PowerPC Support in Mac OS X 10.6 After All?

[BlackDan]

Fixed that for you....


IA64 is Itanium only. You meant x64 or EM64T (Intel64).


my bad.

[chrismcdowell25]

Last post and I'm going to bed!

1. Universal binaries are not an issue or a factor here.
2. PPC is not a large portion of Apple's business and their future is Intel.
3. Apple optimize is not as easy as people here make it sound. The time ahs come where it's easier to do something on Intel that requires a total rewrite to get the same performance etc., for the same feature on PPC. It's a drag and has meant things just don't get done in time or dropped because Apple can't get acceptable performance or stability.
4. Apple has to not only support the OS on two CPUs but also all the developer tools, code, documentation etc.
5. For those that think it's no big deal and no drain to have the PPC code do not understand #3.
6. And one more time...there are NO NEW FEATURES!!!! If you have 10.5 on a PPC and 10.6 on an Intel they will have the SAME features. So what is the issue here?

Again, I will look in here tomorrow and see who's eating crow...

http://www.macrumors.com/2008/06/09/mac-os-x-snow-leopard-to-focus-on-performance-quality/

http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/09/apple-previews-os-x-snow-leopard-scheduled-to-ship-in-about-a/

You were saying???

[Wolfman69]

I have little doubt that 10.6 will support the PPC platform, especially if it turns out to be more a maintenance release than a feature release.

Clearly Apple's future is Intel, but a majority of their user base is still PPC (not just a few machines). It's easy to tell a consumer to go a buy a new machine but its' a bit different on the corporate side when you have several hundred thousand Dollars invested in server hardware.

The bottleneck (in our case Xserve's) is not PPC, Intel machines aren't really faster anyway (since we can't load up the machines through virtualization); it's the software and Leopard server is not even production ready. It's a POS software at best and I look at 10.6 as the working version of 10.5

[sharky05]

Regarding to weather apple should drop PowerPC support, I think they should keep it for a couple of years at least. PowerPC isn't worse or outdated technology and if everyone was fed up of PowerPC why do developers still write universal binaries? If it were time to switch fully to intel, you would see developers providing intel support only.

[Cassie]

I doubt Apple will drop G4 in 10.6. I mean, there's a 1.67 GHz PowerBook G4, and the MBA low-end model is 1.6 GHz, am I not correct? I'm thinking 1.33 GHz would be the lowest, and that's just if they don't keep it at 867 MHz.

Face it guys, PPC is not going away, at least not for another year or two.

I don't even plan to get 10.6, it would run dog-slow on my 512 MB of RAM, but this is just way too early to drop PPC. Apple is not going to pull a Vista, it would be a huge mistake.

[BlackDan]

I doubt Apple will drop G4 in 10.6. I mean, there's a 1.67 GHz PowerBook G4, and the MBA low-end model is 1.6 GHz, am I not correct? I'm thinking 1.33 GHz would be the lowest, and that's just if they don't keep it at 867 MHz.

Face it guys, PPC is not going away, at least not for another year or two.

You're comparing 2 architectures just by the clock speed. This makes no sense at all.

I don't even plan to get 10.6, it would run dog-slow on my 512 MB of RAM, but this is just way too early to drop PPC. Apple is not going to pull a Vista, it would be a huge mistake.

It would run faster than 10.5, that's exactly what they're aiming for... and upgrading your RAM is a cheap and easy way to extend the life of your G4/G5 if that is what you wanna do.

[Cassie]

You're comparing 2 architectures just by the clock speed. This makes no sense at all.

I know it seems like a bad comparison, but all I'm saying is, it makes no sense to drop G4, at least not the higher end, because if one of the current offerings is 1.6 GHz, surely a 1.67 GHz machine, even of different architecture, wouldn't have trouble running the latest OS, if Apple had the decency to put in PPC code.

[haravikk]

Although I have a shiny new Mac Pro, I'd really like to see them release another couple of OS X versions for the PowerPC's. My previous G5 (Dual 2.5ghz) is still very nippy for most things, including Leopard, and I get the impression that we're still only really just starting to get applications that actually take advantage of 64-bit. Heck, a lot of apps these days still aren't really 64-bit centric, sure they compile as 64-bit but they aren't really optimised for it.

And heck, why drop it at all? IBM isn't exactly lying quiet, they messed up big time IMO when they drove Apple away, but who's to say IBM won't pull something out that tops all of Intels offerings? Should we ever drop PPC support? If we keep it then it offers a way to switch hardware platforms again at a moment's notice =)

[Eric S.]

I know it seems like a bad comparison, but all I'm saying is, it makes no sense to drop G4, at least not the higher end

Personally I think this is not as much of an issue now as it was last week, when the reports were that 10.6 would be out in January. Given that it's a year away, and that most of the changes will primarily benefit Intel and 64-bit, it's not going to make a big difference whether G4 is supported in 10.6 or not. (G5 users may have more of an argument, being 64-bit and all.) There will be numerous 10.5.x releases by then which should provide quite a stable OS platform for G4.

One thing we can be almost certain of with 10.6 not until mid-2009, 10.7 looks like it will be around 2011, and that for sure will be Intel-only.

As for the speculation that Apple might someday return to PPC, I don't think there's even a possibility of that. Apple is locked into Intel's future roadmap, and anyway there's a growing customer base that is dual-booting Windows on Macs, or running Parallels or Fusion.

[superfula]

By the time Snow Leopard is released, the latest PPC product will be four years old. It's time to let them go.

[Fahrwahr]

By the time Snow Leopard is released, the latest PPC product will be four years old. It's time to let them go.
So Snow Leopard won't be released until August 2010? :confused:
The Mac Pro was first announced August 7, 2006 at WWDC, ending the PowerPC to Intel Transition. According to Phil Schiller, the first models are 1.6 to 2.1 times as fast as the PowerMac G5s that they replace.

[TwinCities Dan]

Given that it's a year away, and that most of the changes will primarily benefit Intel and 64-bit, it's not going to make a big difference whether G4 is supported in 10.6 or not.

I did not catch this. :confused:

I thought the dev. build pictures showed 10.6 running on a core duo Intel? Doesn't that mean 10.6 will support 32-bit? Or not really, because it is just a build? I don't really know how that works... :confused:

[simie]

I'd like to see them release one more PPC OS, especially if its one that focuses on stability and performance.

My Quad G5 (the only PPC Mac that I have left... i also have MacBook C2D and the latest MacBook Pro) feels sluggish sometimes, which is crazy because I know it's not the hardware.

I have leopard on my Quad G5 and it handles it really well, Saying that it does have 8gigs of ram on board. Just add loads of ram.

[Jeffsters]

Please see:

http://www.hardmac.com/news/2008-06-11/#8423

I'm limited by what I can say or post but here is Apple's info posted.

Where is that guy that was going to eat his socks?
:cool:

[Jeffsters]

http://www.macrumors.com/2008/06/09/mac-os-x-snow-leopard-to-focus-on-performance-quality/

http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/09/apple-previews-os-x-snow-leopard-scheduled-to-ship-in-about-a/

You were saying???

If you're referring to the "new features" comment and then referencing these two articles you, and Engaget, are confusing a "new feature" with a new "enabling technology".

Apple internal documents read "NO NEW FEATURES" and I rely on those.

[Eric S.]

I did not catch this. :confused:

I thought the dev. build pictures showed 10.6 running on a core duo Intel? Doesn't that mean 10.6 will support 32-bit? Or not really, because it is just a build? I don't really know how that works... :confused:

What I said was that the changes would primarily benefit 64-bit systems; I did not mean to imply that 10.6 will be 64-bit only.

I wouldn't expect that until 10.7. ;)

[Kinsella217]

I said, some time back, that I would have a philosophical issue if Apple excluded from upgrade units that were still within their AppleCare Protection Plan (read: modern and serviceable) period.

Apple's estimate of "about a year" resolves any problems I have, even if 10.6 will exclude all of my equipment.

It's a well conceived plan and it builds Mac OS X for the future that very few of us could have predicted.

Bravo, Apple... even if it's an OS I won't get to use until my next upgrade cycle, probably four years from now...

Dan

[TwinCities Dan]

What I said was that the changes would primarily benefit 64-bit systems; I did not mean to imply that 10.6 will be 64-bit only.

I wouldn't expect that until 10.7. ;)

Thanks! Guess I'll milk one more OS update outta my current machine! :)

[rightclickhere]

I think considering the number of users still relying on PowerPC Macs it would be sensible for Apple to continue supporting G5's and late model DP G4's. If they optimise the code and make good use of the AltiVec units I don't see any reason why it wouldn't run smoothly. I mean there are Vista users still on Pentium 4 and Dual Pentium systems that run just fine. And the G5 is still way ahead of both those architechtures.

[gnasher729]

Couldn't care less!

I think the only PPC that could handle it would be G5 Power Mac anyway. My G4 PB 12" runs 10.5.3 just fine, but I wouldn't upgrade further.

Snow Leopard is supposed to be a performance and stability upgrade. In other words, your G4 PowerBook will run faster and more stable with Snow Leopard.

[zap2]

And of course Apple will ALWAYS keep internal PPC builds of 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, 11, etc., etc., etc., so it would be no surprise that 10.6 would have PPC info/drivers, etc. along with it for the ride in testing.


Um, source?

PPC is dieing....I can't imagine Apple jumping back.

[zap2]

Snow Leopard is supposed to be a performance and stability upgrade. In other words, your G4 PowerBook will run faster and more stable with Snow Leopard.

You don't know that....and since it looks like PPC won't be supported, I think that looks false.

[Gasu E.]

I'm sorry you don't have the funds to buy a MacPro. But you not having money is not Apples problem..

WOW! I'd like to introduce you to my friends, Mr. Supply and Mr. Demand.

[Manic Mouse]

Snow Leopard is supposed to be a performance and stability upgrade. In other words, your G4 PowerBook will run faster and more stable with Snow Leopard.

Isn't the performance and stability coming from dropping PPC and optimising for Intel?

[Krevnik]

Isn't the performance and stability coming from dropping PPC and optimising for Intel?

I keep seeing this fallacy bounced around this thread.

Optimizing for Intel does not require or mean dropping PPC to do it. The code for OS X outside the kernel is pretty heavily shared between PPC and x86. Even in the kernel, there is plenty of code shared between the two. Write once, compile multiple times. The majority of the optimizations one can make in C/C++ code and Objective-C code isn't specific to a particular platform.

There are some optimizations which would favor one platform over the other, and another small set of optimizations which would affect one platform and not the other.

Right now, there are two big reasons to drop PPC support:

- Reduce the amount of work required to get a version of OS X out the door. Exactly how much work this saves depends on the amount of platform-specific effort was spent on PPC in Leopard, in both development and testing.
- Increase the amount of time you can focus on the platform-specific optimizations, given the same amount of time in which to work.

It isn't a technical reason. The big technical hurdles were pretty much done when the Intel systems started shipping. The big reasons now are finding ways to efficiently use development time and money. Do they continue to spend a fair amount of money on testing that PPC still works? Do they continue to fund PPC-specific optimizations? Or do they take that money that would be saved by dropping PPC support now and put it towards more effective projects?

Dropping PPC doesn't make x86 faster, and it is completely possible to make x86-specific optimizations without dropping PPC support as well. They can't completely drop PPC maintenance as long as Rosetta sticks around either. However, by cutting PPC costs through dropping support for PPC machines themselves, they can get more time to focus on the harder x86-specific optimizations.

[gehrbox]

The source, who claimed to get ahold of the 10.6 seed, indicated that work has been done on PowerPC drivers which indicates to them that support for the architecture is unlikely to be dropped this time around.

Don't think so. The newer drivers are just internal updates that have not been released in public builds for 10.5.

[kjs862]

I say for SL kill PPC. People with PPC like myself stay with 10.5

No new features right?

[Gasu E.]

The poll was incomplete. It should have included an option for 10.6 to be PPC-only. :D

[leekohler]

hmmmn I'd much rather have a more stable leopard than PPC support, I don't think any of my PPC machines would be able to handle 10.6 as they can barely handle 10.5

What are you talking about? My dual core G5 is still better at many tasks than my brand new 2.4 penryn BlackBook, and they both run Leopard.

[zmttoxics]

What are you talking about? My dual core G5 is still better at many tasks than my brand new 2.4 penryn BlackBook, and they both run Leopard.

My dual core g5 is also amazing. It handles handbrake and what not just as well as my intel / amd machines. I love it! :D

[macfearless]

my g4 powerbook runs just fine with leopard, and so do our g5 desktops.

[Westside guy]

I'm hoping 10.6 supports dual architectures - x86 and SPARC. :D

[zmttoxics]

I'm hoping 10.6 supports dual architectures - x86 and SPARC. :D

Triple arch it! :D

[QuantumLo0p]

As long as Apple satisfactorily supports existing Power users and it is economically feasible then they should support Power in 10.6. It would be no different than Apple supporting the last Intel boxes when the next big thing comes down the line. If Apple drops Power support totally in 10.6 then that's prerogative. I won't like it but Apple will do whatever makes Apple money. Apple is not in the charity business.

I am all for technology and progress. If Intel, AMD, IBM or whoever comes up with a better architecture in a few years then I will go for it.

Perhaps for Mac OS-VI we'll see Apple dumping Intel in favor of the next new kid on the block?

:)

[Krevnik]

As long as Apple satisfactorily supports existing Power users and it is economically feasible then they should support Power in 10.6. It would be no different than Apple supporting the last Intel boxes when the next big thing comes down the line. If Apple drops Power support totally in 10.6 then that's prerogative. I won't like it but Apple will do whatever makes Apple money. Apple is not in the charity business.

I am all for technology and progress. If Intel, AMD, IBM or whoever comes up with a better architecture in a few years then I will go for it.

Perhaps for Mac OS-VI we'll see Apple dumping Intel in favor of the next new kid on the block?

:)

Two nitpicks:

- Power and PowerPC are two different architectures. And while similar, they aren't compatible.
- MacOS VI? Are in the 80s again?

[iTeen]

They really should work on Intel ONLY.

By the time its next year it will have been 3 years since the last PPC machines have been sold...

Thats the average life-cycle of a computer anyway...

[egor]

They really should work on Intel ONLY.

By the time its next year it will have been 3 years since the last PPC machines have been sold...

Thats the average life-cycle of a computer anyway...

Is it? Three years sounds short to me. "The average desktop PC has a functional lifespan of roughly two to five years." (about.com). Leopard will run on a machine as old as five years, thats without a hack. I built my PC six years ago, it can run Vista comfortably.

[Manic Mouse]

Is it? Three years sounds short to me. "The average desktop PC has a functional lifespan of roughly two to five years." (about.com). Leopard will run on a machine as old as five years, thats without a hack. I built my PC six years ago, it can run Vista comfortably.

To be fair, none of this reasoning takes into account an architectural change, or the small and different market-share of Macs compared to the average computer.

[egor]

To be fair, none of this reasoning takes into account an architectural change, or the small and different market-share of Macs compared to the average computer.

If anything I'd say Macs are used for far longer in many cases, especially the book publishing industry where machines are rarely upgraded. But mostly I think this comes down to most people not wanting their Macs to play the latest games, which are a large driving force behind PC hardware.

Obviously I can't find a comparison which looks at architecture shifts, but my point wasn't meant to be what was best for Apple but rather what people expect (what I was responding to was of that nature, anyway).

What is feasible for Apple aside (because to be honest none of us know what issues it causes for Apple internally, or the exact details of their PPC OSX revenue), I think to keep their userbase happy two more years of OSX on PPC would be the most acceptable.

[gnasher729]

You don't know that....and since it looks like PPC won't be supported, I think that looks false.

Who says? I haven't seen anyone giving any good reason why PowerPC wouldn't be supported. Plenty of reasons from fanbois who have no experience developing software, but nothing of any substance. There are plenty of real reasons why not supporting PowerPC would be one huge and costly mistake.

They really should work on Intel ONLY.

Nobody works "on Intel". Programmers don't write Intel code. They write C, C++, Objective-C, Perl, Ruby; they write Cocoa or Carbon code; they use CoreGraphics or OpenGL or put things together with Interface Builder. They work on all these things; they don't work "on Intel".

[BlackDan]

To be fair, none of this reasoning takes into account an architectural change, or the small and different market-share of Macs compared to the average computer.

Can't say you're wrong, BUT dropping PowerPC support after 3 years, would give a very bad signal to businesses that are finally warming up to using macs. They require far longer support than 3 years. Mostly 5.

Fortunately, if they do drop it, Apple might just get away with it. If they don't include any new features, then Leopard and Snow Leopard would technically still be the same platform... With 2 years between 10.6 and 10.7 that would make 5 years of PowerPC support after the last one was sold.

I for one still <3 my G4 laptops the most. Much longer battery life (even after 4 years it beats my MBP 2.33), much cooler (as in temperature, not style) and just as good for most users.

[Wolfman]

I am a bit puzzled by the notion that Apple will drop PPC compatibility in SL due to "resources".
Has anybody heard that Apple is short of developer resources? I certainly have not... And a Developer Preview certainly is not a clear indicator.

It is clear, however, that Apple is phasing out PPC in time and that Apple is focusing on the enterprise. This and Apple's history indicates a more gradual transition rather than anything abrupt.

Enterprises look for continuity in support and compatibility and don't care about geeky discussions related to architectural changes in the platform. They look for usability and cost of ownership.

While large/specialty enterprises typically pull business-critical hardware when support agreements or leases are up and high-end users get the fastest boxes available, most businesses continue to use computers as long as the OS and applications are properly supported.

And that makes sense. Not only are the late generation Powerbook & PowerMac G5 still very viable machines, there are tons of them out there.

IMHO, Snow Leopard (& iPhone 2.0) appears to be aimed straight at the enterprise and will still support late-gen PPC's

[mtownron]

i would like to see atleast one more ppc os. Got a new mac, but i'm just not ready to give up my old g4 that has a crap load of upgrades.

[QuantumLo0p]

most of my PPC machines can handle leopard and I would rather they not drop support just yet.

At the very least, not drop security/bug fixes for a while but full feature support would be the best scenario for Power users. My machine has quite a bit of life left in it.

My dual G5 2.7 seems to run Leo quite well. It's not a sub 2 GHz machine and has two sockets

[Eric S.]

At the very least, not drop security/bug fixes for a while

That should be independent of architecture. If Apple continues its usual practice, Leopard will get security updates until 10.7 is released.

My dual G5 2.7 seems to run Leo quite well. It's not a sub 2 GHz machine and has two sockets

That doesn't matter to Apple, which no longer wants to spend the resources to develop and test new releases on PPC and wants its customers to pay for new HW.

[Bye Bye Baby]

Dump PPC. Give us a thinner, more stabile system that really kicks butt with multi-core processor machines

[awmazz]

Is it? Three years sounds short to me. "The average desktop PC has a functional lifespan of roughly two to five years." (about.com). Leopard will run on a machine as old as five years, thats without a hack. I built my PC six years ago, it can run Vista comfortably.

Not quite 3 years. August 2006 since the last of the G5s sold, so a few months yet before we hit 3 years.

OS XI should be the Intel-only release imo. Dropping PPC is too big a turning point on the past to be just a point release. But that's exactly what they did with OS 8.5 dropping support for 68k Macs without waiting for OS 9. And that was three years after the last 68K sold, so there's precedence there.

I've just loaded 10.5.6 on a G4 867MHz Quicksilver from 2001 I just acquired. What's that, almost 8 years old? 867 is the minimum config allowed by the 10.5 installer, and it's fine. I've seen Leopard loaded and working on a B&W G3 with the installer hacked so the 867 cut-off is arbitrary. And I have to say the G4 design still looks more modern than most computers sold today so deserves to still have the most modern OS on them.

[MikeTheC]

I've owned Macs since the Mac Plus in 1986. I've seen a number of these kinds of transitions, and frankly I fail to see why Apple should feel obligated, at this late date, to support such a legacy platform. While Apple may not stay with x86 forever, I sure don't see it going back to what we presently know as the good 'ole PPC platform. In my estimation, by the next time Apple makes some kind of CPU platform transition, everything they've ever supported prior to x86 will by then be nothing more than a distant memory.

If anything, Apple should practice good open-ended coding techniques and stay abreast of all the as-of-today high-end CPUs and CPU developments. However, what Apple needs to focus on is doing one thing and doing it very well. You can't have that happen (at least as easily) with divided attention and divided loyalties.

Hopefully, sometime in the next few months I'll be the proud owner of a brand new MacBook. I'll be very happy to have transitioned fully to x86. My main system at the moment is an Ubuntu 8.10/WinVista dual-boot PC, since I just can't deal with using this 1.5GHz Mac mini for multimedia and even modern web browsing tasks. The jump in performance between a 1.5GHz G4 and a 2.4GHz Athlon couldn't be more amazing to me.

RISC had its time in the sun. In certain respects, it may be technically better or more efficient, but Intel's x86 32 bit and 64 bit systems have simply beaten it out in sheer horsepower. In my mind, this argument is long-since over.

[flopticalcube]

Holy Old Threads, Batman!


RISC had its time in the sun. In certain respects, it may be technically better or more efficient, but Intel's x86 32 bit and 64 bit systems have simply beaten it out in sheer horsepower. In my mind, this argument is long-since over.

You are correct. RISC won. All modern x86 systems are RISC-based.

[Dustman]

By the time Snow Leopard is released, the latest PPC product will be four years old. It's time to let them go.

Your point? 10+ year old Pentiums are still supported on the windows side. And considering I'm typing this on a 6 year old processor right now that does absolutely everything i need it to do, I see no need to drop support for it, we have the technology!

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Your point? 10+ year old Pentiums are still supported on the windows side. And considering I'm typing this on a 6 year old processor right now that does absolutely everything i need it to do, I see no need to drop support for it, we have the technology!

If it does everything you need it to why would you upgrade your OS? Your current OS is suiting you just fine.

[claimjumper]

I am beginning to think that Apple has already dropped PPC support. I currently have a last generation G5 iMac 2.1 with 1.5gig ram that is noticeably slower than it was running under Tiger. I am also having issues with iPhoto "09 that have been escalated from Tech Support to Software Support and is now in the hands of the engineers who wrote the code. I am thinking of going back to Tiger on my G5 as it ran mint B4 the "upgrade". For the record I am running Tiger as well on my older upgraded G4 "digital audio" powermac and even a G3 powerbook at 500Mhz. I am unemployed right now and have to agree with an earlier reply that we are not all made of money and am hoping that Apple will iron out the existing wrinkles and maintain PPC support for the near future.

[randomoptics]

why should we really care? PPC is a rather good platform. the think you guys talk about is hwhat your experience with this and comments about this in usage of the mac os is. that HAS NOTHING to do with the hardware. I evaluated for my job operating systems to see where the faults are. I really think you guys got perturbed in your computer and letters to type your movements.

[Tallest Skil]

why should we really care? PPC is a rather good platform. the think you guys talk about is hwhat your experience with this and comments about this in usage of the mac os is. that HAS NOTHING to do with the hardware. I evaluated for my job operating systems to see where the faults are. I really think you guys got perturbed in your computer and letters to type your movements.

I'm confused at the point you're trying to make. Could you elaborate, please?

[zmttoxics]

why should we really care? PPC is a rather good platform. the think you guys talk about is hwhat your experience with this and comments about this in usage of the mac os is. that HAS NOTHING to do with the hardware. I evaluated for my job operating systems to see where the faults are. I really think you guys got perturbed in your computer and letters to type your movements.

Umm... Yes?

PPC is still a widely used platform (IBM mainframes, game consoles, PDAs, phones, etc). But its not the direction apple is headed and there has not been a new desktop PPC cpu in a while.

[macintoshtoffy]

Your point? 10+ year old Pentiums are still supported on the windows side. And considering I'm typing this on a 6 year old processor right now that does absolutely everything i need it to do, I see no need to drop support for it, we have the technology!

Could you give me a heads up on when there was a transition within the PC world from one architecture to a completely different one....Oh, that's right, it hasn't happened!

Your post isn't comparing apples to oranges, its comparing a bag of apples to a SUV.

[PinkyMacGodess]

Aren't there also some programs that only run on intel out now?

Writing/compiling/debugging dual architecture programs is going to be a big pain-in-the-ass for new programs like AutoCAD...

We had a client that early last year finally gave up their pentium based Compaqs. It's hard to flush old architecture out of the hands of cheap and satisfied users, no matter how much sense it makes to do so...

But Apple will do what they want. What pre-OS X os was it that abandoned many users? I remember it being a real mess with lots of gnashing of teeth... For me, it was a non-issue at the time. Others had major issues.

Part of the problem with Windows is that it has to support the old stuff because the old stuff has been carried through from the beginning. Apple has a certain 'luxury' of having such a smaller industry footprint. If Redmond all of the sudden abandoned all of their users with a new and more modern Windows os, there would be much blood in the streets. It probably needs to happen BUT Redmond has been the biggest victim of their past, and it has repercussions on their future...

[PinkyMacGodess]

If anything I'd say Macs are used for far longer in many cases, especially the book publishing industry where machines are rarely upgraded.

That was the point that I was going to make. People here have G3's and G4's running Leopard and you couldn't get a Pentium-MMX to run Vista if you pleaded with god himself... Apple did eventually kill off the 68k support over time. How long did that take??? If anyone knows, then maybe Apple would follow the same time span? (Or was that the time they abandoned their users with an os upgrade? I remember much gnashing of teeth over some big change that Apple did with their older os but can't remember the specifics.)

[macintoshtoffy]

Aren't there also some programs that only run on intel out now?

Writing/compiling/debugging dual architecture programs is going to be a big pain-in-the-ass for new programs like AutoCAD...

We had a client that early last year finally gave up their pentium based Compaqs. It's hard to flush old architecture out of the hands of cheap and satisfied users, no matter how much sense it makes to do so...

But Apple will do what they want. What pre-OS X os was it that abandoned many users? I remember it being a real mess with lots of gnashing of teeth... For me, it was a non-issue at the time. Others had major issues.

Part of the problem with Windows is that it has to support the old stuff because the old stuff has been carried through from the beginning. Apple has a certain 'luxury' of having such a smaller industry footprint. If Redmond all of the sudden abandoned all of their users with a new and more modern Windows os, there would be much blood in the streets. It probably needs to happen BUT Redmond has been the biggest victim of their past, and it has repercussions on their future...

For me, all the transition made sense. The move from Mac OS 9 to X made sense because OS 9 was crap - slow, unreliable, crash prone and 20 years behind the times. There were tangible benefits to me in the long run that I could appreciate. Same can be said for Intel as well.

The only people who have complained are those who haven't got the slightest understanding of how the world operates; who think that everything can be 'done' simply because they want it done - kinda like some of clueless here who think that Apple could make a custom GPU or CPU *rolls eyes*

[ecapdeville]

The main thing for me is to know if I really "need" 10.6... do I?... does 10.6 will enable me to do new things or take better pictures or write better music? dont think so...so I need it? no.

I will get it because I just got a shiny new MBP 13" wich will have a cheap way to go to 10.6 but thats all...

I have at home:

:apple: Powermac G3 233 working with Os9.22
:apple: Ibook G3 300 working with OSX10.3
:apple: Ibook G3 500 with OSX10.3
:apple: Ibook G4 1.42 with OSX 10.4
:apple: Powermac G4 400 with OSX 10.4
:apple: Imac Core Duo (first gen) working really fine with and OSX 10.5
:apple: MacbookPro 2.26 with OSX 10.5 and soon going to 10.6

and every mac does its job perfectly.

stop complaining people!

[armoguy94]

Yay! I bought my first Mac two years ago, and Apple already dropped support for my piece-of-$%!# overpriced computer that I only bought for the operating system! Hooray, I'm so happy! In fact, I don't care at all! Let's celebrate at how good of a company Apple is.

[armoguy94]

The main thing for me is to know if I really "need" 10.6... do I?... does 10.6 will enable me to do new things or take better pictures or write better music? dont think so...so I need it? no.

I will get it because I just got a shiny new MBP 13" wich will have a cheap way to go to 10.6 but thats all...

I have at home:

:apple: Powermac G3 233 working with Os9.22
:apple: Ibook G3 300 working with OSX10.3
:apple: Ibook G3 500 with OSX10.3
:apple: Ibook G4 1.42 with OSX 10.4
:apple: Powermac G4 400 with OSX 10.4
:apple: Imac Core Duo (first gen) working really fine with and OSX 10.5
:apple: MacbookPro 2.26 with OSX 10.5 and soon going to 10.6

and every mac does its job perfectly.

stop complaining people!

How about you stop telling people to quit their complaining, not everyone is rich like (apparently) you.

[Tallest Skil]

Yay! I bought my first Mac two years ago, and Apple already dropped support for my piece-of-$%!# overpriced computer that I only bought for the operating system! Hooray, I'm so happy! In fact, I don't care at all! Let's celebrate at how good of a company Apple is.

You bought a PowerPC computer two years ago, meaning one year into the Intel transition, meaning you knew that newer computers existed and that Apple would eventually stop supporting your computer. End of story. Go whine on a Microsoft forum.

[armoguy94]

You bought a PowerPC computer two years ago, meaning one year into the Intel transition, meaning you knew that newer computers existed and that Apple would eventually stop supporting your computer. End of story. Go whine on a Microsoft forum.I was speaking in the perspective of someone who bought it right very before the transition was made, whatever year that was. However, I was pretty close to that. I purchased an iMac G5 in April 2005, and already Apple gave up on me. I have an intel iMac as well that I just purchased in Sept 08, but I'm still pissed that Apple is quitting on my other computer that I spent a thousand dollars for, just 4 years ago.. No other company does that.

And guess what. My '08 aluminum intel imac isn't even fully supported by snow leopard. So I have every reason to "whine". Nothing will change if nobody "whines", if that's the word you want to use. Get real, not everyone is full of money, and there are a huge amount of people that ONLY purchase Apple computers for the operating system. So they're forced to pay for overpriced junk computers that Apple makes and sells, just to use their OS... and then next thing they know, Apple isn't even supporting their computers anymore.

Anyone could easily go the Hackintosh route and probably have an even better experience with OS X due to better hardware and less money spent, but some people just want to stay loyal.

So I've been loyal to Apple for 4 years, and they haven't done jack #$&% for me. I'm going Hackintosh next time, so the only one to blame is me if something does not work, then you won't have to hear me "whining". How's that sound?

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Yay! I bought my first Mac two years ago, and Apple already dropped support for my piece-of-$%!# overpriced computer that I only bought for the operating system! Hooray, I'm so happy! In fact, I don't care at all! Let's celebrate at how good of a company Apple is.

First: this is what happens in an architecture switch. Two, you knew that there were newer machines that had an entirely different chip system. tres, that's spanish for three. Four: Apple isn't dropping support for your computer, it's just not going to be able to run an OS optimized for a different architecture. It's not like I'm complaining my Macbook Pro doesn't run OS X iPhone.

[zmttoxics]

I was speaking in the perspective of someone who bought it right very before the transition was made, whatever year that was. However, I was pretty close to that. I purchased an iMac G5 in April 2005, and already Apple gave up on me. I have an intel iMac as well that I just purchased in Sept 08, but I'm still pissed that Apple is quitting on my other computer that I spent a thousand dollars for, just 4 years ago.. No other company does that.

And guess what. My '08 aluminum intel imac isn't even fully supported by snow leopard. So I have every reason to "whine". Nothing will change if nobody "whines", if that's the word you want to use. Get real, not everyone is full of money, and there are a huge amount of people that ONLY purchase Apple computers for the operating system. So they're forced to pay for overpriced junk computers that Apple makes and sells, just to use their OS... and then next thing they know, Apple isn't even supporting their computers anymore.

Anyone could easily go the Hackintosh route and probably have an even better experience with OS X due to better hardware and less money spent, but some people just want to stay loyal.

So I've been loyal to Apple for 4 years, and they haven't done jack #$&% for me. I'm going Hackintosh next time, so the only one to blame is me if something does not work, then you won't have to hear me "whining". How's that sound?

Microsoft Windows doesn't support any computer for any period of time, and most companies like Dell only give you 3 years support. You got 4 years of real software support for that iMac, not to mention another major update coming for it (10.5.8). It will have software / security updates for at least another year (just like tiger did) making that machine supported for 5 years. When that support ends, put linux on it and keep it for another 5 years.

Now pipe down, no one likes to read garbled swear words.

[ecapdeville]

How about you stop telling people to quit their complaining, not everyone is rich like (apparently) you.

Not at all... almost every mac I have I got it used, I got my Powermac G4 with a change for a Sony PSP...and all the G3s were going to be trashed and I rescued them.

this is not a cuestion of money...answer me a simply question:

do you really NEED the soon to come OSX?

[armoguy94]

Not at all... almost every mac I have I got it used, I got my Powermac G4 with a change for a Sony PSP...and all the G3s were going to be trashed and I rescued them.

this is not a cuestion of money...answer me a simply question:

do you really NEED the soon to come OSX?

Does anyone need it? The reason why people run OS X right now is cause it gets their job done in an enjoyable fashion (or, it just gets their job done). Snow Leopard will just enhance it. So the answer to your question is: no, I don't. But I'm pretty sure, you don't need it either. It's a nice enhancement though, given that your computer supports everything in it.

[armoguy94]

Microsoft Windows doesn't support any computer for any period of time, and most companies like Dell only give you 3 years support. You got 4 years of real software support for that iMac, not to mention another major update coming for it (10.5.8). It will have software / security updates for at least another year (just like tiger did) making that machine supported for 5 years. When that support ends, put linux on it and keep it for another 5 years.

Now pipe down, no one likes to read garbled swear words.

Microsoft is not like Apple. They make an operating system, but don't require you purchase Microsoft-made computers in order to use it. Heck, you could build your own computer running Windows.

Apple makes OS X, yet they make crap computers that cost thousands of dollars to run their operating system on. Now when people purchase thousand dollar computers, especially when Apple is keeping hundreds and hundreds of that as profit, you expect top-notch everything. Also, the operating system (which was the ONLY reason you purchased an Apple) should be supported for years to come as well. When 3-4 years later Apple decides to slack off and release an operating system that doesn't support your thousand dollar overpriced machine, people get angry. Especially the people that only purchased these Apple machines in the first place was SOLELY for the privilege of running OS X! And now you can't use the future OS X versions, even when your computer should be perfectly capable of running it- it's just that Apple slacked off, and Apple is going totally downhill...

[Tallest Skil]

I'm going Hackintosh next time, so the only one to blame is me if something does not work, then you won't have to hear me "whining". How's that sound?

Sure, okay. If Apple doesn't offer what you want, more power to you. I don't really care.

[ecapdeville]

So the answer to your question is: no, I don't. But I'm pretty sure, you don't need it either.

I am not the one that is crying because my Powermac wont be able to use it...the G4s are really happy with OSX 10.4 and I will get 10.6 only because will be cheaper, but its not something that takes away my sleep. I can live without it.

I use my Powermac as a file server (managing big quantity of pictures)... use my laptops for wife and me around the house wireless...use the Imac to edit my pics and make some music with garageband, the G3s if I have some classic aps to use, and the new macbookpro is intended to show my work to potential costumers.

What do you do with your Mac?

I think you care more for the shiny looks and newer OS of your computer than a real and professional use of them.

[macintoshtoffy]

Microsoft is not like Apple. They make an operating system, but don't require you purchase Microsoft-made computers in order to use it. Heck, you could build your own computer running Windows.

Apple makes OS X, yet they make crap computers that cost thousands of dollars to run their operating system on. Now when people purchase thousand dollar computers, especially when Apple is keeping hundreds and hundreds of that as profit, you expect top-notch everything. Also, the operating system (which was the ONLY reason you purchased an Apple) should be supported for years to come as well. When 3-4 years later Apple decides to slack off and release an operating system that doesn't support your thousand dollar overpriced machine, people get angry. Especially the people that only purchased these Apple machines in the first place was SOLELY for the privilege of running OS X! And now you can't use the future OS X versions, even when your computer should be perfectly capable of running it- it's just that Apple slacked off, and Apple is going totally downhill...

Question: Why are you hanging around in a Mac forum when you aren't a Mac user? What is it with Windows users who feel the need to troll Mac forums and make up stories to justify their computer of choice?

[Tallest Skil]

Microsoft is not like Apple. They make an operating system, but don't require you purchase Microsoft-made computers in order to use it. Heck, you could build your own computer running Windows.

Yes, and?

they make crap computers that cost thousands of dollars to run their operating system on.

Subjective.

Also, the operating system (which was the ONLY reason you purchased an Apple)

Subjective.

And now you can't use the future OS X versions, even when your computer should be perfectly capable of running it-

Immensely debatable.

[ecapdeville]

...the operating system (which was the ONLY reason you purchased an Apple)...

Nope...I think you like to show your toys, not really use them...the quality, and capacity of my macs (even the older ones) are the reason I keep them running.

and they simply keep working...

by the way I have a really old PC...but its collecting dust, cant find any driver even for the crappy audio card... called Compaq service and they told me they dont have them... trashy computers, my beige G3 is laughing everyday of the PC. hehehe.

[Cassie]

Microsoft is not like Apple. They make an operating system, but don't require you purchase Microsoft-made computers in order to use it. Heck, you could build your own computer running Windows.

Apple makes OS X, yet they make crap computers that cost thousands of dollars to run their operating system on. Now when people purchase thousand dollar computers, especially when Apple is keeping hundreds and hundreds of that as profit, you expect top-notch everything. Also, the operating system (which was the ONLY reason you purchased an Apple) should be supported for years to come as well. When 3-4 years later Apple decides to slack off and release an operating system that doesn't support your thousand dollar overpriced machine, people get angry. Especially the people that only purchased these Apple machines in the first place was SOLELY for the privilege of running OS X! And now you can't use the future OS X versions, even when your computer should be perfectly capable of running it- it's just that Apple slacked off, and Apple is going totally downhill...

For one, I do have to agree with you. At least to me, it seems that Apple doesn't really care about their more loyal customers, the ones that have been buying Apple for 10 or 15 years. But that's how things go, I suppose.

You either pay an arm and a leg for mid-end hardware and a pretty decent OS, or you pay less for the same hardware and a fairly unpredictable OS.

[Sambo110]

As long as it doesn't affect the Intel part at all, it doesn't worry me. But now people will complain when they drop it in the next OS.

[TwinCities Dan]

As long as it doesn't affect the Intel part at all, it doesn't worry me. But now people will complain when they drop it in the next OS.

This thread is a year old, it's not happening... ;)

[Cassie]

As long as it doesn't affect the Intel part at all, it doesn't worry me. But now people will complain when they drop it in the next OS.

I'm a little disappointed they dropped it this time...but I would have fully expected it for 10.7 That'd be what, 2011 at least? 5 years since the last PPC sold...it'd be very reasonable to expect it then.

[Azrel]

I know the requirements are Intel but I've heard of some popular mac websites with 10.6 PPC visitors detected...

Who knows what's happening...

[aleksandra.]

It's also possible PowerPC instruction set would make implementing Grand Central more complicated, or not worth trying at all:

Most of the intelligence behind Grand Central Dispatch is provided by queues. As the centerpiece of both serialization and concurrency, queues need to be extremely efficient yet thread safe, so that they can be accessed quickly and safely from any thread.

To achieve this, blocks are added and removed from queues using atomic operations available on modern Intel processors, which are guaranteed to execute completely (without interruption) even in the presence of multiple cores. These are the same primitives used to implement locks; they are inherently safe and fast.

If atomic operations in PowerPC architecture are different (or scarce? it's RISC after all) enough and GCD wouldn't be efficient because of this, it would also mean all parts of OS X rewritten to use Grand Central wouldn't be available to PowerPC users, so short of a few new features like Dock Expose they'd be getting a Leopard with very little, if any, performance improvement.

The above is my own speculation, not overly reliable since I've never programmed for PowerPC. But GCD implementation would surely have to be very different, and if it wasn't there, it wouldn't be possible to compile code using GCD interfaces for PowerPC. Having to develop everything separately for an architecture no longer used would be costly.

[Digitalclips]

Those G5s available less than two years ago are really having a tough time with Leopard. :rolleyes:

Although I use the latest technology from Apple for my business I am replying to this silly comment on a bottom end iBook G4. 15 days since reboot (due to Software Update) which runs day and night without issues.
System Software Overview:

System Version: Mac OS X 10.5.7 (9J61)
Kernel Version: Darwin 9.7.0
Boot Volume: Macintosh HD
Boot Mode: Normal

Model Name: iBook G4
Model Identifier: PowerBook6,7
Processor Name: PowerPC G4 (1.5)
Processor Speed: 1.33 GHz
Number Of CPUs: 1
L2 Cache (per CPU): 512 KB
Memory: 512 MB
Bus Speed: 133 MHz
Boot ROM Version: 4.9.3f0
Serial Number (system): 4H5361FJSE7
Sudden Motion Sensor:
State: Enabled
Version: 1.0

[PinkyMacGodess]

Microsoft is not like Apple. They make an operating system, but don't require you purchase Microsoft-made computers in order to use it. Heck, you could build your own computer running Windows.

Apple makes OS X, yet they make crap computers that cost thousands of dollars to run their operating system on. Now when people purchase thousand dollar computers, especially when Apple is keeping hundreds and hundreds of that as profit, you expect top-notch everything. Also, the operating system (which was the ONLY reason you purchased an Apple) should be supported for years to come as well. When 3-4 years later Apple decides to slack off and release an operating system that doesn't support your thousand dollar overpriced machine, people get angry. Especially the people that only purchased these Apple machines in the first place was SOLELY for the privilege of running OS X! And now you can't use the future OS X versions, even when your computer should be perfectly capable of running it- it's just that Apple slacked off, and Apple is going totally downhill...

Just a comment on the cost of the hardware. I view the extra cost of the hardware as in effect a 'donation' to the development of OS X. If OS X was priced at the level of a Microsoft Windows OS, the cost to buy Leopard would be several hundreds of dollars each. I'd not like to get a cheap piece of crap machine for a $600.00 operating system and I sure wouldn't want Apple to not be able to continue developing OS X because they couldn't afford to.

Yeah I realize that not all the money goes to development but I look at it like paying taxes in the 'real world'. If you want cops to be able to stop crime, you gotta pay for it. If you want someone to come over and put the fire out in your home, you gotta pay for it.

Perhaps that's too simplistic but I guess I'm getting tired of the bitching on the high cost of the hardware. Either you want the best operating system around or you don't and either you want to contribute to the development of said or you don't. If enough people don't and Apple goes under you can't bitch because Apple died, although I know that you will.

Meanwhile in the 'real world' the rich gated communities are bitching because there isn't enough cops and fire people to save their McMansions and yet they still don't want to pay taxes. You can't have it both ways. Someone has to pay for it. If the rich won't and the poor can't then you can't complain when the area goes down the crapper...

[fishcove]

Although I use the latest technology from Apple for my business I am replying to this silly comment on a bottom end iBook G4. 15 days since reboot (due to Software Update) which runs day and night without issues.


If you'd read a little farther on in the thread you'd have discovered this:

The :rolleyes: face is for sarcasm. I have an original Dual 2 G5 that runs Leopard just fine. :)

[PinkyMacGodess]

If atomic operations in PowerPC architecture are different (or scarce? it's RISC after all) enough and GCD wouldn't be efficient because of this, it would also mean all parts of OS X rewritten to use Grand Central wouldn't be available to PowerPC users, so short of a few new features like Dock Expose they'd be getting a Leopard with very little, if any, performance improvement.

The above is my own speculation, not overly reliable since I've never programmed for PowerPC. But GCD implementation would surely have to be very different, and if it wasn't there, it wouldn't be possible to compile code using GCD interfaces for PowerPC. Having to develop everything separately for an architecture no longer used would be costly.

They could work it like the 'Aero' GUI for Vista. If you got the power, it runs. If not, it doesn't. On Vista many people to my knowledge stop Aero and have a perfectly functioning system that looks eerily like XP...

[Tallest Skil]

They could work it like the 'Aero' GUI for Vista. If you got the power, it runs. If not, it doesn't. On Vista many people to my knowledge stop Aero and have a perfectly functioning system that looks eerily like XP...

Except Apple doesn't WORK like Microsoft. Apple doesn't CRIPPLE their OS just to get it to run on older machines.

"But..."

Lack of OpenCL support on older models is the fault of the respective hardware companies.

[Shaduu]

They could work it like the 'Aero' GUI for Vista. If you got the power, it runs. If not, it doesn't. On Vista many people to my knowledge stop Aero and have a perfectly functioning system that looks eerily like XP...

The only problem with with this approach is it goes against everything Apple wants Snow Leopard to be. Disregarding the technological difficulties of optimising for multiple architectures, Snow Leopard has been designed to be the fastest and most efficient version of OS X to date, quite the opposite of what Vista is. Apple realised long ago that the large majority of users don't particularly want flashy new features, but just want an operating system that can keep up with the pace of their work. By completely dropping PowerPC support, Apple has not just disabled a few core features to ensure compatibility, they have instead stripped out all outdated code to provide the best user experience for their current generation of products.

Personally, I don't see the problem in dropping PowerPC with Snow Leopard. In the few years since the introduction of Intel-based Macs, adoption of these machines has only increased over time and it only makes sense for Apple to reward those customers who have recently bought Intel-based machines (and therefore increased Apple's profits) with an operating system that best fits the most popular architecture.

One tip I give to people who ask me why their computer is slow is to stick with the OS their computer shipped with. Most of the time, new OSes have features that go by completely ignored by the majority of users thereby rendering their recent upgrade pointless. For me, a good OS has to be stable, secure and feel completely at home on the system which it's installed.

To those that bitch and whine about Snow Leopard's lack of PPC support, please, just go install Tiger.

[aleksandra.]

They could work it like the 'Aero' GUI for Vista. If you got the power, it runs. If not, it doesn't. On Vista many people to my knowledge stop Aero and have a perfectly functioning system that looks eerily like XP...

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, because it has nothing to do with power.

If we believe Apple (and I see no reason not to in this case), one of the biggest gains in performance in Snow Leopard will be by improved multithreading thanks to GCD. Its implementation uses atomic operations available in x86. I know PowerPC provides atomic operations allowing synchronization (otherwise any safe multithreading would have been impossible), but they're different and perhaps implementation of GCD wouldn't be efficient on this architecture.

If there was GCD in Intel, but not in PowerPC version of Snow Leopard, developers would have a choice: either use GCD interfaces for improved concurrency, and drop PowerPC support, or use traditional multithreading (or don't bother with multithreading) to make the app PowerPC-compatible. Now all we have to realize is that it isn't the case only with third-party apps, but also with a big part of OS X and Apple apps.

I repeat, I don't know if it's the reason, but lack of GCD support on PowerPC would in fact make Snow Leopard for it pointless.

[djellison]

Although I use the latest technology from Apple for my business I am replying to this silly comment on a bottom end iBook G4. 15 days since reboot (due to Software Update) which runs day and night without issues.

And guess what - once Snow Leopard is out - it'll STILL run Leopard day and night without issues

[Sambo110]

This thread is a year old, it's not happening... ;)

Oh, I didn't see that :p. That's good then.

[macintoshtoffy]

Although I use the latest technology from Apple for my business I am replying to this silly comment on a bottom end iBook G4. 15 days since reboot (due to Software Update) which runs day and night without issues.

And when Snow Leopard is released you can continue using your beloved G4 - for me I'm looking at getting a cheap-as low end G4 Mini-Mac and setting it up as an mp3 jukebox for my old man. I can continue using Leopard without any problems.

[iAlexG]

no powerPC support please

[armoguy94]

Question: Why are you hanging around in a Mac forum when you aren't a Mac user? What is it with Windows users who feel the need to troll Mac forums and make up stories to justify their computer of choice?

What are you talking about? Question: How did you completely miss that I own 2 iMacs, one of which is my primary computer that I'm using right now?

[Tallest Skil]

What are you talking about? Question: How did you completely miss that I own 2 iMacs, one of which is my primary computer that I'm using right now?

So you're a hypocrite who like to complain. :p

Either way, it isn't appropriate here.

[MorphingDragon]

What are you talking about? Question: How did you completely miss that I own 2 iMacs, one of which is my primary computer that I'm using right now?

People here have selective reading.

[Firefly2002]

Intel is the new way to go. Either upgrade if you want a new OS, or stick with Tiger or Leopard. It's called progress people.

It's not "progress"

Notice how even Microsoft still supports its old Pentiums.

Plus it's not like they're supporting all Intels anyway... it's 64-bit only leaving Intel Cores in the cold.

It's sort of a shame IBM hadn't come out with their Power6 about a year earlier, lol..

I think they should still support 745x CPUs, then drop support for all PPCs save G5s with 10.7 =)

[smartalic34]

It's not "progress"

Notice how even Microsoft still supports its old Pentiums.

Plus it's not like they're supporting all Intels anyway... it's 64-bit only leaving Intel Cores in the cold.

Assuming by "they" you mean Apple, according to http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html 10.6 Snow Leopard is supporting ALL Intel Macs, including the Core Duo and Core Solo...

just to clarify:)

[macintoshtoffy]

What are you talking about? Question: How did you completely miss that I own 2 iMacs, one of which is my primary computer that I'm using right now?

You own two Mac's and yet still complain? if Apple is so utterly crap as you claim - then why do you keep purchasing them? are you some sort of sadomasochist who simply keeps with Apple so you have something to complain about? if I had the amount of problems with Apple that you were complaining abut - I would have left instead of trolling through forums whinging and whining about it.

[macintoshtoffy]

People here have selective reading.

So when I miss one single post I am 'selectively reading' but when the likes of Firefly2002 keeping lying over and over again claiming that Snow Leopard is 64bit one, I don't see a single thing being said by you. Selective reading on your part or do you just find particular people on this site to pick on?

[PinkyMacGodess]

For the record (if there is one) I won't mind the PPC bits if they go missing in Snow Leopard. I have an older white plastic Imac that still runs Tiger and will for a while as it has an HP scanner hooked to it that HP kindly didn't develop Leopard drivers for. I'll keep using Tiger until either the scanner dies or the system does. She threw a power supply last month and has a flaky ethernet port but beside that, still rocks with the big boys.

You want to talk about a company leaving things for dead, look at HP! We had a Laserjet 3600 that I couldn't get to work with our macs. Worked fine with Windows but having to delete the printers and recreate them every time the printer decided to stop printing was getting old. HP is the one that really sucks as we (the Mac community) seem to be on the receiving end of the back of their hand a lot IMO...

[Sawtooth811]

It was known for "Snow Leopard" to run much more efficient than "Leopard", including if they still support the subject on GPU's acting somewhat as a co-processor, for ANY mac that runs 10.6. I think it'll be a slight mistake for Apple to completely drop the PPC support, for many out there still own G4's, like me.:mad:

[smartalic34]

It was known for "Snow Leopard" to run much more efficient than "Leopard", including if they still support the subject on GPU's acting somewhat as a co-processor, for ANY mac that runs 10.6. I think it'll be a slight mistake for Apple to completely drop the PPC support, for many out there still own G4's, like me.:mad:

it appears that only a few (i.e. newest) GPUs will be supported by the OpenCL "co-processor" technology... unless a miracle happens and Apple goes back and adds older ones over time. not even the ATI Radeon X1600 in my MBP is supported...

[zmttoxics]

It was known for "Snow Leopard" to run much more efficient than "Leopard", including if they still support the subject on GPU's acting somewhat as a co-processor, for ANY mac that runs 10.6. I think it'll be a slight mistake for Apple to completely drop the PPC support, for many out there still own G4's, like me.:mad:

PPC code is overhead at this point. Making things more efficient also means no more accounting for PPC.

[davidlv]

Those G5s available less than two years ago are really having a tough time with Leopard. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:Your comment is just the opposite of my experience, on a G5 2.0GHz dual core late-2005 model with PCIe slots, 2 500GB HDs and 5 GB of RAM. Tiger works well on this machine but Leopard works even better, even though the video card is rather lame (the lowest power card available in 2005, the NVIDIA GeForce 6600 LE. I have noticed no "tough time" episodes whatsoever. In fact it is rock solid. No crashes, no glitches, no unexpected "WTF" episodes, etc. So just what do you mean? And since Leopard works as well as it does, I would expect that the work done on SL to streamline the OS would be welcome on a PPC machine if Apple does go that route.
:cool:

[jtt]

So, is this conformation of PPC support?

[nuckinfutz]

So, is this conformation of PPC support?

No confirmation of PPC's death.

[pdjudd]

So, is this conformation of PPC support?
No. The official word from Apple is that it will only be for Intel Macs.

[zmttoxics]

So, is this conformation of PPC support?

PPC isn't dead, but it is to Apple.

[Cassie]

I wonder how long it will be before "10.6 Only" apps start appearing. That's when I'll be a little ticked.

[nuckinfutz]

I wonder how long it will be before "10.6 Only" apps start appearing. That's when I'll be a little ticked.

Well any current "Intel only" app is likely to be delivered on Snow Leopard as there's little point on supporting two different builds of Leopard on Intel if you're not going to support PPC.

I think PPC users still have time. It took roughly a year after Leopard's release before there were a bunch of Leopard only apps.

[hvfsl]

it appears that only a few (i.e. newest) GPUs will be supported by the OpenCL "co-processor" technology... unless a miracle happens and Apple goes back and adds older ones over time. not even the ATI Radeon X1600 in my MBP is supported...
That's probably because the X1600 lacks a lot of the features that opencl needs. Don't forget it is a Direct X9 card in the PC world, while the graphics cards that currently ship with Macs are DX10/10.1.

[smartalic34]

That's probably because the X1600 lacks a lot of the features that opencl needs. Don't forget it is a Direct X9 card in the PC world, while the graphics cards that currently ship with Macs are DX10/10.1.

oh, I agree. I was just saying what I did in response to Sawtooth's post to let that person know that OpenCL won't be supported on every mac, thus eliminating their proposed reason why 10.6 should support PPC. my argument was that if they arent supporting the X1600, no way are they supporting G4-era GPUs (as you said, the cards probably cant do it)

just hope GrandCentral technology gives me a boost;)