, I think 2009 is going to be ambitious.

yetanotherdave
Sep 24, 2007, 11:31 AM
Onwards and upwards.
Universal binaries add so much bloat. And run slower than optimised binaries.
Don't believe me? Download xSlimmer and tell it to look at your /applications folder. You'll save Gb's
the program strips out the unecessary code (for your machine) and give you a intel ot PPC only app. iTunes for example went from 90Mb to 30Mb, and launches much faster.

shawnce
Sep 24, 2007, 11:31 AM
I don't believe it. Because one has to ask: WHY? Delivering PPC code on OSX install DVD costs Apple nothing. It costs them a lot in testing and maintenance of the PPC tool chain, etc.

With that said I don't see a strong reason why Apple would drop PowerPC support in 10.6 unless 10.6 brings some radical new things that make maintaining support PowerPC difficult.

FoxyKaye
Sep 24, 2007, 11:32 AM
It seems like a logical step to me. If Apple releases 10.6 in 2 years then the last Power PC computers will be 4 years old.
There's nothing logical about it whatsoever - it's just Apple getting in to the planned obsolescence game. A four year-old computer is perfectly functional depending on the use, but the real problem will come when developers stop using PPC compatible binaries because they're "no longer necessary."

The switch to Intel-based Macs is only two years old - what about all that BS about Universal Binaries and not leaving PPC Macs behind that Steve spouted when they went Intel?

JesterJJZ
Sep 24, 2007, 11:33 AM
I don't buy it. Apple will always develop for both platforms...just in case they ever decide to switch back. If they say they developed OSX for Intel since day one as well, they can keep going with OSX for PPC too.

KindredMAC
Sep 24, 2007, 11:34 AM
I agree with the few on here that have mentioned support for PPC Macs as a "Just in Case" clause...

If IBM happens to get over their hump of Speed vs Heat vs Power and comes up with a PPC chip that blows the doors off anything Intel or AMD have road mapped, do you really think Apple is going to let it sit there and not use it?

Why else have they been keeping OS X Universal for so many years?

IBM has some great prelim data on that POWER6 chip that they talked about a few months back. I would love to have a PowerMac with 2 of those babies inside running 16GB of RAM (or 32 if it could handle it).

If Apple holds tight to Universal Binaries and makes others hold fast to it, you could end up seeing computer lines that feature PPC in desktops and x86 in laptop/mobile devices.

The smart thing for Apple at this point is to keep the window open if the door ever gets closed.

Oh yeah and also..... don't know why I'm getting worked up over this while 10.4.11 and 10.5 haven't even hit market yet. :p

slffl
Sep 24, 2007, 11:34 AM
I have a 17" Powerbook and I think this is GREAT news! Focus resources on something else.

mozmac
Sep 24, 2007, 11:35 AM
This is one quality that separates Apple from Microsoft. Apple is willing to cut legacy weight and move forward. I get chills down my spine when I look at product specs on software that say, "Windows 98/ME/2000/XP/Vista" You shouldn't support an OS that was made before Google became a business, because a lot has changed since then. If Microsoft would have dropped a lot of that support for Vista, it would be a much better OS. They can't seem to let go of the past.

Apple ruffles lots of feathers with moves like this, but it allows them to continue to innovate. Where would OS X be if it still supported Classic?

sosumi1981
Sep 24, 2007, 11:35 AM
Apple will have dropped support for the Mac entirely by 10.6. They'll just support iPhones and iPods:D

age234
Sep 24, 2007, 11:36 AM
Yep, no doubt. Supporting three processor platforms (ARM, PPC, and Intel) is a drain on resources. Time to shift those software engineers to other neat'o projects. :)

I doubt it's really that much of a drain on resources. They've been doing it for 7+ years, I'm sure they have things downpat.

Unless they do some really wild stuff, there is no performance-based reason to drop PPC support, at least for G5s. All it would do is satisfy the Thurston Howells of Intel Mac users.

termite
Sep 24, 2007, 11:36 AM
Contrary to what has been suggested, supporting the G3 is not significantly harder than supporting the G5. So either Apple will continue to support the G3, or it will drop all PowerPC support. That said, I think it would be extremely foolish to drop the PowerPC support. Here's the pros and cons from Apple's perspective:

Pro drop:
Save a little bit of Apple labor on XCode and such.
Save some testing time.
Some people will buy new machines.

Con drop:

Some real bugs show up better in one arch than the other so your code will be less buggy if you support multiple archs.
Assuming Apple does not want to be tied to Intel permanently, they need to continue supporting other desktop archs in darwin.
Apple supports the iPhone's processor, so it has to maintain portability anyway.
Pissing off a first generation G5 user who has a good computer with quad-2GHz processor and 8GB of memory is silly -- that's still an excellent computer.

gmanrique
Sep 24, 2007, 11:36 AM
This article should hardly make it to Page 2 :rolleyes:

Let's get 10.5 on store shelves before we even start pretending rumors about 10.6 are relevant to our lives.

fourthtunz
Sep 24, 2007, 11:36 AM
There are some very fast (and expensive) Power PCs being made, just not by Apple.
Apple went to Intel for performance per dollar and the ability to run Windows inside a VM.

How many people actually upgrade the OS when a new version comes out. I'd bet it's at most half. I think a lot of user run with whatever OS version was on their system when they bought it. A lot of people still use Panther. So, when 10.6 is released in 2009 or 2010 all those G3 and G4 users, many of them will still be using 10.3 or 10.4

Not being able to upgrade the OSdoes not mean you have to stop using the computer. It will still work just as well as before.

You are right but how many of us want the latest OS anyway? I do:D
I guess it depends on your perspective too, I have a G5 and a couple of G4's. I wouldn't expect the G4's to be supported too much longer but the G5's, well, we'll have to see what happens when it happens:D
daniel

mozmac
Sep 24, 2007, 11:36 AM
I agree with the few on here that have mentioned support for PPC Macs as a "Just in Case" clause...

If IBM happens to get over their hump of Speed vs Heat vs Power and comes up with a PPC chip that blows the doors off anything Intel or AMD have road mapped, do you really think Apple is going to let it sit there and not use it?

Why else have they been keeping OS X Universal for so many years?

IBM has some great prelim data on that POWER6 chip that they talked about a few months back. I would love to have a PowerMac with 2 of those babies inside running 16GB of RAM (or 32 if it could handle it).

If Apple holds tight to Universal Binaries and makes others hold fast to it, you could end up seeing computer lines that feature PPC in desktops and x86 in laptop/mobile devices.

The smart thing for Apple at this point is to keep the window open if the door ever gets closed.

Oh yeah and also..... don't know why I'm getting worked up over this while 10.4.11 and 10.5 haven't even hit market yet. :p

You make a great point. Apple is great about keeping their options open, so I can see them officially canceling PPC support, but secretly keeping development going in case the PPC chips develop the cure for cancer.

visor
Sep 24, 2007, 11:36 AM
What a stupid post. I mean - we haven't even got our hands on 10.5 and we're speculating about 10.6. Complete nonsense.
Nevertheless, we won't see 10.6 anytime before 2010 in the open, by then, i will have bought at about two new Macs in a row. I'm fairly convinced that 10.6 will run on both of them.

So, who cares anyway? Besides, an OS will at it's core always need to be multi architecture. There is just not much reason not to be. They use gcc as compiler, it compiles on any architecture anyway ...

mklos
Sep 24, 2007, 11:37 AM
I can't believe how many people are saying that it would "make sense".

It would not make sense, and Apple is not going to do it. Think about it, kids: the bulk of the Apple Insider article is about a mere 67Mhz increase in the minimum requirements for Leopard...and why? Because they discovered that it simply wouldn't be performant on lesser machines -- and that's a reasonable expectation, since threading things (like the network stack) does have some overhead associated with it and the older, slower machines are going to be the ones bit by that tradeoff.

But WTF...you think a quad, or dual, or even single G5 at 2.0 Ghz is not going to run 10.6 adequately for some reason? As if. The trend in OSX from release to release is that, on most machines with adequate memory, it gets faster -- not slower. The machines that get slower are the edge cases.

It costs Apple almost nothing to maintain the PPC port of this software (which, you should recall, ran on 040, SPARC, and HP PA-RISC, and now runs on PPC, x86, and ARM and who knows what else in the lab) and they're not going to anger anybody with even a dual G4 tower for a long, long time.

I'd put money on it.


The fact that you say it costs Apple nothing to maintain a PPC version is just wrong. Its not like they can just make an update and then port it over. This is a lot of hard work. Originally, OS X has over 86 million lines of code. With Intel its a lot more. So when you start making a major release (Mac OS 10.6) then you have to put a TON of engineering into making your OS work for TWO entirely different processor architectures. If you don't think that doesn't cost Apple a lot of extra time and money you're surely mistaken... Plus, every time you make a small update (10.6.1) you have to make sure it works for both processor architectures. It no longer makes any sense to continue to do 2 processor architectures.

If I remember correctly, Apple did say they would only support the PPC processor for another 3, maybe 4 years. If so, Leopard will be the last PPC release. This gives users 4 years to make the switch.

As for servers, well if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Just because there's an update available, doesn't mean you have to install it. Yes, its very expensive to update servers alone. So if they don't need to be updated then don't. I know a few places that still run Xserves with Mac OS 10.2 and 10.3 Server. They run just fine with what they have.

shawnce
Sep 24, 2007, 11:37 AM
Onwards and upwards.
Universal binaries add so much bloat. And run slower than optimised binaries.
Don't believe me? Download xSlimmer and tell it to look at your /applications folder. You'll save Gb's
the program strips out the unecessary code (for your machine) and give you a intel ot PPC only app. iTunes for example went from 90Mb to 30Mb, and launches much faster.

Most of that savings in storage space comes from stripping out the localizations and not the universal binary aspect. Also stripping out PowerPC from the universal binary (or vice versa) does not change how fast the program will execute.

At most stripping universal aspects from iTunes will save you around 12 MiB and again it wont affect how fast it executes.

[0:557] > lipo -detailed_info /Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes
Fat header in: /Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes
fat_magic 0xcafebabe
nfat_arch 2
architecture ppc
cputype CPU_TYPE_POWERPC
cpusubtype CPU_SUBTYPE_POWERPC_ALL
offset 4096
size 13650368 << ~ 12 MiB
align 2^12 (4096)
architecture i386
cputype CPU_TYPE_I386
cpusubtype CPU_SUBTYPE_I386_ALL
offset 13656064
size 13373008 << ~ 12 MiB
align 2^12 (4096)

[0:558] > ll /Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes
-rwxrwxr-x 1 root admin 25M Sep 14 09:34 /Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes*

happylittlemac
Sep 24, 2007, 11:38 AM
PPC systems are already starting to show their age and by 9/10 will be very much out of date, still even 10.5 will still be pretty cutting edge for a few years anyhow, 10,2 and 3 are even still in use in many PPC Mac's.

Antares
Sep 24, 2007, 11:39 AM
Well, what kind of new features do you think would possibly be included in 10.6? Does forcing Universal support for both PowerPC and Intel chips actually preclude Apple from including any features in the OS? Or, is it simply just an extra development expense which will see little or no return for Apple?

Another 2 or 3 years of support for PowerPC Macs should be fine. It's not like they would suddenly stop working once 10.6 is released. As other people stated, the majority of people who keep older systems aren't the type that upgrade software with every new release. And, couldn't software developers write their applications so that it supports previous version of OSX?

mklos
Sep 24, 2007, 11:39 AM
I don't buy it. Apple will always develop for both platforms...just in case they ever decide to switch back. If they say they developed OSX for Intel since day one as well, they can keep going with OSX for PPC too.

Apple stated when they announced the switch to Intel that they will drop PPC support in 4 years. That was in what, 2004 or 2005? So by 2009, no PPC Macs will be supported.

Much Ado
Sep 24, 2007, 11:40 AM
Does this news really bother people, considering we are still waiting for 10.5?

LizKat
Sep 24, 2007, 11:41 AM
That sucks. There's a lot of life left in the PPC Macs.

Well there's life left in Tiger, too. Panther's not dead either. Depending on what you do with your PPC machines, they could be fine for years not even moving up to Leopard.

But, when you let your setups drift back like that, it's not a free ride. You may have a lot of extra work to do when you finally decide to get up to speed. Your apps may use proprietary formats not supported in later versions on later OS. Your external media or their sharing modes may become obsolete. That can make bringing your data forward pretty painful.

So, when the official "evolve or die" flare goes up from Cupertino about the last OS a PPC machine can run, it's time to round up at least a low-end machine that will run whatever OS is then current or about to roll out.

Cloudane
Sep 24, 2007, 11:42 AM
Lots of moaning and gurning as usual :D

Seems sensible to me. 10.6 is a long way off, and the PowerPC models are feeling aged already. I don't see the problem - the types who like to cling on to a computer until it falls over and dies (and yes, I do know a few) can always use 10.5 or earlier still so it's not like they'll lose anything? In most cases such people are too tight to buy an OS upgrade anyway (never mind a better computer!). Those who aren't tight are simply resistant to change - so again, I don't see them upgrading the OS. I still know of someone who is determined to stick with Windows 98.

Perhaps they learned something from Windows, which is *still* clinging on to the same old BIOS from the early 80s and suffered from clinging on to 16 bit for decades more than was necessary.

invalidname
Sep 24, 2007, 11:42 AM
Dang, I predicted this (http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2005/10/is_it_time_to_wait_for_intel.html), two years ago:

So, I suspect that Leopard is the end of the line for PowerPC, and that 10.6 will be Intel-only. That means you are buying into a four-year dead-end on PowerPC.

This really shouldn't surprise anyone. Apple sees hardware as obsolete after about four years, and they haven't sold a PPC system since mid-'06.

macFanDave
Sep 24, 2007, 11:42 AM
switches to the new OS version the day it is released!

Suppose the next system, 10.6, is named for the biggest of the big cats: Garfield. Garfield will probably be released around October 2009. It will take several months for a large majority of the base to install it. Also, as history shows, the advent of apps that require Garfield at a minimum will be around two years later (i.e. late 2011).

I'd also wager that people who hold on to old hardware year after year are not those who are early adopters of new OS's. (I'd be an exception because the Mac's durability gives me great pride, but I like the new OS's and my work on the Mac is usually not time-critical, so a delay caused by reverting to an older system is no big deal.)

I'd also bet that having to support two platforms, Intel and PPC, is one of the reasons that Leopard development has been delayed. Making Garfield only for Intel will probably ease the development path, and that would outweigh the cost of throwing PPC users to the wind.

For the record, my family is using three PPC machines right now, but replacing them in 2009/2010 is a reasonable plan.

See you at Leopard night next month, and at Garfield night in '09 or '10!

yetanotherdave
Sep 24, 2007, 11:43 AM
Most of that savings in space comes from stripping out the localizations and not the universal binary aspect. Also stripping out PowerPC from the universal binary (or vice versa) does not change how fast the program will execute.

At most stripping universal aspects from iTunes will save you around 12 MiB and again it wont affect how fast it executes.

[0:557] > lipo -detailed_info /Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes
Fat header in: /Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes
fat_magic 0xcafebabe
nfat_arch 2
architecture ppc
cputype CPU_TYPE_POWERPC
cpusubtype CPU_SUBTYPE_POWERPC_ALL
offset 4096
size 13650368 << ~ 12 MiB
align 2^12 (4096)
architecture i386
cputype CPU_TYPE_I386
cpusubtype CPU_SUBTYPE_I386_ALL
offset 13656064
size 13373008 << ~ 12 MiB
align 2^12 (4096)

[0:558] > ll /Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes
-rwxrwxr-x 1 root admin 25M Sep 14 09:34 /Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes*

Just reporting what I experienced, I saw a 60Mb drop in footprint in that one application alone (tell me that doesn't do good things for RAM performance) and faster load times for applications.

flopticalcube
Sep 24, 2007, 11:47 AM
By the time 10.6 comes out there will be very few PPC Macs around, given the average lifespan of 4 years. With Apple selling 10M Intel PCs per year, this is what resources should be focused on. Furthermore, if G4 support being dropped is a given (since G3 was dropped for Leopard), that leaves the G5 iMac and the PowerMacs which is probably not a big enough base worth supporting, especially by 2009/10.

shawnce
Sep 24, 2007, 11:48 AM
Just reporting what I experienced, I saw a 60Mb drop in footprint in that one application alone (tell me that doesn't do good things for RAM performance) and faster load times for applications.

All of that extra stuff (localizations, etc.) is not loaded unless needed and again that drop is mostly a result of stripping localizations which is unrelated to dropping PowerPC support from a universal binary.

Additionally Mac OS X is a demand paging system with a working set cache... so it even loads a subset of the application binary/files that it opens until such time it is needed.

ATG
Sep 24, 2007, 11:48 AM
Honestly, it could go either way, and since this is speculation, I wouldn't pay any attention to it. It all depends on the ratio of Intel users to PPC users nearer the time and whether there are enough PPC users to warrant supporting them. Nobody can know that yet - not even apple.

iriejedi
Sep 24, 2007, 11:48 AM
That sucks. There's a lot of life left in the PPC Macs.

If anyone is still using a PPC Mac in 2009 and consider them self such a tech leader needing the newest OS from Apple.... they probably need to move out of mom's basement and get an apartment.... owning 10.6 will not get them a date with PPC hardware! Fork out the $3k and go Intel and quit whining.

Happy monday!

JesterJJZ
Sep 24, 2007, 11:49 AM
Apple stated when they announced the switch to Intel that they will drop PPC support in 4 years. That was in what, 2004 or 2005? So by 2009, no PPC Macs will be supported.

But I'm saying that they can still develop for it just like they did secretly with the Intel builds. They aren't stupid. Just because they won't sell it doesn't mean they won't have it.

-hh
Sep 24, 2007, 11:49 AM
Obviously this balloon is being floated now with the intent to give the market the heads up that it will need to make some decisions about how & when it wants to go about transitioning to the intel platform.

I agree that this is a trial balloon, and while its probably aimed at developers, it is strategically a bad idea right now in the context of the current consumer market.

Specifically, there's a ton of consumer market share sitting on the fence, asking themselves the old "will I get screwed if I change from Windows to Mac?", so for Apple to even tolerate any suggesting of dropping of legacy support at this time is strategically damaging.


Apple will need to move on to be able to focus on the current technology it will be dealing with. The updates that would be forthcoming in 10.6 would have no benefit to the PPC platform.

True, which means that the real question here is what is the specific and tangible benefit (and to who!) for the dropping of legacy support. People will understand & be more willing to accept change if they can see how they'll benefit from it (if not immediately, but in the future). To this end, a vague hand-waving of "no benefit to PPC" isn't a good enough justification: Apple will need to be very concise in providing real-world examples of what insanely great things the OS could do, if it were not being 'held back' by legacy PPC support.

Personally, I'm not aware of any specific examples of these great new features waiting in the wings (nor, admittedly, have I been looking for any), so perhaps somone could provide some examples of very tangible benefits?


They are not announcing that 10.5 will cease to run on the PPC platform, those machines will continue to operate just fine & dandy.

True, but consumers are emotional beasts. For example:

{Different Poster(s)} By late 2009, it would have been 4 years since the last new PPC mac was sold.

We've seen this sentiment expressed several times already in this thread, and while it isn't true...

Not so; new PPC Macs were still being sold at least as late as August 2006, when the Mac Pro was introduced. Plenty of 17" and 12" PowerBooks and iBooks were also sold in '06, too...

...this also drives to the core of another issue:

Some consumers may choose to buy a Mac in part because they remain better machines for longer. This is a classical lifecycle cost management statement...ie, pay more upfront but save money in the long run.

As such, while many of the consumers here may be of the personal opinion that 4 years is an acceptably long lifecycle, they do not speak for the entire marketplace.

(Personally, my newest tech Mac is 4 years old right now, and I expect that while it may be superceded by a better machine next year, it won't be retired out the door - - I expect it will remain on my network until it is at least 7 years old, just like its predecessor did).

To this end, if we look at a typical marketshare tracking website (http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2), we see that those (cough) "PPC's that haven't been sold in years" still remain a huge portion of the total share of OS X Mac's in use: they're still more than half (54%)

And while there's sure to be upgrades over the next two years so it will become a smaller portion of the whole, the underlying question is how small of a portion of the total does it need to become before its worth 'abandoning' the retail sales potential for that segment?

For example, my rough SWAG is that PPC is washing out at around 20% per year, which means that in 2-3 years, there will still be 1 PPC consumer for every 3 or 4 MacIntel consumers. As such, an OS update that doesn't support PPC means that roughly ~25% of the consumer base can't buy it.

It ought to be pointed out here that a large amount of software available to buy today runs on 10.3.9, and Apple are still supporting that with security updates.

So even if they do cut PPC support in 10.6, they'll probably continue supporting 10.5 for a further two years. If I haven't replaced my last-gen iMac G5 by 2011 I'll be extremely surprised.

Sure, but there's reality of support and then there's the consumer perceptions as to what "support" means...to them. Again, this is an opportunity for the nay-sayers to sharpshoot, so from a politically strategic position, it needs to be countered in easy-for-the-consumer-to-not-get-confused language.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Apple dropped all PPC support in 10.6. They've always been about drawing a firm line against over-supporting legacy hardware and software.

Given how this is frequently an emotionally-loaded topic, I think a clear corporate policy would be very beneficial. My personal suggestion would be to strive for 10 years of support, with a promise of a minimum of 7 for things such as hardware spare parts, OS currency, etc. IMO, Apple has done pretty well historically in this regards and can lay it out in a marketing campaign to break into the conventional Corporate marketplace.

It doesn't make much sense to me to drop G4 support, but go through the effort of compiling and bundling PPC code just for the G5s.

Agreed.

By 2009 or whatever, the installed base of Intel Macs will completely overshadow all the old PPC Macs.

I imagine plenty of G5-class machines will still be doing productive things in Leopard long after 10.6 is out the door.

And therein lies the dilemma...the share of MacIntel will hopefully be quite good, but there will still be the higher grade G5's that are plugging along just fine that represent a core that haven't been replaced.

I agree. 4 years of support is not bad at all, especially when it's an entirely different architecture.

What's missing from this question is what percentage of Macs are still in service after 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... 10 years.

Not necessarily still in their original role, but merely in some useful capacity, as hand-me-downs and repurposing is common: there's that 8-year old G4 Sawtooth that's been running as a file/music server down in your closet, for example, or that 4-year old G4 iMac that your high schooler is using to do their homework assignments on (and that it is a poor game platform is, if you think about it, actually a feature).


-hh

Derwood
Sep 24, 2007, 11:51 AM
...if they do drop PPC support with 10.6, it's not going to render those machines obsolete in any sense, let alone overnight. There will still be easy networking and file sharing across 10.4.*, 10.5.*, and 10.6.* machines. There will have to be.

There's still plenty of folk out there getting good usage, and often in very innovative ways, out of Macs running OS8 and OS9.

And, hey, it's not as if we've been thinking it was never going to happen.

There will be a thriving PPC Mac community for a long time after Apple pulls official support.

brianus
Sep 24, 2007, 11:52 AM
Apple stated when they announced the switch to Intel that they will drop PPC support in 4 years. That was in what, 2004 or 2005? So by 2009, no PPC Macs will be supported.

They made no such statement.

Peace
Sep 24, 2007, 11:55 AM
Apple really wants to rid itself of Rosetta..

This move should come as no surprise to anyone.It's not like your computer will suddenly stop.

CalBoy
Sep 24, 2007, 11:59 AM
Should I buy now or wait for 10.6?

http://www.internerd.com/frinky/images/screenshots/sarcasmdet.jpg

Nicely done:)

EagerDragon
Sep 24, 2007, 12:01 PM
Well, it staarted already,
Leopard is not supporting G3 based on what I heard,
iMovie does not support G3 or G4
So 10.6 is not likely to support G3, G4, or G5, makes sense and the systems will be fairly old and very slow compared to the systems released in 2007, 2008, and 2009.

desenso
Sep 24, 2007, 12:01 PM
Given that this will free up developer resources which will result in greater innovation, quality or speed of other Apple software, I support the decision. 10.6 won't come until 2009 or 2010... can PPC users still reasonably expect to have updates at that point? Let's be honest, there was a great deal of apprehension about buying Mac computers in 2005/2006 because of the purported switch. That means that most of the computers in question will be 5 years old at that point. That makes it time to upgrade!

And, with all due respect to those who chose not to, you still get Mac OS 10.5. There are certain costs that come with not upgrading your computer on a fairly regular basis, but having to "settle" for Mac OS 10.5 isn't exactly egregious.

mwxiao
Sep 24, 2007, 12:01 PM
I would say that's just another wild guess by AppleInsider. I still remember the time when they announced the death of Mac mini.

This is at most a Page 2 rumor.

damienvfx
Sep 24, 2007, 12:08 PM
This is pure speculation and warrants little to no attention. Shame on you macrumors.

edoates
Sep 24, 2007, 12:09 PM
Would make sense. PowerPC is getting a little long in the tooth. Plus, this will help programming since you wouldn't have to program for 2 different architectures. While the iPod/iPhone will still be here, Apple will still have less architectures to support.

The only down side w/ going Intel only that I can see is there are a lot of really great classic only apps out there that never made the jump to Mac OS X. Kinda sad to see them go.

Just to make sure we get the time lines right, I bought mY G5 Quad in Dec of 2005, and they were still top of the line for 6 months or more after that; so lets assume that Summer of 2006 was the last "new" G5 not on clearance sale. Obsoleting them in 2009 would , imho, but a bit early.

But, as others have said, 10.5 is not even on the streets yet.

Eddie O

ZipZilla
Sep 24, 2007, 12:09 PM
10.5 should drop PPC entirely and be Intel-only. this is what is truly holding back technological progress in this country---the constant need for backward compatibility. it's why windows is such a mess.

besides, leopard will have all of the boot camp goodies, which don't even run on ppc. so it will be crippled on ppc to begin with. its not the rest of the worlds fault people have old computers.

Digital Skunk
Sep 24, 2007, 12:10 PM
I agree that this is a trial balloon, and while its probably aimed at developers, it is strategically a bad idea right now in the context of the current consumer market.

Specifically, there's a ton of consumer market share sitting on the fence, asking themselves the old "will I get screwed if I change from Windows to Mac?", so for Apple to even tolerate any suggesting of dropping of legacy support at this time is strategically damaging.




True, which means that the real question here is what is the specific and tangible benefit (and to who!) for the dropping of legacy support. People will understand & be more willing to accept change if they can see how they'll benefit from it (if not immediately, but in the future). To this end, a vague hand-waving of "no benefit to PPC" isn't a good enough justification: Apple will need to be very concise in providing real-world examples of what insanely great things the OS could do, if it were not being 'held back' by legacy PPC support.

Personally, I'm not aware of any specific examples of these great new features waiting in the wings (nor, admittedly, have I been looking for any), so perhaps somone could provide some examples of very tangible benefits?




True, but consumers are emotional beasts. For example:



We've seen this sentiment expressed several times already in this thread, and while it isn't true...



...this also drives to the core of another issue:

Some consumers may choose to buy a Mac in part because they remain better machines for longer. This is a classical lifecycle cost management statement...ie, pay more upfront but save money in the long run.

As such, while many of the consumers here may be of the personal opinion that 4 years is an acceptably long lifecycle, they do not speak for the entire marketplace.

(Personally, my newest tech Mac is 4 years old right now, and I expect that while it may be superceded by a better machine next year, it won't be retired out the door - - I expect it will remain on my network until it is at least 7 years old, just like its predecessor did).

To this end, if we look at a typical marketshare tracking website (http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2), we see that those (cough) "PPC's that haven't been sold in years" still remain a huge portion of the total share of OS X Mac's in use: they're still more than half (54%)

And while there's sure to be upgrades over the next two years so it will become a smaller portion of the whole, the underlying question is how small of a portion of the total does it need to become before its worth 'abandoning' the retail sales potential for that segment?

For example, my rough SWAG is that PPC is washing out at around 20% per year, which means that in 2-3 years, there will still be 1 PPC consumer for every 3 or 4 MacIntel consumers. As such, an OS update that doesn't support PPC means that roughly ~25% of the consumer base can't buy it.



Sure, but there's reality of support and then there's the consumer perceptions as to what "support" means...to them. Again, this is an opportunity for the nay-sayers to sharpshoot, so from a politically strategic position, it needs to be countered in easy-for-the-consumer-to-not-get-confused language.



Given how this is frequently an emotionally-loaded topic, I think a clear corporate policy would be very beneficial. My personal suggestion would be to strive for 10 years of support, with a promise of a minimum of 7 for things such as hardware spare parts, OS currency, etc. IMO, Apple has done pretty well historically in this regards and can lay it out in a marketing campaign to break into the conventional Corporate marketplace.



Agreed.



And therein lies the dilemma...the share of MacIntel will hopefully be quite good, but there will still be the higher grade G5's that are plugging along just fine that represent a core that haven't been replaced.



What's missing from this question is what percentage of Macs are still in service after 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... 10 years.

Not necessarily still in their original role, but merely in some useful capacity, as hand-me-downs and repurposing is common: there's that 8-year old G4 Sawtooth that's been running as a file/music server down in your closet, for example, or that 4-year old G4 iMac that your high schooler is using to do their homework assignments on (and that it is a poor game platform is, if you think about it, actually a feature).


-hh

-- applauds --

You don't find well thought statements like this on Mac Rumors too often. Keep them coming.
:D:D

iJed
Sep 24, 2007, 12:12 PM
Given the past desupporting of systems in Mac OS X 10.x releases I do not see this as very likely. I would speculate that Mac OS X 10.7 will be the release that abandons support for the PPC architecture. This gives a more reasonable time period and would likely not have a massive user backlash. It would be more likely for Mac OS X 10.6 to drop support for 32 bit PPC chips. Even then this is probably unlikely too.

ipedro
Sep 24, 2007, 12:13 PM
10.6? I'm thinking that Leopard is the last cat and the next version of Apple's OS will be something completely new.... i.e. a predominantly Multi-Touch influenced interface

50548
Sep 24, 2007, 12:14 PM
Would make sense. PowerPC is getting a little long in the tooth. Plus, this will help programming since you wouldn't have to program for 2 different architectures. While the iPod/iPhone will still be here, Apple will still have less architectures to support.

The only down side w/ going Intel only that I can see is there are a lot of really great classic only apps out there that never made the jump to Mac OS X. Kinda sad to see them go.

Whics apps you mean?

happydude
Sep 24, 2007, 12:15 PM
Rebate! Rebate! Rebate!

/snark

but people are only allowed to buy serial mouses/keyboards or 1st gen ipods :D

LizKat
Sep 24, 2007, 12:16 PM
Suppose the next system, 10.6, is named for the biggest of the big cats: Garfield.

Apple is going to pivot on names for the next go. It shoulda-coulda-woulda been a lion, I guess, after Leopard. But at least in English that's such a tepid name for the King of Beasts.

So it will be Leo, also conveniently a constellation, and a beauty at that. It will look great in the promos! Picking the name of a constellation opens the door for all those other great celestial monikers to tag future OS releases. Orion! Aries! Libra!

I am definitely making this up, btw.

Multimedia
Sep 24, 2007, 12:16 PM
Given that Intel Macs started in Tiger, I doubt Leopard will be the last PPC supported system, The base of G4 & G5 PowerMacs is HUGE and will continue to dominate the overall population of Macs by 2009. Quad G5 is not going to be dead by then unless they all start leaking bloody murder. It is only a little slower than the Quad 2.66 Mac Pro.

All the dual G5s have legs if you don't try to multi-task too much. I'm keeping a dual core 2GHz G5 just to do EyeTV recordings for example. I can pop out the B SATA 750 when it gets full and pop in another empty one while I put the full one in the Mac Pro for editing and transcoding.

But even if Leopard is the end for PPC, things will run great in Leopard for decades to come as long as the hardware can stay alive. Some PPC Mac repairs can be so expensive after AppleCare expires that buying a new Mac could be less expensive or at least a wiser investment even if it costs only a few hundred dollars more.

CRAZYBUBBA
Sep 24, 2007, 12:18 PM
Coming from someone who has joined this year, I don't expect an understanding of apple history, but consider this. My g3 iMac came w/ Os 9. It capably runs up to 10.3, argueably 10.4 depending who you ask. I would expect the same from G4/g5 machines.

Makes sense to me as well! Intel is the newest and greatest, Power PC is in the past. So sorry if you can't upgrade. What's 10.6 going to be called? Lion? :D :apple:

edoates
Sep 24, 2007, 12:19 PM
I can't believe how many people are saying that it would "make sense".

...some stuff deleted...
It costs Apple almost nothing to maintain the PPC port of this software (which, you should recall, ran on 040, SPARC, and HP PA-RISC, and now runs on PPC, x86, and ARM and who knows what else in the lab) and they're not going to anger anybody with even a dual G4 tower for a long, long time.

I'd put money on it.

It costs a LOT to maintain each version. Development might be easy with cross compilers etc., but each version must be tested on each Apple supported variant: buss speeds, CD/DVD drives, disk sizes and controller, Airport controllers, etc. That's a LOT of testing and it is costly in time and money.

Eddie O.

Fabio_gsilva
Sep 24, 2007, 12:20 PM
I agree that this is a trial balloon, and while its probably aimed at developers, it is strategically a bad idea right now in the context of the current consumer market.

Specifically, there's a ton of consumer market share sitting on the fence, asking themselves the old "will I get screwed if I change from Windows to Mac?", so for Apple to even tolerate any suggesting of dropping of legacy support at this time is strategically damaging.




True, which means that the real question here is what is the specific and tangible benefit (and to who!) for the dropping of legacy support. People will understand & be more willing to accept change if they can see how they'll benefit from it (if not immediately, but in the future). To this end, a vague hand-waving of "no benefit to PPC" isn't a good enough justification: Apple will need to be very concise in providing real-world examples of what insanely great things the OS could do, if it were not being 'held back' by legacy PPC support.

Personally, I'm not aware of any specific examples of these great new features waiting in the wings (nor, admittedly, have I been looking for any), so perhaps somone could provide some examples of very tangible benefits?




True, but consumers are emotional beasts. For example:



We've seen this sentiment expressed several times already in this thread, and while it isn't true...



...this also drives to the core of another issue:

Some consumers may choose to buy a Mac in part because they remain better machines for longer. This is a classical lifecycle cost management statement...ie, pay more upfront but save money in the long run.

As such, while many of the consumers here may be of the personal opinion that 4 years is an acceptably long lifecycle, they do not speak for the entire marketplace.

(Personally, my newest tech Mac is 4 years old right now, and I expect that while it may be superceded by a better machine next year, it won't be retired out the door - - I expect it will remain on my network until it is at least 7 years old, just like its predecessor did).

To this end, if we look at a typical marketshare tracking website (http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2), we see that those (cough) "PPC's that haven't been sold in years" still remain a huge portion of the total share of OS X Mac's in use: they're still more than half (54%)

And while there's sure to be upgrades over the next two years so it will become a smaller portion of the whole, the underlying question is how small of a portion of the total does it need to become before its worth 'abandoning' the retail sales potential for that segment?

For example, my rough SWAG is that PPC is washing out at around 20% per year, which means that in 2-3 years, there will still be 1 PPC consumer for every 3 or 4 MacIntel consumers. As such, an OS update that doesn't support PPC means that roughly ~25% of the consumer base can't buy it.



Sure, but there's reality of support and then there's the consumer perceptions as to what "support" means...to them. Again, this is an opportunity for the nay-sayers to sharpshoot, so from a politically strategic position, it needs to be countered in easy-for-the-consumer-to-not-get-confused language.



Given how this is frequently an emotionally-loaded topic, I think a clear corporate policy would be very beneficial. My personal suggestion would be to strive for 10 years of support, with a promise of a minimum of 7 for things such as hardware spare parts, OS currency, etc. IMO, Apple has done pretty well historically in this regards and can lay it out in a marketing campaign to break into the conventional Corporate marketplace.



Agreed.



And therein lies the dilemma...the share of MacIntel will hopefully be quite good, but there will still be the higher grade G5's that are plugging along just fine that represent a core that haven't been replaced.



What's missing from this question is what percentage of Macs are still in service after 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... 10 years.

Not necessarily still in their original role, but merely in some useful capacity, as hand-me-downs and repurposing is common: there's that 8-year old G4 Sawtooth that's been running as a file/music server down in your closet, for example, or that 4-year old G4 iMac that your high schooler is using to do their homework assignments on (and that it is a poor game platform is, if you think about it, actually a feature).


-hh


Nice post!

TheChemist
Sep 24, 2007, 12:24 PM
I'm surprised that after 6 pages no one has asked for screenshots yet, so:

Can someone please host pictures of 10.6 and tell us how stable bootcramp 9.3 beta is? how about the dock? Can we make it go into the back of the screen now?

And is safari any snappier?
:rolleyes:

Anonymous Freak
Sep 24, 2007, 12:24 PM
OSX will have to be multi processor to keep support for the upcoming iPods and iPhones which run (quite well) on Samsung ARM processors

As someone else mentioned, the ARM version of OS X has no bearing whatsoever on PowerPC support. I doubt the "core OS" programmers even take ARM into account, the translation is probably solely handled "after the fact" by the iPod group.

But, it is also possible that the reason we don't have an "official" iPhone SDK is because Apple is going to convert the iPhone and iPods over to Intel processors soon, too. After all, at Intel's recent developer's forum, they announced that next year they should release ultra-low-power "system on a chip" processors that are so obviously targeted at the iPhone that Intel even showed off a 'prototype phone' that looks remarkably like an even-wider-screen iPhone. And they will be coming out with even lower power processors in 2009, that would be appropriate even in the nano.

I can very easily see that Apple is waiting for these new processors (which are Intel-architecture, so they are 100% code-compatible with the processors in the Mac Pro,) to open up the iPhone, so that programmers could quite literally write one piece of code, and only compile once, for all Apple products.

Peace
Sep 24, 2007, 12:24 PM
Given that Intel Macs started in Tiger, I doubt Leopard will be the last PPC supported system, The base of G4 & G5 PowerMacs is HUGE and will continue to dominate the overall population of Macs by 2009. Quad G5 is not going to be dead by then unless they all start leaking bloody murder. It is only a little slower than the Quad 2.66 Mac Pro.





Dominate? I think not.Apple is selling around 4 Million Intel Macs a year now.By 2009 that number will probably be 10 Million.So..

In 2009 there would be an Intel base of around 25 Million..While there would still be plenty of PPC Macs out there it will in no way comprise the majority.

SpinThis!
Sep 24, 2007, 12:25 PM
It's not just Apple who has to support PPC... it's the 3rd party developers. Apple's obviously trying to attract more users/developers if they want to grow the platform.

Look ahead 2 or 3 years. If you were a new developer (say a shareware developer) interested in developing for Mac OS X in 10.6, would you even bother developing for a PPC platform that's almost 7 years old? Probably not. That's one advantage Windows and M$ has always had... Windows developers never had to deal with the drastic changes we Apple users/developers had to go through.

Supporting both PPC and x86 isn't just a checkbox in XCode. A lot of Mac users are creative people... and use audio/visual applications that could potentially take advantage of each processor's architecture. That means, if you want your application to support the hints in each platform (eg Altivec or SSE3), you have to code accordingly for each platform as well.

Multimedia
Sep 24, 2007, 12:25 PM
I'm surprised that after 6 pages no one has asked for screenshots yet, so:

Can someone please host pictures of 10.6 and tell us how stable bootcramp 9.3 beta is? how about the dock? Can we make it go into the back of the screen now?

And is safari any snappier?
:rolleyes:All the 10.6 Alpha testers are under NDA so we can't see those shots yet. :p

Schtumple
Sep 24, 2007, 12:25 PM
they'll have to keep G5 support for 10.6, then drop PPC altogether by 10.7, seriously are PPC machines that crap that after 4 years they become obsolete...

I know apple always loves you to go out and buy their latest machines but still, this is pretty much saying you'll never get a long term investment in macs...

Digitalclips
Sep 24, 2007, 12:27 PM
This is pure speculation and warrants little to no attention. Shame on you macrumors.

I hear from a good source that 'Liger' (aka 'Tigon') the new hybrid AI interface OS from Apple due in 2012 will only run on post Intel Macs and not support any Intel chips as they will not be able support the thought transference beam required to operate the 4 dimensional space / time interface.

quigleybc
Sep 24, 2007, 12:30 PM
I really hope this is not true.

10.6 should drop G4's and 10.7 should be the only ALL Intel OS...


jeez....give us a few more good years with our G5's......bastards....

SpinThis!
Sep 24, 2007, 12:30 PM
I know apple always loves you to go out and buy their latest machines but still, this is pretty much saying you'll never get a long term investment in macs...
What's the average Windows machine last? 4 years tops?

Just because you can't run the latest Mac OS X version doesn't mean your "investment" is going to suddenly stop working with all the software you already have.

andiwm2003
Sep 24, 2007, 12:31 PM
Dominate? I think not.Apple is selling around 4 Million Intel Macs a year now.By 2009 that number will probably be 10 Million.So..

In 2009 there would be an Intel base of around 25 Million..While there would still be plenty of PPC Macs out there it will in no way comprise the majority.

let assume there are 8 million G4 and G5 machines out (lots of mac mini's, powerbooks, ibooks, imacs, powermacs). lets assume about 25% would legally upgrade to 10.6. that is 2 mio times $129. for ~250 mio dollars they could easily come up with a PPC version of OS 10.6 i would think. or are my numbers off?

Blacky
Sep 24, 2007, 12:31 PM
It would seem logical if they drop it. I've read a lot of reactions here that 4 years isn't that old for a computer etc.

But it's not like your imac G5 will stop working when 10.6 will be released for intel only, you can still use your mac just not run the latest software, how long after 10.6 would people write off their g5 indefinitly when they see that performance isn't that great anymore, betting between 6-12 months ...

Is it really worth it to devote a lot of time & energy for a small percentage of the users by then for a short amount of time they would use it ... I don't think so, and when the release day of 10.6 gets closer there will be too few ppc users that apple won't even notice them.

milo
Sep 24, 2007, 12:32 PM
Is anybody seriously suggesting that there'll be anything in 10.6 that a Core Solo Mac Mini will handle just fine, but will be "too much" for a G5 Quad?

Who says that the core solo will handle it just fine? After four years, the first intels will be getting long in the tooth as well.

The switch to Intel-based Macs is only two years old - what about all that BS about Universal Binaries and not leaving PPC Macs behind that Steve spouted when they went Intel?

Wasn't that "BS" along the lines that they're not leaving it any time soon...they didn't promise they'd NEVER drop support, did they? And this IS just a rumor, for all we know 10.6 may support PPC.

Pissing off a first generation G5 user who has a good computer with quad-2GHz processor and 8GB of memory is silly -- that's still an excellent computer.
[/LIST]

The quads were hardly the first gen of G5, more like the last gen.

goosnarrggh
Sep 24, 2007, 12:34 PM
By late 2009, it would have been 4 years since the last new PPC mac was sold.

Just to get our numbers straight... by August 2009, it will have been exactly 3 years since the last new G5 machines were sold.

But Apple was shipping refurbished G4's as recently as this year - a trip to the Wayback Machine tells me that they were in the Apple store at least in January.

That means that their AppleCare extended warranty may not have expired by January 2010. That makes me think, at the very least, Apple will continue to push security fixes compatible with those computers until that time at the earliest.

Sure, you might not be able to install the latest operating system on the machines. I think I can live with that.

KingYaba
Sep 24, 2007, 12:35 PM
Any PPC vs Intel user statics available? Maybe this 10.6 prediction is based upon a predicted stat of 90% Mac users will be using Intel chips vs 10% PPC (hypothetical statistic) by 2010? Though there are users including myself who use both Intel and Power PC machines daily.

k2k koos
Sep 24, 2007, 12:37 PM
Well, if they're dropping the support for 800 MHz PPC systems, what would the cutoff be in late 2009 for 10.6? 1.5 GHz? If so, nearly all PPC portables would be out of spec.

Maybe that'd be fine, but I'd think G5 iMacs and Power Macs would still be good enough. Until Apple says something definite, I'm betting 10.6 will be universal, but with specs that preclude all but the most powerful PPC systems.

I'm betting the same, and would go as far as saying that 10.7 will be the OS when PPC is out entirely.
:apple:

mjonson
Sep 24, 2007, 12:37 PM
10.6 will not be out until 2010. Even then software companies will continue to support 10.5 for at least a year, making it 2011 before ppc users find themselves unable to load certain aps. i really doubt ill be using my G4 powerbook by then, and i bouth the last gen. model.

Mac OS X Ocelot
Sep 24, 2007, 12:39 PM
Just three years after switching to Intel and they stop supporting PPC? I don't think so.

guzhogi
Sep 24, 2007, 12:41 PM
I said it before & I'll say it again: I don't believe Apple will drop the G4 w/o dropping the G5 at the same time. Because what Apple laptops have G5s? Oh right, NONE! And laptops are a pretty huge chunk of the Mac market and Apple would be pretty stupid to drop that yet keep the G5 desktops.

Xeem
Sep 24, 2007, 12:44 PM
10.5 is soon to be released, but I'm still running 10.3 on a few older G4s here, and they are still every bit as productive as they were when I got them. The vast majority of applications requiring higher than 10.3.9 also require more power than my unmodded G4 Cube can provide anyways. By the time 10.6 is released, pretty much all PowerPC users, with the probable exception of the highest-end Power Mac G5s, will be in a similar position. Anything that requires a Mac OS higher than 10.5.x will require more power than any G4 Mac can provide, and will exclude even some G5s. Thus, there won't much of a real need to upgrade most PowerPCs to 10.6, and I think that 10.5 will keep people happy for some time now. The only people truly left behind by an intel-only 10.6 would be the multiprocessor G5 crowd, as these machines still have a lot of fight left in them, but I don't know if that is enough market to justify the resources to continue a Universal Mac OS.

DrD
Sep 24, 2007, 12:45 PM
This will make everything obsolete:

http://aktrailhead.com/stuff/liger.jpg

Croatian
Sep 24, 2007, 12:48 PM
Mac OS X 10.10 Cougar
there will be no PPC or X86 Support

Cell Processor Support (SPEs)
on average giving 740 GFLOPS

SCREW U MICROSOFT :)

morespce54
Sep 24, 2007, 12:54 PM
I'm having a hard time believing that...:confused:

How long was it before they stop supporting OS9? I know, the change between X and OS9 was dramatic but still...

I bet it could happens for 10.7 but hardly for 10.6

xStep
Sep 24, 2007, 12:55 PM
By late 2009, it would have been 4 years since the last new PPC mac was sold.
Some of you people have funny math.

morespce54
Sep 24, 2007, 12:57 PM
It seems like a logical step to me. If Apple releases 10.6 in 2 years then the last Power PC computers will be 4 years old.

Yes, but not everybody (outside MR) changes computer every 4 years (or less)...

psychofreak
Sep 24, 2007, 01:00 PM
Why not keep developing both versions, as they did starting from os X , in that way , if ibm would come out with something spectacular and new that Intel missed , the switch back wil be very easy. Only if it's really ,really expensive then it would be considerable, to stop the universal versions in my opinion.
But i'm not a programmer so it's basicly a big wild gues ;-) .Then all the Windows-on-a-Mac publicity goodness will have been wasted...

What does that mean? There have been multiprocessor PowerPC Macs for years and years. Quad G5s anyone?
S/he means multiple processor architectures (Intel and PPC)
Yes, but not everybody (outside MR) changes computer every 4 years (or less)...

Most people do...and if they're not close enough to the cutting edge to get new hardware (by then the now-current hardware will be a cheap upgrade anyway) then they probably won't want 10.6 that much...

MagnusVonMagnum
Sep 24, 2007, 01:04 PM
More than enough time to warrant dropping PPC support, IMHO.

Exactly what do you people base comments like this on? I picked up this 2001 dual-cpu G4 last may for 1/10th its original cost, threw in an 18x DVD drive and Tiger and other than newer games, it runs everything I need it to run. It's 6 years old! According to your math, it was worthless 2 years ago. I can make it 1.8 GHz for $250 and throw in a video card that will run Doom3 at lower resolutions for $120. Heck, if it were an iMac I couldn't do ANYTHING with it (mid-tower please Apple!). I can run Logic Pro 8 on it with a Firewire breakout box. What exactly about it makes it worthless after this magic 4 year number that you're proposing to do to Power G5 Quads and the like as well as older machines?

It's an OS. Artificial limitations are pointless. That's a lot of $129 sales lost if Apple does indeed choose to remove PPC support. But Apple is the one that chose PPC in the first place. It does make me wonder why they didn't just go to Intel instead back in 2000 instead of supporting a platform some say should no longer be supported period. Maybe PPC should have died with OS9?

Basically, I think it comes down to people who have or can afford to replace their equipment with the latest and greatest look down on other Apple users that need a longer shelf life for their investment. It's the same thinking that says we don't NEED a mid-priced tower because you can just buy a new iMac every year or every other year instead ($$$$). That's great if you can afford it.

jimN
Sep 24, 2007, 01:04 PM
At any rate this is based on idle speculation, not even rumour.

Can't we just get excited/pissed off about 10.5 and leave this until November at least - the share price will start dropping if we are not careful!

Analog Kid
Sep 24, 2007, 01:06 PM
There's no reason to keep support for G5 and drop G4. The reason G3 was dropped is because it lacked AltiVec support. G4 and G5 offer essentially the same internal feature set, with speed being the only real differentiator.

Keeping PPC support in the OS won't mean keeping support in applications. We're already seeing games and such that are marked as Intel only. Eventually more devs might start leaning this way (not because you can save 12MB of app space though, that's nothing). I would hope that Apple wouldn't lead the way on this trend though.

There's a little part of me that hopes Apple's hardware line eventually goes mixed processor. I'd love to have an updated-but-still-dirt-cheap Mac mini, for example. Server class machines might be another place. As others have said, they're committed to keeping ARM support.

If nothing else, the threat of being able to switch CPUs easily may help keep preferential treatment with Intel.

Fwink!
Sep 24, 2007, 01:07 PM
I dunno. That would leave a lot of machine with an installed user base open to experimenting with Linux and whatever else might be available at that time.
My old G3 ibook still runs OSX pretty well. I think a level was reached a few years ago where most home users had enough power to do whatever they'd want to with their computers. between graphics cards getting really fast and processors running in tandem or at high speeds, I think there is a lot of life left in the PPC line.

I'm betting that Apple will offer apps that require faster speeds to run soothly, more than artificially limiting the user base.

TurboSC
Sep 24, 2007, 01:11 PM
Yea I'm sure the backwards compatibility is such an unnecessary procedure for the products of way back when... Well at least it'll encourage people to upgrade their computers... but I'm sure there are going to be a lot of people complaining as usual.

Digital Skunk
Sep 24, 2007, 01:11 PM
Apple is going to pivot on names for the next go. It shoulda-coulda-woulda been a lion, I guess, after Leopard. But at least in English that's such a tepid name for the King of Beasts.

So it will be Leo, also conveniently a constellation, and a beauty at that. It will look great in the promos! Picking the name of a constellation opens the door for all those other great celestial monikers to tag future OS releases. Orion! Aries! Libra!

I am definitely making this up, btw.

Sounds kinda good though..

Mac OS 10.7 Gemini !!! :cool:

Lesser Evets
Sep 24, 2007, 01:21 PM
The OS's get so burdensome anyway. My old G4 was already quite taxed by 10.4. I can't imagine 10.5 being worthwhile for it. So 10.6 will most likely be even worse and more cumbersome.

If you are still using a G4 in 2010, you probably won't need it to run the latest software anyway.

10.6 = Lynx
10.7 = Bobcat
10.8 = Housecat
10.9 = Polecat
10.10 = Tomcat

weezer160
Sep 24, 2007, 01:22 PM
Obviously they'll keep developing a PPC version of future releases for internal experimentation and a huge "just in case" scenario. They're not going to abandon writing PPC for the OS - if they had that mind set, they would have never had the opportunity to do a huge processor switch over in the last few years. Nobody likes to play catch up. Apple will do anything to protect its interests.

I hope, though, they do devote all their resources to writing better and better code for the Intel release and drop official support for PPC in 10.6.

My guess is that 10.6 will be "Lion." I can't think of any other big felines, unless I missed some suggestions in the forum. Mac OS 11 will be something different....

azentropy
Sep 24, 2007, 01:23 PM
Yes, but not everybody (outside MR) changes computer every 4 years (or less)...

Correct. And of that subset how many of them upgrade their OS every release?

How many of them who don't upgrade their HW but "have" to upgrade their OS after 4 years? I'm guessing that would be a pretty small number as typically the people who keep their hardware that long are not the type of people who "have" to upgrade to the newest OS.

If the cost envolved in continuing developing for PPC is less than the profit they would make selling to users with 4 year old machines that have to have the latest OS then the will continue to make PPC versions. If not, then they won't.

Personally I don't see them dropping support for G4/G5 with 10.6. But I do see many more features on the horizon that will require Intel based machines both from Apple and Third parties.

California
Sep 24, 2007, 01:24 PM
By late 2009, it would have been 4 years since the last new PPC mac was sold.

Actually this is completey FALSE.

I purchased a BRAND NEW 1.5ghz 12" Powerbook in August of 2006. It would be four years in 2010.

I purchased a BRAND NEW 1.5ghz Mac Mini G4 in
SEPTEMBER of 2006.

I expect at least seven years of updates as needed on my computer purchases. I expect Apple to support my PPCs until 2013, sorry.

I used my 145b Powerbook (PURCHASED NEW in July 1994) until August 2001 and the Powerbook was still great -- it was the Kingston memory upgrade chip that failed and I had lost the original four mb chip. That was seven great years.

I don't appreciate forced obsolescence from Apple if we cannot run the latest OS on our beloved machines. I am STILL currently buying a last generation PPC iBook 12" because they are GREAT machines.

skellener
Sep 24, 2007, 01:24 PM
That sucks. There's a lot of life left in the PPC Macs.
And there still will be well after 10.6 ships sometime in 2009/2010 or even 2011. Your Mac does not stop working when a new OS comes out. And by 2011, your 2006 PowerPC will definitely start to seem a bit long in the tooth anyway. It'll probably still run just fine but five years is a good run.

mccoma
Sep 24, 2007, 01:25 PM
For some reason, I am really more worried about 32-bit being dropped in the next release then the G5s. The G4 is probably gone anyway and all the current Intels are 64-bit. Although, all but the early Intel portables could be upgraded.

pixlnet
Sep 24, 2007, 01:26 PM
From what I remember Steve saying, after 10.5 Apple will slow down the OS releases. My guess is they will be doing a lot of under the hood work with the file system, etc making some major changes to keep OS X a head of its time.

While it seems like Apple could/would do such as a thing as drop PPC support, I think it's fairly unlikely unless the adoption rates of Intel are really high. The biggest thing for them is to have the user base on the same OS, so dropping the iMac G5 for instance doesn't sound like a good idea. What's the point anyways? It's not Windows Vista! PowerPC chips should have plenty of power to run 10.6.....it's not like OS X requirements are steep!

whistler72
Sep 24, 2007, 01:28 PM
i say drop the support. you have to draw the line somewhere?

blankleader
Sep 24, 2007, 01:29 PM
What's 10.6 going to be called? Lion? :D :apple:

Ocelot.

I heard it from Steve Jobs' mom's gardener's sister's hairdresser.

farmboy
Sep 24, 2007, 01:29 PM
[QUOTE=-hh;4230868]I agree that this is a trial balloon, and while its probably aimed at developers, it is strategically a bad idea right now in the context of the current consumer market.

Specifically, there's a ton of consumer market share sitting on the fence, asking themselves the old "will I get screwed if I change from Windows to Mac?", so for Apple to even tolerate any suggesting of dropping of legacy support at this time is strategically damaging.


Yeah, OK. So let's continue to support floppy disks, serial ports, DB9 ports, parallel ports, and PPC processors because you don't want anyone to be left behind. What "fence sitter" is waiting to see if PPC processors are going to be supported into the second decade of the 21st century? They only know Intel because they've had those stupid stickers on every box since the beginning of time. Move on.

Porco
Sep 24, 2007, 01:34 PM
Sounds like a silly idea, I don't really believe it. I think G5s will be supported for at least the next couple of versions.

shawnce
Sep 24, 2007, 01:34 PM
From what I remember Steve saying, after 10.5 Apple will slow down the OS releases. Actually that was stated in the 10.4 time frame (really at the tail end of 10.3).

CaptainScarlet
Sep 24, 2007, 01:43 PM
Actually this is completey FALSE.

I purchased a BRAND NEW 1.5ghz 12" Powerbook in August of 2006. It would be four years in 2010.

I purchased a BRAND NEW 1.5ghz Mac Mini G4 in
SEPTEMBER of 2006.

I expect at least seven years of updates as needed on my computer purchases. I expect Apple to support my PPCs until 2013, sorry.

I used my 145b Powerbook (PURCHASED NEW in July 1994) until August 2001 and the Powerbook was still great -- it was the Kingston memory upgrade chip that failed and I had lost the original four mb chip. That was seven great years.

I don't appreciate forced obsolescence from Apple if we cannot run the latest OS on our beloved machines. I am STILL currently buying a last generation PPC iBook 12" because they are GREAT machines.

Please....

You expect to keep your 7 year old computer to run the latest software? :rolleyes:

And good luck getting Developers to write code just for you...


We all heard the rumors about Apple going to Intel chips. You should have listened and waited to buy your new computer.

Cuz thats I what I did...

MacsRgr8
Sep 24, 2007, 01:46 PM
Funny how such worthless speculation can spawn so many replies... :D

One thing: there is no way 10.6 will be available before 2010.

Let's review the release dates:
24 March 2001: 10.0 Cheetah

29 September 2001: 10.1 Puma (=6 months later..)

23 August 2002: 10.2 Jaguar (=11 months later...)

24 October 2003: 10.3 Panther (=14 months later...)

29 April 2005: 10.4 Tiger (=18 months later...)

October 2007: 10.5 Leopard (=30 months later...)

Added the fact that Steve himself has said that the major releases will be less frequent, so you can be assured that it will take 3 years before 10.6 will arrive.
So, probably late 2010, or maybe even early 2011 if there will be some other iGadget that will lengthen the development time of a new OS ;)

If it is late 2010 it would have been only 4 years ago that the latest and greatest PPC was sold... Usually you can upgrade the OS on a Mac at least twice.
I can imagine the following, though:
If Apple were to remove PPC support for new OS releases due to extra cost of keeping the binaries Universal, they might find a way to implement some of the new "goodies" of 10.6 in a paid-upgrade-software for Leopard way.
Imagine Apple having a 10.4 version of Time Machine. Or that Dashboard was made available on Panther. Or that Boot Camp was made Tiger-compatible (ah.. forgot.. it is already! :D).
Ofcourse, the under-the-hood improvements of a new OS cannot be sold, but the app-like "fun stuff" could.

Be honest, a Power Mac G5 Quad with lots of RAM and a good grfx card, is even now an über fast machine. Outperforms a much younger Mac mini or MacBook easily, so it won't be the core speed of the machine that will stop it running 10.6.
It simply will be a cost factor for Apple.

IMHO, Apple should keep the OS universal. Either secretly (like they have done for years, therefore not putting added pressure on developers to keep their apps universal too), or not. The advantage of keeping your OS universal (the just-in-case scenario which Apple has done brilliantly, and being able to use a maybe excellent IBM PPC CPU in the future) must outweigh the cost of it. It seems the hard work had been done when they started the development of the universal OS.

Analog Kid
Sep 24, 2007, 01:46 PM
For some reason, I am really more worried about 32-bit being dropped in the next release then the G5s. The G4 is probably gone anyway and all the current Intels are 64-bit. Although, all but the early Intel portables could be upgraded.
Whoops... Forgot about the 32bit difference in G4/G5 in my post above. I don't see 64bitness being necessary for a while though-- especially with those 32bit Intel's out there.

Clive At Five
Sep 24, 2007, 01:49 PM
...le always loves you to go out and buy their latest machines but still, this is pretty much saying you'll never get a long term investment in macs...

I've owned my 800MHz G4 iMac for 6 years now. I'd say I got my money's worth, wouldn't you? If I were to buy an Intel Mac today, I'm pretty certain I could get another 6 years.

What's the average Windows machine last? 4 years tops?

Just because you can't run the latest Mac OS X version doesn't mean your "investment" is going to suddenly stop working with all the software you already have.

Not an entirely fair statement. Unless you buy a Mac Pro (or PowerMac) there isn't a way to upgrade your computer. I can build a VERY capable PC for half the price of a Mac Pro (granted I'll be confined to Windows, but that's my choice). Once that PC is running sluggishly (approx 4 years as you said), I can put under $600 into it and have a brand new PC. With an average Mac, you have to buy a whole new unit... sometimes buying another monitor which you may not need. Yes, I'm talking to you, iMac.

PCs are MUCH MUCH MUCH less of a risky investment solely on their upgradability. When I'm ready to buy my next Mac, I will have to do a lot of research to make sure I'm picking a model that will suit my needs for the next 6 years (my average Mac lifespan).

For some reason, I am really more worried about 32-bit being dropped in the next release then the G5s. The G4 is probably gone anyway and all the current Intels are 64-bit. Although, all but the early Intel portables could be upgraded.

Hmm... thus making all G4s, Core Solos and Core Duos non-upgradeable, interesting. This would certainly uncomplicate things for Apple quite a bit, but would alienate anyone who bought a Mac Mini even earlier this year! I'm fairly certain that eliminating PPC would best-simplify things for Apple and have the minimal effect on customer base.

-Clive

Object-X
Sep 24, 2007, 01:51 PM
Obviously this balloon is being floated now with the intent to give the market the heads up that it will need to make some decisions about how & when it wants to go about transitioning to the intel platform.


Floated by whom? Apple? No, I think this is just the rumor mill trying to make predictions about what is obvious to generate hits. A new OS wont be ready for another two to three years and the PowerPC archetechture is eventually going to be dropped. It's really not hard to predict that OS X 10.6 will drop support for this leagacy architecture.

Only a moron would expect a five year old computer to run a cutting edge OS in an acceptable manner. You're 1GHz G4s are going to be pokey slow with Leopard, barely acceptable. And three years from now? I doubt the graphics subsystems in these old Macs will be able to do what a next gen OS will require. If you can't aford a new Mac by 2010 quit bitching and be happy with Tiger.

CommodityFetish
Sep 24, 2007, 01:56 PM
I'll be really surprised if 10.6 is out that fast (2009). Look at the historical releases of OS X and it's not linear, but an exponential curve. The OS is just developed so thoroughly that there's not that much more to add with each new release. I'd think 2010 at the earliest, maybe 2011.

So I wouldn't be surprised if they drop PPC support with it by that point (5-6 years since the last PPC macs were sold)

On the other hand if it doesn't cost them anything to compile it for PPC, maybe they'll keep it... Just seems like it would require more effort to optimize for both...

CmdrLaForge
Sep 24, 2007, 02:03 PM
Makes sense to me. I mean I still will own 2 PPC Macs then but I wouldn't really mind. Would be ok for me. I am not even sure if I will upgrade the PPCs to 10.5

-hh
Sep 24, 2007, 02:03 PM
Any PPC vs Intel user statics available?

As per this (http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2), the numbers for August 2007 are PPC has 3.33% and MacIntel 2.82%, which would be a total marketshare of 6.15% and a split of 54%-46% (PPC-MacIntel).

Maybe this 10.6 prediction is based upon a predicted stat of 90% Mac users will be using Intel chips vs 10% PPC (hypothetical statistic) by 2010?

From a prudent business approach, there would need to be some sort of analysis like that.

The real wildcard variable is in what are the rates of sales growth going to be over the next 2 years and what percentage of those sales are to existing Mac consumers (not switchers).

The significance of this second requirement is that it doesn't do the (proverbially "faithful") PPC Mac owner any good if PPC support is dropped because there's been a bazillion new switchers, because the only Mac product that was available to them is the MacIntel, so they don't really have any need for legacy compatibility. As such, new unit sales are only half the question - - you need to also be sure that the old PPC stuff is actually getting retired to the junkyard.


-hh

California
Sep 24, 2007, 02:04 PM
Please....

You expect to keep your 7 year old computer to run the latest software? :rolleyes:

And good luck getting Developers to write code just for you...


We all heard the rumors about Apple going to Intel chips. You should have listened and waited to buy your new computer.

Cuz thats I what I did...

Yeah. I do. Even though I own five macs, (all PPC) i expect to be able to run the latest, if stripped down, OS's. I will be happy to give up the ghost on this when OS 11 comes up, just like the death knell for OS9 was fine.

MarkPB15
Sep 24, 2007, 02:07 PM
Some people will never be happy. Even if 10.6 comes out in 2009, I am sure leopard will still be very usable. I hope Apple isn't stupid enough to spend money on R&D to support a platform that is no longer providing any cash flow. I am sure this will just get the last bunch to move to intel and any stragglers can use 10.5. I mean it isn't like tiger is going to useless starting next month.

Spanky Deluxe
Sep 24, 2007, 02:09 PM
So 10.6 is expected late 2009/2010.

Is it so wrong that they're doing this? They will still 'support' all the G4 and G5 machines on 10.5 for many years to come. Even if 10.6 *does* support PPC, it probably wouldn't be worth putting it on most machines anyway. It'll probably demand a minimum amount of 2GB RAM which will be pushing the limits of pretty much all but the G5s.

At the end of the day, you'd probably rather run 10.5.26 on a PPC machine than 10.6.0. Most people that declare they'll 'need' 10.6 would probably actually 'need' a new machine anyway if they're still on PPC hardware by that point.

California
Sep 24, 2007, 02:10 PM
Please....

You expect to keep your 7 year old computer to run the latest software? :rolleyes:

And good luck getting Developers to write code just for you...


We all heard the rumors about Apple going to Intel chips. You should have listened and waited to buy your new computer.

Cuz thats I what I did...

Yeah. I do. Even though I own five macs, (all PPC) i expect to be able to run the latest, if stripped down, OS's. I will be happy to give up the ghost on this when OS 11 comes up, just like the death knell for OS9 was fine.

nxent
Sep 24, 2007, 02:11 PM
booooooooooooooooooooooooooo

BigPrince
Sep 24, 2007, 02:24 PM
and you'd all still be mad if it was 10.7 instead...

Clive At Five
Sep 24, 2007, 02:24 PM
There's something I want to say to ye who upgrade rarely: First of all, I am one of you so it's not as though I just don't understand you. I do. I am the owner of an 800 MHz G4 iMac. It was the first of the swivel-neck models and top-of-the-line. It is now 6 years later. The computer continues to serve me well. I use Garage Band extensively and as long as I lock tracks and monitor my system resources, the computer runs just fine. It came loaded with Puma and I've religiously upgraded with each available OS release. Naturally, it's now running Tiger and is certainly slower than new PCs, but it's definitely still operable. (In fact, surprizingly, one of the greatest drawbacks is not the processor speed, but the lack of USB2.)

I have recently learned that Leopard will require a G4> 800MHz, just barring me from upgrading. Does this mean I'm the victim of planned obsolescence? Not at all. My 800 MHz system struggles with Tiger, and would choke to death on Leopard. That doesn't make it an obsolete machine. I will continue to use it, of course, since it still does what I need to after 6 years, whether I have the newest OS or not.

Ye who are owners of more recent G5s will be in a similar situation in about 3 years. Your computers, which will be capable of adequately running Leopard will not be as adequately capable of running 10.6. This won't render your computer inoperable. You'll still be able to use universal applications for a good two more years. That'll put your potential computer's life span at 6 years or more.

6 years, to me, is the benchmark lifespan of a Mac. If I get 6 years out of a Mac, I have definitely gotten my money's worth. (My record was 8 years with a Performa 630 CD and my primary computer, believe it or not.) I know you might feel upset right now that a computer you bought last year might not run Apple's next (next) operating system, but you can still certainly get a good run out of it. Take heart in this.

"Go ahead, Seattle... I'm listening."

-Clive

macnews
Sep 24, 2007, 02:27 PM
I know most of us on here would like to run the latest and greatest but really this is all about the apps. What OS will applications require? Likely, 10.5 will still be supported by most apps when 10.6 comes out. Thus, if your ppc can run 10.5 just fine you should be ok app wise. Now, when 10.7 comes out or after 10.6 has been out for a year or so you start to see some apps require 10.6. However, all PPC owners will likely be just fine running all those great apps they are today as they will be in 2011 or 2012 when new apps will stop running on ppc computers.

JGowan
Sep 24, 2007, 02:29 PM
Pure Speculation, people. Relax. "Apple may not yet have made a decision on this matter. Apple has made NO announcements about 10.6"

I think they should leave PPCs out when too many important features simply can't be done on the older systems. To say that G5s would be orphaned with "only Leopard" is stupid. Leopard would be a great OS to grace G5s for the rest of their lifespan.

AppleJustWorks
Sep 24, 2007, 02:29 PM
I can't believe how many people are saying that it would "make sense".

It would not make sense, and Apple is not going to do it. Think about it, kids: the bulk of the Apple Insider article is about a mere 67Mhz increase in the minimum requirements for Leopard...and why? Because they discovered that it simply wouldn't be performant on lesser machines -- and that's a reasonable expectation, since threading things (like the network stack) does have some overhead associated with it and the older, slower machines are going to be the ones bit by that tradeoff.

But WTF...you think a quad, or dual, or even single G5 at 2.0 Ghz is not going to run 10.6 adequately for some reason? As if. The trend in OSX from release to release is that, on most machines with adequate memory, it gets faster -- not slower. The machines that get slower are the edge cases.

It costs Apple almost nothing to maintain the PPC port of this software (which, you should recall, ran on 040, SPARC, and HP PA-RISC, and now runs on PPC, x86, and ARM and who knows what else in the lab) and they're not going to anger anybody with even a dual G4 tower for a long, long time.

I'd put money on it.
I don't think there is an argument about whether or not it is technically feasible. It is.

That being said, there is a reason that 99.5% of active users are on Tiger, that 84.3% are on dual core systems, and that 83.9% of users are on Intel already. (Source: Omni Software Update Stats). I'll give you a hint --- it's not because Apple makes it easy for laggards.

It's because Apple (like myself) designs things around the idea that it's okay to require somewhat-updated technology, because the people they want as their customers are those who would already have updated technology.

If you look at a myriad of aspects of Apple's business (marketing, for one), you'll see Apple doesn't put much effort into appealing to the "i just want a really cheap machine" market, nor the "i just use my computer for email and web-browsing" market. They exist, sure, and they're comparatively big, yes, but does Apple care about them? Is Apple offended when those people don't buy into their brand? Nope, they sure aren't. Those are not customers worth marketing on board.

That's what I'm trying to say. There's nothing wrong with using a PowerPC machine four years after Apple last sold one. But you are not the customer Apple is going to (or should) design their plans around, and they're certainly not going to give you that impression by implementing legacy support.

joemama
Sep 24, 2007, 02:30 PM
Do people still use PowerPCs?

Oh wait, I'm on one right now. G4 450MHz. I have to say - the way it still runs is pretty amazing. Kudos to Apple.

SiliconAddict
Sep 24, 2007, 02:30 PM
Makes sense...

Umm no it doesn't. Not in any way shape or form. This is what I find laughable about Apple and the Mac platform and is one of the core reasons why the IT industry will most likely never standardize on the Mac. If MS did this, and they have tried, you would have a mass riot from CIO's world wide. As it stand they tried killing support for windows 98....still have it. They've talked about scaling back support for XP....oops sorry. We're bad. MS's OS support vs. Apple isn't even comparable. I mean realistically we should see support for the PPC until 2010-1012 AFAIC.

CalBoy
Sep 24, 2007, 02:33 PM
This is pure speculation and warrants little to no attention. Shame on you macrumors.

As opposed to all those rumors that are based on hard evidence:rolleyes:

I purchased a BRAND NEW 1.5ghz 12" Powerbook in August of 2006. It would be four years in 2010.
How did you purchase a new Powerbook in August? Was it a refurb? I assumed Apple had taken all the left over stock and put them onto the refurb site.


I don't appreciate forced obsolescence from Apple if we cannot run the latest OS on our beloved machines. I am STILL currently buying a last generation PPC iBook 12" because they are GREAT machines.

You'll still be able to use your computer as well as you use it today. Nothing is going to change on your end; all the change will be external to your Powerbook. Hence, if you want to keep up with everyone else, you have to buy a new machine. Why should everyone else in 2009 wait for you because you have a 2005 machine?

Rocketman
Sep 24, 2007, 02:34 PM
I think it is a good idea. It would be far better if Apple formally announced it very soon so people have YEARS to plan for it.

Furthermore I really think Apple should release "compatability updates or applications" for OS 8.6 and 9.2 so "older hardware that is still alive and well" can at least use more recent technologies to some degree.

It should both move forward without unnecessary backwards compatibility of new hardware and software, AND, do some minimal things to make old software and hardware able to talk to modern devices.

How much CPU power do you really need for a SAN or a printer station? There is a real chance Apple will be releasing an Air Tunes like device for modern devices that acts as a SAN hub, printer hub, optical storage hub, all wirelessly to your Mac, iPhone and more advanced iPods.

Apple should move forward unhindered.

Apple should have a "compatibility group" dedicated to making legacy hardware owners not feel left out entirely, and heck, charge for it!

Rocketman

neutrino23
Sep 24, 2007, 02:39 PM
10.6 is too soon to drop support for the PPC. Even though it will be four years or so after they were no longer sold the total installed base will probably be larger than the installed base of Intel machines. Apple sells the OS so they would get revenue by selling to the installed base. Even though some things might not work perfectly on the older machines those people would have access to some of the newer technologies built in to the OS (sharing, networking, etc.). It is likely that the graphic oriented features would suffer with the older GPUs. Wasn't that the situation with Quartz? Some older machines would not render some animations but they still could run the OS.

contoursvt
Sep 24, 2007, 02:41 PM
Great. Forced obsolescence.

Thats one thing I love at MS...they leave it up to the user to decide is and when an OS will and will not go onto their computer. I was able to install Vista on a PIII 600Mhz and it worked reasonably well. It had 768MB RAM and a 40GB HD and a Radeon DDR 32mb AGP card. Mind you it was not Aero capable but still worked. This is a current OS on 7 year old hardware. If a user is content with the speed and just wants the lates OS options, then let them have it. I can easily see this box work with Vista another 2-3 years as long as tasks are kept fairly basic.

There is no reason why a dual 2.5Ghz G5 should not be considered out dated even 2-3 years from now. If that computer has some fast drives and say 8GB RAM, its still a very decent work station. May not be blazing fast by then but it will be fully usable on the latest OS if given the chance.

donlphi
Sep 24, 2007, 02:42 PM
By the time Mac OS X (Laughing Hyena) comes out, I will have already purchased a nice Intel Mac Pro to replace my 933mhz Quicksilver PowerMac. This is great news. Imagine how great OS X could be if they didn't have to make it work on both. I'm all for it.

My Quicksilver already runs pretty slow with my current OS. It doesn't run the new iMovie (or the old one for that matter). This will just be a great excuse for me to tell my wife.

"Sorry Honey, I would love to put the HD movies of the kids on Blu-Ray, but we're only running Leopard. Our processor is old. Time for a new one... IF YOU WANT."

Great news!:D

-hh
Sep 24, 2007, 02:44 PM
I agree that this is a trial balloon, and while its probably aimed at developers, it is strategically a bad idea right now in the context of the current consumer market.

Specifically, there's a ton of consumer market share sitting on the fence, asking themselves the old "will I get screwed if I change from Windows to Mac?", so for Apple to even tolerate any suggesting of dropping of legacy support at this time is strategically damaging.

Yeah, OK. So let's continue to support floppy disks, serial ports, DB9 ports, parallel ports, and PPC processors because you don't want anyone to be left behind.

Not my point. My point is that legacy support can just as much about perception as it is about reality.

What "fence sitter" is waiting to see if PPC processors are going to be supported into the second decade of the 21st century? They only know Intel because they've had those stupid stickers on every box since the beginning of time. Move on.

You miss my point.

What's holding many 'fence sitters' from adopting is in many cases a "fear of the unknown", and/or false perceptions.

In general, they won't do serious, objective research, but will merely hook onto ANY convenient excuse ... no matter how lame ... in order to stay within their comfort zone of the status quo.

Fear of file incompatibility is an excuse.

Fear of Apple going out of business is another excuse.

And so on.

Here, it is the 'fear' is for discontinuation of support.

And this is where rationality becomes blurred: notice that I said just "support", instead of "PPC support". The dilemma is that while dropping PPC support doesn't affect a 'fence sitter' directly, it does influence their perception as to how Apple operates (how long they stand behind their products). As such, the (potential) dropping of PPC support can -- if not done properly -- invoke a fear of "Apple could drop me like that", which can create a reluctance to buy Apple products.

For example, there's currently a lot of loud wailing going on because the video-out on the newest iPods apparently incorportates a new DRM, and as a result, aftermarket 3rd Party video interfaces have been broken. Right or wrong, Apple is taking some heat, and the visibility of these angry buyers will invariably affect iPod sales for awhile.


Overall, the more expensive the product, the more assurances that the consumer likes to have about it being a good investment.

An aspect of this is in creating consumer confidence that the manufacturer will support their products for a good number of years. One hard part is in picking the appropriate number of years to provide this support. Another hard part is in clearly articulating and educating the consumer as to what 'support' means, so as to manage their expectations. And yet another hard part is in being consistant with one's delivered message.

Some approaches will work better than others; they all have trade-offs. I'm of the general personal opinion that Apple could gain customers if they were to have a White Paper that clearly outlines their principles of operation, particularly if the terms thereon were consumer-friendly...for example, having a stated objective of a minimum of 7-10 years worth of corporate support. Lawyers don't like to make such promises, but that doesn't mean that it can never be done...it just means that its something that Lawyers don't like :D


-hh

BWhaler
Sep 24, 2007, 02:45 PM
An idiotic, speculative article based on nothing other than a desire to drum up website traffic to sell ads.

Well, AppleInsider, I guess now that your rumor sources have dried up, you are forced to republish analyst articles and make stuff up yourselves. (Not that the analysts don't do the very same thing.)

Totally pathetic. Why Macrumors is sinking to this level is beyond me. Oh wait, they need to the traffic and views too...

Clive At Five
Sep 24, 2007, 02:46 PM
[Microsoft had] talked about scaling back support for XP....oops sorry. We're bad.

After using Vista RC1 extensively and playing with my wife's Vista laptop, I am not surprised at all that there was objection to scaling back XP support. Vista sucks. It sucks so bad that it only has 6-8% adoption. 95% of all Windows users are still using XP, and I'm one of them. I'm hanging onto my copy of Vista Ultimate Upgrade ($9 with student discount) and waiting for a Service Pack.

That would be like Apple saying they were going to scale back on support of Tiger starting in 2008.

The Windows 98 this IS pretty ridiculous, though HOWEVER, in college I shared a house with a girl who ran Win 98. We graduated in '06 ;).

-Clive

Shotgun OS
Sep 24, 2007, 02:47 PM
Ugh. Great. Another iMac for me to throw out.

iMikeT
Sep 24, 2007, 02:48 PM
Let's not jump the gun quite yet. Let's wait until 10.5 goes gold.:rolleyes:

Westside guy
Sep 24, 2007, 02:48 PM
Love the first page of comments. "4 years is long enough" seems to be the norm. That's just silly - it wasn't that long ago that many of you were spouting hyperbole about "the megahertz myth" and how "Macs last so much longer than PCs" (and the corollary "old Macs hold their value").

Given that, for the vast majority of users, PCs/Macs are way overpowered for what they need to accomplish - 4 years of use is nothing. Even after the processor switch, a "slow" 4-year-old PPC Powerbook is very usable even now. That's my daughter's current computer BTW. Her only complaint is about how slow Windows runs inside of Virtual PC - but I was complaining about that back when the machine was brand new. :D

Fortunately I doubt Apple is even considering this. I do realize the rumor sites have to come up with stuff on a regular basis, though, in order to pay the bills.

ezpk69
Sep 24, 2007, 02:53 PM
Is anybody seriously suggesting that there'll be anything in 10.6 that a Core Solo Mac Mini will handle just fine, but will be "too much" for a G5 Quad?

Who says that the core solo will handle it just fine? After four years, the first intels will be getting long in the tooth as well.


You're being a little disingenuous, or skimming. Who says? Plenty of kids on the first few pages were implying that all Intel Macs were much faster than all those crusty old PPC dinosaurs. Take another look...

Plus, "fast" doesn't get "slow" as fast as it used to. Look at CPU clock speeds from 2001-2004, and from 2004 to 2007. Draw your own conclusions about what 2007-2010 may look like.

p33
Sep 24, 2007, 03:00 PM
I can't believe how many people are saying that it would "make sense".


Common sense is not that common, they say. We are just having a good example, quite possibly... ;^>

I think that modern G4s (not to say G5s) are quite overpowered for a vast majority of users who are using them for mereley typing in their documents, surfing the web and the like, provided they are not using M$ word and stuff (for some strange reason), which is absolutely bloated and work as a dog, and gets only slower each time...

The OS kernel would most probably not have much greater requirements than the current one, the interface, on the other hand, can and probably will be more and more resource hungry. But there is a solution to that one: the vast majority of games lets you select detaliazation level and graphics quality. Leopard will offer such feature AFAIK, so I can't see any problem here.

Multiplatform support in a UNIX environment is not a big deal too if everything is written well and let's hope it is. :) Platform specific parts are typically those kernel parts written in the assembly language but they tend to be small and almost never change for a well established architecture (read: they exist for G4/G5). The rest is probably plain C/C++ or whatever that ports or should port flawlessly, it's gcc in the end of the day...

Personally, I think that dropping PPC support would suck big time and be far too M$oftish... ;(

kingtj
Sep 24, 2007, 03:01 PM
Removal of G3 processor support isn't really equivalent to dumping PPC support.

Many of the G3-based Macs still in use out there can easily (and not all that expensively) be upgraded to faster G4 processors. I ran a Beige G3 tower for a long time with a G4 upgrade in it, for example. Any of the blue & white G3 towers can be upgraded too.

There's no way you're going to be able to swap out a G5 with an Intel CPU though on ANY Mac.


10.5 supposedly already removes support for the G3.

Masquerade
Sep 24, 2007, 03:02 PM
Older versions of Mac OS Just don't die when a new version is released. Normally when you get new versions of the OS by the time you get the 3rd or fourth version, it really starts slowing down your system and you are better off with older versions. on My old Power Book Spotlight and Dashboard really killed performance on my system. If Apple keeps backwards comparability for too long they won't be able to add new features to the OS which makes people buy it, and keep OS X ahead of what Microsoft has to offer. Keeping PowerPC and Intel Version of their applications takes a lot of extra space and you can get different problems. Apple has done a stellar job of hiding this from the users but I bet it is killing them. We had Intel Hardware for over a year now by 2009 (or 10) the Intel System would be 3 years old now. And the PowerPC will be over 4. Most of the people who got the G5 for there power would most likely be ready for an upgrade because they normally need top performance. and by then a Mac Mini will outperform a old G5 Power Mac.

Apple engineers don't have a clue how to code a button to turn off certain features and optimize performance.
Seriously, consider a Mac by the aestetic of machine rather the OS: mac os x foundations are the hard work of many people during the 80's and 90's; today the work at apple is to turn that OS more eye caching with super apis.

so my 800 titanium powerbook wont run leopard, why? My processor cicles are wasted on beautifull icon stacks, with transparency, big shadows, animations.. lalala

Yvan256
Sep 24, 2007, 03:02 PM
One thing is certain: a lot of people can't afford a new computer every X years.

Let's assume that Leopard will cost the same as Tiger (USD $129), add to that the cost of iLife '08 (USD $79) and you're already at USD $208, which is more than a third of the price of the Mac mini (USD $599). If you look at it another way, if you wait for Leopard you'll be able to buy a Mac mini for only USD $391 more.

With Leopard around the corner, I'm betting most Mac mini owners (or future owners) are waiting for it to become available to buy their new machine.

As a Mac mini G4 owner, I know I'm buying a Mac mini Core 2 Duo as soon as Leopard launches. :cool:

bdj21ya
Sep 24, 2007, 03:04 PM
I don't really get the people saying this is not fair. Just because a newer OS is released doesn't mean your computer is worthless. It still does everything it did before. Those people who purchased PPC's and wanted to use them for more than 4 years probably don't care too much about installing the latest OS on them. If they do, then they really ought to face the reality that computer advancements move faster than that. Apple is not about legacy support. It's about creating GREAT software and then releasing it on hardware that can let the user truly experience the software.

Why would you want to install a new OS on a computer that couldn't run its features well? Or on the other hand, why would you want to hold an OS back from doing all it could just because of old hardware?

miller218
Sep 24, 2007, 03:06 PM
There will be no 10.6, it will be Mac OS 11, perhaps dubbed "Xi" (i for intel). (does Xi mean anything in Chinese?)

Intel-Only

Announced WWCD '09, released MWSF '10 or shortly there after.

They'll use intel's complier instead of GCC to get some super sweet speed and, reduce bloat. (maybe GPL 3 avoidance too)

New kernel to include intel-only optimizations and deep multiprocessing or multi-threading capabilities.

With the new visualization abilities in the new processors these days, it will run OS X code in a virtual environment.

morespce54
Sep 24, 2007, 03:06 PM
There's nothing logical about it whatsoever - it's just Apple getting in to the planned obsolescence game. A four year-old computer is perfectly functional depending on the use, but the real problem will come when developers stop using PPC compatible binaries because they're "no longer necessary."

The switch to Intel-based Macs is only two years old - what about all that BS about Universal Binaries and not leaving PPC Macs behind that Steve spouted when they went Intel?

good point!

Plus, somebody with a G5 will probably still be able to do what he did when he bought it... Although, I don't think that people who bought a Quad were thinking: "Well, that expensive machine can do just what I need right now, so who cares if I can't do anything more in the future..."

It's Ok to run and outdated OS (as long as it suit your need) but what about that new iTunes-iPhoto-QT pluggin that you *must* have in order to properly use your band new Apple-iPhone-iPod-iTV-iDo gizmo in 2009? ;)


I know!... You simply need to buy a new Mac-Super-Pro Desktop Tower!

atx_knepp
Sep 24, 2007, 03:08 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/1C28 Safari/419.3)

Sorry, I have not read all the comments, but if I remember correctly, Steve-O said that leopard was it for OS X, and that the next thing we see will be OS 11, so all of this is irrelevant.

psychofreak
Sep 24, 2007, 03:11 PM
Sorry, I have not read all the comments, but if I remember correctly, Steve-O said that leopard was it for OS X, and that the next thing we see will be OS 11, so all of this is irrelevant.

That didn't happen...

ezpk69
Sep 24, 2007, 03:11 PM
Only a moron would expect a five year old computer to run a cutting edge OS in an acceptable manner. You're 1GHz G4s are going to be pokey slow with Leopard, barely acceptable. And three years from now? I doubt the graphics subsystems in these old Macs will be able to do what a next gen OS will require. If you can't aford a new Mac by 2010 quit bitching and be happy with Tiger.

I won't throw out the word "moron", but I do know several dozen 6 year olds who know at least one thing you don't...

I built a computer lab for 1st and 2nd graders out of a dozen donated iMac G3s last year (and another dozen who ended up "parts donors"). I took the Dashboard icon out of the dock, Exposé runs pretty choppy, and few CPU-intensive OSX applications would likely run gangbusters, but the OS itself runs smoothly, perfectly "acceptable", in fact, with nary a complaint or whimper. On machines older than most of the children using them.

Spanky Deluxe
Sep 24, 2007, 03:12 PM
You're being a little disingenuous, or skimming. Who says? Plenty of kids on the first few pages were implying that all Intel Macs were much faster than all those crusty old PPC dinosaurs. Take another look...

Plus, "fast" doesn't get "slow" as fast as it used to. Look at CPU clock speeds from 2001-2004, and from 2004 to 2007. Draw your own conclusions about what 2007-2010 may look like.

While I agree that some of the first generation of Intel Macs will be just as 'slow' with 10.6 as the PPC models before, the CPU clock speed difference you mentioned isn't really that true. The P4 had artificially high clock speeds first of all, secondly the later P4s were *wayyyy* faster clock-for-clock than the first P4s to hit the market.

The Core Duo was significantly faster clock-for-clock than the P4 and so it continues. The trend in the 2001-1004 period was to get the biggest number of hertz. Then the megahertz myth bubble burst and the trend in the 2004 to 2007 period has been to get more performance per hertz (a far better way of doing things imo).

In terms of speed, the processors scaled the same in the 2001 to 2004 timeframe as the 2004 to 2007 period, pretty much obeying Moore's Law.

atx_knepp
Sep 24, 2007, 03:13 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/1C28 Safari/419.3)

Uh, ya, at the WWDC when we brought out leopard.

guzhogi
Sep 24, 2007, 03:15 PM
If so many people want to keep the PowerPC, why doesn't Apple bring back support for the 68000 processor? That was a great processor! </sarcasm>

If you don't know what a 68000 processor is, you're not a true Mac fan and should be dragged out into the street and shot.

F.D.
Sep 24, 2007, 03:15 PM
It seems like a logical step to me. If Apple releases 10.6 in 2 years then the last Power PC computers will be 4 years old.

So what? Someone who bought a fully souped-up G5 quad in 2005, which wouldn't have been cheap, has every right to expect that their machine will be supported for a damn sight longer than 4 years.

deadkenny
Sep 24, 2007, 03:15 PM
What a useless discussion - time will tell.

Kendall015
Sep 24, 2007, 03:16 PM
I have complete faith that there will be a workaround very soon after the release of leopard.

BayouMan
Sep 24, 2007, 03:16 PM
manufacturers of processor upgrades. There are still a few out there, cranking out PPC G3 and G4s. They might eventuallly get some G5s, but that's doubtful.

If PPC support is dumped, and I don't doubt that it will be, it's just a question of when, they're going to lose a major part of their business. It's time to diversify!:eek:

LoganT
Sep 24, 2007, 03:17 PM
Actually this is completey FALSE.

I purchased a BRAND NEW 1.5ghz 12" Powerbook in August of 2006. It would be four years in 2010.

I purchased a BRAND NEW 1.5ghz Mac Mini G4 in
SEPTEMBER of 2006.

I expect at least seven years of updates as needed on my computer purchases. I expect Apple to support my PPCs until 2013, sorry.

I used my 145b Powerbook (PURCHASED NEW in July 1994) until August 2001 and the Powerbook was still great -- it was the Kingston memory upgrade chip that failed and I had lost the original four mb chip. That was seven great years.

I don't appreciate forced obsolescence from Apple if we cannot run the latest OS on our beloved machines. I am STILL currently buying a last generation PPC iBook 12" because they are GREAT machines.

Okay, THAT's GREAT! Did you buy these BRAND NEW systems at an Apple Store or APPLE.com? According to ARCHIVE.ORG of August 11, 2006 Apple was selling Intel MAC Mini's and MACbook Pro's. So that MEANS Apple DOESN'T care about YOU. I CAPITALIZE certain WORDS because it makes me FEEL, SPECIAL!

Tootles.

Kendall015
Sep 24, 2007, 03:19 PM
manufacturers of processor upgrades. There are still a few out there, cranking out PPC G3 and G4s. They might eventuallly get some G5s, but that's doubtful.

If PPC support is dumped, and I don't doubt that it will be, it's just a question of when, they're going to lose a major part of their business. It's time to diversify!:eek:

Once this news gets out, expect lower prices on eBay for PPC macs :-)

ezpk69
Sep 24, 2007, 03:22 PM
While I agree that some of the first generation of Intel Macs will be just as 'slow' with 10.6 as the PPC models before, the CPU clock speed difference you mentioned isn't really that true. The P4 had artificially high clock speeds first of all, secondly the later P4s were *wayyyy* faster clock-for-clock than the first P4s to hit the market.

The Core Duo was significantly faster clock-for-clock than the P4 and so it continues. The trend in the 2001-1004 period was to get the biggest number of hertz. Then the megahertz myth bubble burst and the trend in the 2004 to 2007 period has been to get more performance per hertz (a far better way of doing things imo).

In terms of speed, the processors scaled the same in the 2001 to 2004 timeframe as the 2004 to 2007 period, pretty much obeying Moore's Law.

Point taken about the MHz myth (who's being ingenuous now? - don't worry, I just slapped my own hand). I still don't see raw performance increases year over year being the same as the good old days, when Moore's Law was struggling to keep up with Intel!

(and I'm not likely to sift through Bare Feats archives to find out for sure, so I guess that makes me a juicy target for anybody who does)

F.D.
Sep 24, 2007, 03:23 PM
I won't throw out the word "moron", but I do know several dozen 6 year olds who know at least one thing you don't...

I built a computer lab for 1st and 2nd graders out of a dozen donated iMac G3s last year (and another dozen who ended up "parts donors"). I took the Dashboard icon out of the dock, Exposé runs pretty choppy, and few CPU-intensive OSX applications would likely run gangbusters, but the OS itself runs smoothly, perfectly "acceptable", in fact, with nary a complaint or whimper. On machines older than most of the children using them.

I agree, and I will use the word moron. Some people around here may have more money than sense (which still wouldn't make them rich men), but some survive on budgets. More than that though, I remember buying my 1 gig G4 iMac with 10.2 pre-installed. When I upgraded to 10.3 the performance of my iMac actually improved quite noticably. 10.4.10 is what I'm running on that same iMac now and it is still a pretty decent machine.

Further to my previous post, I remember pricing up a G5 quad a few years ago for business purposes, and with a stack of storage, a stack of RAM and a decent graphics card, the lot came to 6 or 7 thousand pounds. If I'd bought that, then discovered that I wouldn't be able to upgrade beyond 10.5, I'd be pretty pissed off.

progx
Sep 24, 2007, 03:23 PM
Hmm. I smell class action lawsuit when 10.6 is released. This happened with Jaguar, or Panther, when Apple didn't support the G3 initially. Someone was unhappy about it and Apple continued to support the G3 for X updates.

If 10.6 doesn't support PowerPC, I may just upgrade my PC and jump into Vista, unless an AMD Apple PC is out and for sale.

KurtangleTN
Sep 24, 2007, 03:24 PM
It's a bit concerning to see how many people just say that it's ok, not surprising. Late G5 Mac Pros, later iMacs, and even Powerbooks shouldn't be left in the dust. I mean they are just running an OS.

Weren't we laughing at Windows users because they had to upgrade for Vista, yet we are all ok with Apple dropping support for what they called the fastest computers around at the time?

F.D.
Sep 24, 2007, 03:28 PM
What a useless discussion - time will tell.

They're ALL useless discussions.

p33
Sep 24, 2007, 03:28 PM
today the work at apple is to turn that OS more eye caching with super apis.

Quite so, sadly....

so my 800 titanium powerbook wont run leopard, why? My processor cicles are wasted on beautifull icon stacks, with transparency, big shadows, animations.. lalala

Ditto

LoganT
Sep 24, 2007, 03:30 PM
If so many people want to keep the PowerPC, why doesn't Apple bring back support for the 68000 processor? That was a great processor! </sarcasm>

If you don't know what a 68000 processor is, you're not a true Mac fan and should be dragged out into the street and shot.

Or maybe people don't give a ****.