PowerPC Support in Mac OS X 10.6 After All?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Contrary to claims that Mac OS 10.6 "Snow Leopard" will drop PowerPC support (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/06/04/mac-os-x-10-6-called-snow-leopard-all-cocoa/), Gizmodo has heard that PowerPC support may indeed be living on (http://gizmodo.com/5014251/source-os-x-106-snow-leopard-will-support-powerpc-chips).

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.

While this rumor may inspire a bit of hope to those who have late-model PowerPC Macs (including this editor), it should be noted that it runs contrary to running consensus that OS 10.6 "Snow Leopard" would only support Intel chips.

Apple is expected to introduce 10.6 at WWDC, for which we will be providing live keynote coverage at MacRumorsLive.com (http://www.macrumorslive.com/) as well as SMS, Twitter and iPhone (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/06/02/wwdc-keynote-coverage-toucharcade-spoiler-free/) updates.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/06/07/powerpc-support-in-mac-os-x-10-6-after-all/)

[TuffLuffJimmy]

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

[ert3]

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

[rendezvouscp]

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

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

[Sky Blue]

oh noes, does that destroy this crazy Windows speculation?

[messedkid]

IMO, it would have been a smart move to drop PPC support.

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.





:apple:Vote NO on PPC support for 10.6!!!:apple:

[seashellz]

extra baggage

[syklee26]

just buy a new Mac damn it....

[longofest]

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.

[flopticalcube]

Loads of great PPC machines still around. Most G5 PMs can easily handle Leopard so 10.6 should be no problem. This will make lots of PPC owners happy.

[kflook]

Yeah...let me go find $2,000 to replace my barley over 2 year old G4....

[longofest]

just buy a new Mac damn it....

As I said, I have 2 intel macs and 1 PowerPC mac. However, I don't have the funds or the will to want to replace my QuadG5 right now with a Mac Pro. The Quad is a powerful machine and when I need the power of a desktop, I still go to it for use. I want the "stability and performance" refinements that we're hearing about to be applied.

[Sam Yikin]

Hmm.... this rumor in particular doesn't really matter to me, but more talk of 10.6 is always good.

[mogzieee]

Won't there just be an uproar if they didn't put PowerPC compatibility in 10.6? I reckon it will still be built for Intel, and PPC.

[Eric S.]

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

Based on what? My Power Mac G4, which is a lot more than two years old, runs Leopard just fine.

IMO, it would have been a smart move to drop PPC support.

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.

:apple:Vote NO on PPC support for 10.6!!!:apple:

Spoken, no doubt, by someone who does not own a PPC system. Why should you be so quick to advocate that other users, most of whom have been loyal Apple customers for years, should be denied the benefits the latest OS? Why do you even care?

[kwfl]

There is nothing wrong with dropping PPC support, unless apple want to go back to PPC.

Current PPC owners can run Leopard forever and i think the professional application they are running will be provided with updates. What is the timeline for your upgrade? 2 years? leopard will be great till that time.

[rendezvouscp]

Based on what? My Power Mac G4, which is a lot more than two years old, runs Leopard just fine.

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

[pkoch1]

Based on what? My Power Mac G4, which is a lot more than two years old, runs Leopard just fine.

As far as I can tell, based on sarcasm mostly ;)

[DTphonehome]

My Early-2006 iMac G5 (last PPC version) could certainly handle 10.6 assuming no major new features. If this is just a stability and performance update, PPC should be included. Those G5s are some pretty capable chips.

[Goldfinger]

I don't see why they should drop PPC support. Sure they can stop optimizing for PPC/AltiVec but they have the universal binary thing in place to make the support of two architectures easy.
There are lots of capable PowerPC Macs left. It's way too soon to drop PowerPC support. Maybe in 10.7 or 10.8

[Rocketman]

It is probably more accurate to say 10.6 will be released exclusively to developers under NDA, and the public face of OSX is 10.5.3 and iPhone OSX 2.0. Two bridges leading to Cupertino.

There may be behind the scenes and under the hood adjustments to 10.6 and beyond to "simplify" it or make a simplified version (snow leapord, snow lynx, snow felix the cat). It is more likely that simplification is an outgrowth of iPhone OSX being brought up to full capacity, than OSX 10.5 being crippled. At some point you need a swiss army knife OS out there to provide end user backward support for legacy hardware (OSX 10.5/10.4/9.2.2/8.6 path), and also a high performance, low overhead OS (OSX iPhone 2.0/server path).

iPhones are the ultimate thin client for client server systems. X-serves are the ultimate thick server for client server systems (within the Apple universe). Both OS requirements are power efficient, hardware maxers, throughput focused, and have narrow application API bases.

Client server is back.

Rocketman

[bluebomberman]

G5s run Leopard just fine, and in some ways outperforms G5s on Tiger (most noticeably at startup).

As I've complained before, I am under no illusion that PPC will someday be retired into the chip heaven in the sky, but early 2009 is a bit too soon. (I was guessing mid-2010.)

All the people sniping at others to buy a new Intel Mac need to zip up - we're not all made of money, and the four-digit sum I'd expend to replace my iMac G5 isn't trivial.

[Eric Lewis]

im thinking that 10.6 will need like a 1.33ghz/1gb ram or better

[darwinian]

I agree that they should drop PPC support soon. To whatever degree they have to maintain currently 2 codebases, dropping PPC support would make sense.

As everyone's aware, the thing about PPC machines, irrespective of age, is that the transition from PPC to Intel was major. It's not like changing wireless cards or memory specifications, where the amount of the code affected is considerably smaller, even in the worst case scenario.

And no one needs further reminder also that a new OS doesn't somehow automatically break old OSes running FINE on older hardware.

[pgwalsh]

While I understand how many people have completely given up on PPC since Apple isn't producing products with PowerPC processors in it, there's still a plethora of PowerPC users that want to keep their legacy machines. I have two intel and two PowerPC machines, I don't plan on just getting rid of the PPC machines. I can use them for other purposes or give them to someone needy.

Isn't Xcode supposed to make development of both processors much easier? I think it would be pretty bad if Apple expected other software vendors to support both platforms, but they dropped it themselves.

I think Apple should support both PPC and X86 as long as the machines can run the OS. Xserve machines don't need all the bells and whistles (eye candy), but I'm sure they'll benefit in other areas, including performance enhancements. So while from a home user prospective, it may make sense to move on it doesn't from the server market.

Also, I can recall a ton of people on these forums bashing Vista for it's hardware support or lack-there-of, but now you want Apple do ditch PPC. C'mon, I think it's cool if a 866Mhz G4 can run Leopard or Snow Leopard. It just makes OS X that much better considering it's still more advanced than Vista. It's a good selling point.

[flopticalcube]

im thinking that 10.6 will need like a 1.33ghz/1gb ram or better
If its a stability and performance release, they should be the same minimum as Leopard.

[SirOmega]

PPC support wont be dropped until 2011. I figure five years is enough to switch over.

[longofest]

PowerPC machines were sold through the end of 2006.

To drop PowerPC OS support at the beginning of 2009 would mean less than 2.5 years of OS upgrades worth, which includes only 1 major OS revision (Leopard).

Folks, that would be worse than Microsoft as far as support goes. Apple can move forward and still support existing customers for a more reasonable time period.

I define reasonable as around 3 years, which coincidentally is how long AppleCare lasts. Once 3 years is up, then the "upgrade" argument holds more weight, but right now it's a little too early to be singing that tune.

[commander.data]

Personally, I think it might make sense that Snow Leopard will be a 64-bit only release meaning it'll only run on the G5 and 64-bit Intel Macs. It'll move things forward nicely toward 64-bit Cocoa, while 32-bit applications will still run. It just won't install on 32-bit computers. That does leave first-gen Core Duo Macs orphaned along with the last-gen G4 notebooks that shipped alongside G5 desktops, but what can you do? I'm not sure this will be worse than not supporting dual dual core G5s which are still quite powerful, at least compared to the original Core Duo Intels.

[Mac OS X Ocelot]

I'd say forget every previous rumor about 10.6. PPC support and new features. Leopard stability update my butt. Previous rumorors just haven't actually heard anything about the new OS so they made up b.s. (as usual).

[moderator edit]To those saying PPC support should be ended [/end mod edit]... Just because you have a shiny new mac and/or are willing to part with your PPCs doesn't mean we all have one or can afford one any time soon. Can I be happy with Leopard until I buy a new mac? Sure, but if Apple is offering a new OS for PPC, I'll take it.

It's perplexing why Apple doesn't take business advice from the geniuses on MacRumors, isn't it?

[cal6n]

I can see the 867 MHz limit staying the same, but a "multiprocessor only" requirement being added.

Remember where you read it first!

[!¡ V ¡!]

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

Hence the focus on "Stability and Performance" in Snow Leopard OS 10.6.

10.5 should have been 10.6, however :apple: wanted to release it quickly to compare they leapfrog technology to Vista. That is why 10.5 seems sluggish on PPC.

That being said I have sold all my PPC system with the exception of my trusty G3 Pismo. Which BTW runs 10.4 well, minus all the eye candy.:)

I am happy :apple: is going to support PPC for another OS release. My computers I am working on are all Intel bases, however I am not discouraged with the PPC release. Thank :apple: if true. :D

[dukebound85]

Yeah...let me go find $2,000 to replace my barley over 2 year old G4....

well i would imagine that any g4 would not be supported for 10.6 lol

[Mac OS X Ocelot]

well i would imagine that any g4 would not be supported for 10.6 lol

You will be surprised.

[tba03]

that is not cool. i tought they were moving forward, why are they sticking with PPC for another generation? 10.6 will probably up the requirement to intel anyways, I really hope they drop all legacy code and look forward for once

[kprf]

IMO, it would have been a smart move to drop PPC support.

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.

:apple:Vote NO on PPC support for 10.6!!!:apple:

What about those G5 Powermacs in 2006? Was that NOT progress? My G5 system runs Leopard amazingly and I don't have any doubt that it would run 10.6 just as nice.

[Mac OS X Ocelot]

that is not cool. i tought they were moving forward, why are they sticking with PPC for another generation? 10.6 will probably up the requirement to intel anyways, I really hope they drop all legacy code and look forward for once

It doesn't affect those of you with Intel one bit. It's all in your heads.

[messedkid]

Spoken, no doubt, by someone who does not own a PPC system. Why should you be so quick to advocate that other users, most of whom have been loyal Apple customers for years, should be denied the benefits the latest OS? Why do you even care?

Aye, it's true I do not and never have owned a PPC.

That means I can't post my opinion?:confused:

Technology is always changing. Everything becomes outdated, thus forcing you to update your machine. You can't expect Apple to support your machine for the latest OS, just because you've been "loyal Apple customers for years".

Having to support PPC and Intel chips make an OS bloated. A bloated OS means less features. Features that would only run on Intel, but are being left out because you "loyal Apple customers" want the best just like everyone else.


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


Edit: For QQs sakes, I'll change my "No PPC support" to 10.7. According to rumors it'll just be performance and stability anyway... and it'll put a stop to our lil' dispute. But you must admit, saying you want PPC support for the latest OS is not reasonable. After 10.6 hits, and 10.7 rumors roll out, this whole convo will start all over again.

[spullara]

There are actually a couple good reasons though I don't think that they will drop it in 10.6. For example:

1) Significantly less testing
2) More resources for working on Intel-only features

Things like virtualization are complete Intel only features. If I had to choose between PPC support and Intel hypervisor built into the OS, I would choose the latter.

Sam

[ImageWrangler]

Keeping PPC in OS X will only keep bloat, it's living in the past. It's not like if some car company came up with an electric version of their car they'd be up in arms, telling the car maker to make it a gas and electric? Why stunt technology.

PPC whiners make no sense when they complain that their machines are suddenly "outdated" if some new system won't run on their machine. Hey, listen up, your machine was outdated before it shipped to the factory to you, life's a bummer, wear a helmet. It's not like if Snow Leopard came out all Intel PPC machines would suddenly stop working, they'd work just fine. I've an iBook G3 which surfs the web and does text related stuff perfectly well under Panther. A computer is a tool for a job, and real craftspeople don't blame their tools if they can't get the job done.

This coming from a person who owns a Macbook Pro, a Powermac G5 1.8 DP and my sig other owns an iMac 1.8 PPC machine. We wouldn't have the money to buy new machines to replace the PowerMac and iMac should 10.6 be Intel and released next year, but I'm all whiny like the others in the PPC contingent as I know my machines currently work fine under Leopard, and will continue to work fine under 10.5 into the future as intended.

Apple should cut PPC loose, future-proof it's OS, go Intel only, nuff said.

[!¡ V ¡!]

Personally, I think it might make sense that Snow Leopard will be a 64-bit only release meaning it'll only run on the G5 and 64-bit Intel Macs. It'll move things forward nicely toward 64-bit Cocoa, while 32-bit applications will still run. It just won't install on 32-bit computers. That does leave first-gen Core Duo Macs orphaned along with the last-gen G4 notebooks that shipped alongside G5 desktops, but what can you do? I'm not sure this will be worse than not supporting dual dual core G5s which are still quite powerful, at least compared to the original Core Duo Intels.

This would be a stupid on :apple: part if implemented, since majority of the people use 4GB or less of in they MacBook (Pro), Core 2 Duo and other machines that are and are not 64-bit capable processors. Even though my SR notebook can handle 8GB of ram, the prices are no where near affordable and the iMac Core 2 Duo (White) only allow 3GB max support.

64-bit is only good for 4+ GB of memory address, anything less and its pointless. 32-bit will be staying for a while since most consumer application do not even benefit from 64-bit. :rolleyes:

[ImageWrangler]

What about those G5 Powermacs in 2006? Was that NOT progress? My G5 system runs Leopard amazingly and I don't have any doubt that it would run 10.6 just as nice.

Fact of the matter is you don't NEED to run 10.6, you only want. There's a big difference between a want and a need. You may WANT a big nice house, a fast shiny car, a trip to some exotic land, but you don't NEED those things. You need to eat, have a roof over your head, and have a Mac, clearly you already have those, everything else is purely wants, not required things.

[dukebound85]

You will be surprised.

lol it wouldnt suprise me one bit if ppc support was only for G5's

i mean heck to run leopard now you need a pretty fast G4 ( and from my experience a 1ghz G4 is dog slow with leopard with 1 gig ram compared to my intel macs)

the only way i can see g4 support is if they have just a stability release and thats iffy in my view

do i hope it supports G4's, sure but i wouldnt be shocked if it didnt

[longofest]

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

Actually, yes it is. Apple's business is to make money, period. In a time where the economy is slowing/downturning, they need to continue to target as wide a swath of people as they can: those with disposable income and those with less.

Apple doesn't just make money on new computer sales. It also makes money on software sales. If they make a new OS that excludes the millions who still have late-model PPC macs, then they will loose out on those people's business, and I can guarantee you that most of them are not going to just say "well, I guess its time to upgrade." They will wait until the computer they have no longer fits their needs and then upgrade.

[flopticalcube]

Having to support PPC and Intel chips make an OS bloated. A bloated OS means less features. Features that would only run on Intel, but are being left out because you "loyal Apple customers" want the best just like everyone else.


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

How does supporting both OSes mean its bloated? Its only disk space and there are programs out there like Xslimmer to cut out the code you don't want. It may not be Apples problem that people can't afford the latest Mac Pro but it is there problem to continue support for older hardware, in fact, its their obligation.

[iMpathetic]

Damn it. Time and money wasted on things that aren't important. :mad:

[JG271]

Having to support PPC and Intel chips make an OS bloated. A bloated OS means less features. Features that would only run on Intel, but are being left out because you "loyal Apple customers" want the best just like everyone else.


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


So what about the people who bought a highly expensive quad-core powermac only two years ago?
The OS CDs that come with a new mac are specific to the machine, so therefore would not contain any PPC support, i would have thought.

[FJ218700]

that is not cool. i tought they were moving forward, why are they sticking with PPC for another generation? 10.6 will probably up the requirement to intel anyways, I really hope they drop all legacy code and look forward for once

not everyone is a "switcher" dude.

when your intel mac is still running perfectly 5 years from now, you'll understand why we're happy PPC support is continuing.

[!¡ V ¡!]

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

Actually you would be wrong on this account, it all adds to :apple: OS customer/usage base, and nothing looks better to developers and investors than a strong and growing user base regardless of PPC/Intel.

For :apple: to support PPC/Intel is not expensive as OS X was supported and written for years on both platforms and it also is a backup plan, not to be considered a wasted resource.

Many business still trust they faithful PPC systems, and if :apple: decided to migrate to another architecture its not they fault since adoption of a new architecture could be fate for they business(es) that have been running perfectly well for years. Stability = Money and Profits.

Performance is already proven on those PPC machines, however performance is varied and is always improving so its not a prominent factor as compared to stability. :D

[iMpathetic]

You wanna not use that smilie?

</grumpy> :D

[kprf]

Fact of the matter is you don't NEED to run 10.6, you only want. There's a big difference between a want and a need. You may WANT a big nice house, a fast shiny car, a trip to some exotic land, but you don't NEED those things. You need to eat, have a roof over your head, and have a Mac, clearly you already have those, everything else is purely wants, not required things.

What does that have to do with what I said? All I mentioned is that my G5 is capable of doing a lot, including running latest and newest release of OS. And if it is capable then there is no need to drop the PPC support just yet.

[WoFat]

¿ Stability problems? Using your Mac to hammer nails? Never experience stability probs with either of the cats.

[Peace]

64-bit is only good for 4+ GB of memory address, anything less and its pointless. 32-bit will be staying for a while since most consumer application do not even benefit from 64-bit. :rolleyes:

It's not the 64-bit memory handling that Snow is about. It's about SSE. These chips weren't in the previous Intel chips. Snow needs the advanced SSE to utilize the core animation, core audio and Cocoa apps necessary to run the multi-touch layers better and much faster. So this isn't about 64-bit vs 32-bit memory wise.

It is a necessary evil. But like I said earlier there will be two versions of Leopard. This person probably has an alpha build with all kinds of stuff that won't be in 10.6 whether it's there now or not.

[link92]

When the core of OS X already has to run on x86 and ARM, also supporting PPC isn't the biggest of issues: the issue is mainly in terms of testing. I don't think having to test on PPC is going to be too much effort, even for several years. I highly doubt there is a large amount of manual testing at the levels where there are different branches for different architectures, so most of the issue will be anything higher up with has different branches for big/little endian, I expect.

[Mac OS X Ocelot]

Fact of the matter is you don't NEED to run 10.6, you only want. There's a big difference between a want and a need. You may WANT a big nice house, a fast shiny car, a trip to some exotic land, but you don't NEED those things. You need to eat, have a roof over your head, and have a Mac, clearly you already have those, everything else is purely wants, not required things.

Software has a nastly little habit of only supporting the latest version of an operating system. I'm sure I can do without whatever new features 10.6 is sure to have (I actually don't use Spaces or Time Machine at all, but I still use Leopard), but when the software I use regularly requires 10.6 I'll be a little sad :(

[commander.data]

This would be a stupid on :apple: part if implemented, since majority of the people use 4GB or less of in they MacBook (Pro), Core 2 Duo and other machines that are and are not 64-bit capable processors. Even though my SR notebook can handle 8GB of ram, the prices are no where near affordable and the iMac Core 2 Duo (White) only allow 3GB max support.

64-bit is only good for 4+ GB of memory address, anything less and its pointless. 32-bit will be staying for a while since most consumer application do not even benefit from 64-bit. :rolleyes:
64-bit isn't only good for 4+ GB memory support. 64-bit support on Intel also doubles the number of registers available. Seeing how PPC included 32 registers and x86 only 8, I think PPC programmers would appreciate having more registers available when moving to Intel x64. Even Apple's developer documentation notes that there are cases where the additional registers in 64-bit Intel are valuable for increasing performance.

[iDarbert]

I was kinda liking the whole "optimized" talk, but supporting PPC is probably a wise idea.
But this calls for new features too, if OSX 10.6 had turned to be some kind of "speedy Intel-only" version of Leopard I guess it would've made sense to drop PPC.

I still hope they drop Carbon somehow though, I'm sorry - I don't really like the way it feels :p

Software has a nastly little habit of only supporting the latest version of an operating system. I'm sure I can do without whatever new features 10.6 is sure to have (I actually don't use Spaces or Time Machine at all, but I still use Leopard), but when the software I use regularly requires 10.6 I'll be a little sad
I don't think that's bound to happen unless 10.6 introduces new APIs the developers are interested in, a lot of apps have gone 10.5 only because they use stuff like Core Animation and brand new APIs, but if 10.6 introduces nothing or almost nothing new there would be no reason not to support 10.5.

[Raidersmojo]

I wouldn't mind if they drop PPC support (and I have a G4 powerbook) sooner or later they have to stop making the operating system for older systems, yeah the G5 isn't to old but thats really the price of buying a computer; it gets outdated. then people want to cry and complain when its not supported, sooner or later they have to drop support for something, might as well be sooner. wouldn't that save apple some money? especially with more and more people buying intel macs, I don't think they sold to many PPC macs lately.

they should write the OS completely for intel chips just for stability against the windows platform. make it all it can be for intel, PPC people can still run leopard and I've never had any problems with it, if they are not getting any new features, who cares?

(of course I plan on getting an intel mac here soon, so I guess I don't care as much ) :D

[belisle]

I agree that they should drop PPC support soon. To whatever degree they have to maintain currently 2 codebases, dropping PPC support would make sense. As everyone's aware, the thing about PPC machines, irrespective of age, is that the transition from PPC to Intel was major.


Yes, but that code has already been changed. For the most part, it should be just one codebase, compiled for two architectures. Like a Universal Binary. It's just maintenance now. If there are no new features, what's the harm in keeping PPC support?

[niemo810]

legacy support does nothing but hold everything back in the long run. For most people, PPC code just wastes hard drive space. I think it would be easier just to drop support and be done with PPC once and for all. And I'm not just saying this because I have an Intel, I also have a PPC computer. It's just time to say goodbye.

[!¡ V ¡!]

It is a necessary evil. But like I said earlier there will be two versions of Leopard. This person probably has an alpha build with all kinds of stuff that won't be in 10.6 whether it's there now or not.

Seems quite likely that there will be more than just a PPC/Intel version however I would not be surprised if your prediction of alpha is right. :)

32-bit PPC
64-bit PPC

32-bit Intel
64-bit Intel

[messedkid]

How does supporting both OSes mean its bloated? Its only disk space and there are programs out there like Xslimmer to cut out the code you don't want. It may not be Apples problem that people can't afford the latest Mac Pro but it is there problem to continue support for older hardware, in fact, its their obligation.

Support for their current running OS...yes. Not a brand new OS.
You don't see Vista running PCs from 10 years ago, do you?

Yes that was an exageration since the latest PPC machine isn't that old, but you get my point.

The installed OS can be thinned out, but the install DVD you receive has support for both! Meaning less features in the OS (on the DVD). That OS is installed on your mac. See where I'm going with this?
Think of it in fractions.
1 = install DVD
1/2 = PPC
1/2 = Intel

Compared to:

1 = install DVD
1 = Intel


CHING CHING!!

Actually, yes it is. Apple's business is to make money, period. In a time where the economy is slowing/downturning, they need to continue to target as wide a swath of people as they can: those with disposable income and those with less.

Apple doesn't just make money on new computer sales. It also makes money on software sales. If they make a new OS that excludes the millions who still have late-model PPC macs, then they will loose out on those people's business, and I can guarantee you that most of them are not going to just say "well, I guess its time to upgrade." They will wait until the computer they have no longer fits their needs and then upgrade.


Apple's marketshare has grown alot lately. More so after the Intel switch. So the majority of the mac users today use Intel machines. Losing one customer, because you don't have enough money to buy a new MacPro will not be of interest them at all. Not to mention you still have 2 other intel macs which I highly doubt you would just neglect.



Let me put it straight.
I am against Apple bringing out a new OS supporting BOTH PPC and Intel!
I am NOT against Apple continuing to support PPC in the current OS' (up to Leopard)

[kprf]

legacy support does nothing but hold everything back in the long run. For most people, PPC code just wastes hard drive space. I think it would be easier just to drop support and be done with PPC once and for all. And I'm not just saying this because I have an Intel, I also have a PPC computer. It's just time to say goodbye.

Again, I would not say that because PPC can still be very strong, even today, even right now..
Don't you think it would piss a lot of people off if Apple decided to drop PPC only because Intel is the "new cool kid"? I don't think Apple would provoke their reputation by doing something like that. They are supposedly known for their amazing customer care and respect.
Most people who bought Powermac G5 in 2006 assumed that their machines would still be able to take them into the future for years to come.

[Ambrose Chapel]

as someone still using a PPC Mac (Rev B iMac G5) i would be disappointed but not too upset if 10.6 begins the Intel-only era. if cutting the PPC cord means a more agile (for lack of a better word) and/or unified OS (Mac/Touch) going forward, i think it is a reasonable trade off. OTOH, it's really going to make me impatient for that Nehalem-powered, LED-displayed future iMac i am waiting for :D

[belisle]

Think of it in fractions.
1 = install DVD
1/2 = PPC
1/2 = Intel

Compared to:

1 = install DVD
1 = Intel



What about 2 Install DVDs, 1 Intel, 1 PPC? The installation medium is not a constraint.

[easy4lif]

just my 2 cents

that 2 bridges image in the WWDC invite mean this:

10.6 will be 2 complete separate builds

there will be a PPC version and a Intel version and you can buy either one or both f you like but they won't come as one disc as 10.5 did.

[commander.data]

It seems to me that Apple maybe made a mistake with making Leopard a Universal Binary. In Tiger, there were separate builds for Intel and PPC so they could be optimized separately. A Universal Binary Leopard probably limits their ability to do so somewhat. So Snow Tiger could come out as the Intel Build of Leopard with some improvements while Leopard will remain the PPC optimized build with Intel support maintained, but not necessarily optimized, for those Intel Macs that don't upgrade to Snow Leopard.

[kornyboy]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

I hope this is true since I'm in the same boat as many others here. Though I do have a couple of MacBooks, I have no real desire to buy a new Mac Pro to meet my needs that I use the powermac for. This is not to mention the cost of replacing it. I do realize that they will eventually drop it but I really hope the time isn't now.

[easy4lif]

also, most likely, it will only work with the G5 processor

[!¡ V ¡!]

Let me put it straight.
I am against Apple bringing out a new OS supporting BOTH PPC and Intel!
I am NOT against Apple continuing to support PPC in the current OS' (up to Leopard)

You do realize that :apple: is walking a thin path, if they ignore they PPC base (including many many companies) those customers will finally say to hell with OS 10.6 and :apple:, lets just finally make the move to Linux and not deal with :apple:.

I am the same way, I can switch to unix, linux, mac os x, or windows. I mainly use my system for email, web browsing and media playing. Have been doing less content creation these days. If I had a PPC and :apple: stopped its support, guess what my time is money and I would look towards a cheaper or free solution.

:apple: knows this fact well enough, that is why they will support PPC still they feature list no longer can do so. Last thing investor and developer need is to see ex PPC users moving to Linux which means less revenue. And the quicker those developers and investors jumped on the :apple: bandwagon, the same way they will get off.

[belisle]

Most people who bought Powermac G5 in 2006 assumed that their machines would still be able to take them into the future for years to come.

I agree. The last G5 was discontinued in August 2006, meaning the only OS update they got was Leopard. I'm pretty sure they expected at least 2 updates, if not more, before being dropped. I've accepted that PowerPC machines may not get all the features. But I'd like them to fix the bugs.

Even my Starmax ran everything up to Mac OS X (although the later years were "unsupported"). That was 5 years or so.

[dukebound85]

You do realize that :apple: is walking a thin path, if they ignore they PPC base (including many many companies) those customers will finally say to hell with OS 10.6 and :apple:, lets just finally make the move to Linux and not deal with :apple:.


i dont think that would happen. i am pretty sure people realize that their computers wont last forever

i mean i like apple ONLY for the os and that is what keeps me buying macs

but i think if there is ppc support, only the G5's would make the cut

[messedkid]

You do realize that :apple: is walking a thin path, if they ignore they PPC base (including many many companies) those customers will finally say to hell with OS 10.6 and :apple:, lets just finally make the move to Linux and not deal with :apple:.

I am the same way, I can switch to unix, linux, mac os x, or windows. I mainly use my system for email, web browsing and media playing. Have been doing less content creation these days. If I had a PPC and :apple: stopped its support, guess what my time is money and I would look towards a cheaper or free solution.

:apple: knows this fact well enough, that is why they will support PPC still they feature list no longer can do so. Last thing investor and developer need is to see ex PPC users moving to Linux which means less revenue. And the quicker those developers and investors jumped on the :apple: bandwagon, the same way they will get off.

So you expect Apple to bring out new Operating Systems that support PPC and Intel forever?

[belisle]

10.6 will be 2 complete separate builds

there will be a PPC version and a Intel version and you can buy either one or both f you like but they won't come as one disc as 10.5 did.

No way. Apple has never done something like that, and there's no reason to. It runs totally counter to Jobs' philosophy to have to deal with "Oh crap, I bought the PPC version for my MacBook Pro."

[!¡ V ¡!]

i dont think that would happen. i am pretty sure people realize that their computers wont last forever

i mean i like apple ONLY for the os and that is what keeps me buying macs

but i think if there is ppc support, only the G5's would make the cut

Won't last forever true enough, however when someone buys a computer they expect at least 5 years of usage before upgrading.

We have computers at work that are 10+ years old, and it still runs perfectly well with the software that it was intended for. The only time an upgrade is mentioned is if the part is not available anymore.

Companies are stingy when it comes to computer budgets, and 5 years is minimum, think again.

I usually upgrade every 3-6 years, however foe some reason if :apple: released an OS that did not support my SR Intel after 2-3 years, I would eventually move to unix/linux. :)

[!¡ V ¡!]

So you expect Apple to bring out new Operating Systems that support PPC and Intel forever?

Never claimed that, they can however support PPC till 2011, this would give those PPC customers enough time to adjust and absorb the cost. Companies and households have budgets too, they do not buy something new released by :apple: just to be graced with the "cool factor" similar to many of the fan club here.

They buy something for a set period of time and 2-3 is too short considering that Mac are a bigger investment.

[FJ218700]

You do realize that :apple: is walking a thin path, if they ignore they PPC base (including many many companies) those customers will finally say to hell with OS 10.6 and :apple:, lets just finally make the move to Linux and not deal with :apple:.

are you serious?

while your statement may hold some weight for the Pro and plain Geek base, you might possibly have a skewed view of the technical abilities of the Apple consumer population and the reason that they are using OS X.

[kprf]

are you serious?

while your statement may hold some weight for the Pro and plain Geek base, you might possibly have a skewed view of the technical abilities of the Apple consumer population and the reason that they are using OS X.

It would still be pretty damn sad that a G4 Cube was able to run every OS X release until 10.5 but the 2006 G5's would only live with Tiger and Leopard.

[centauratlas]

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned is that it is highly likely that Apple will continue PPC builds (even if only internal builds) for the foreseeable future as insurance. Just as Apple kept Intel builds going for a long time, I believe they will do so with the PPC. That does not mean it will be released after 10.6, just that they will keep the code up-to-date for the major functions with a limited number of configurations. Consequently, they will be doing some of the work regardless.

My opinion on a few things:
1. Disk space is pretty irrelevant for the vast majority of users. Even if it is a 4GB build with large drives, doubling it to 8GB isn't that big a deal with big hard drives. To some people of course it is.
2. DVD space is somewhat relevant, but at worst they would add a 2nd DVD to include everything. It was done that way with the 400k disks, 800k disks, CDs etc. Obviously it is preferable to have everything on one disk, but not required.
3. I agree that it is unlikely they would sell different PPC/Intel versions, it is not user friendly.
4. I think that PPC support in 10.6 is important to engender customer loyalty. (I have 3 Intel and 3 remaining PPC makes, plus an old (working???not sure) 128k Mac). I have a dual G5 that is still on 10.4 because I have classic on it so don't intend to upgrade plus an older PPC iMac with 10.5, so personally I probably wouldn't be running 10.6 on any of the PPCs out there, but there are a lot of them and Apple would be smart to support them.
5. I don't believe it would take a lot of EXTRA work to do a PPC version, particularly if it is a performance and stability release as hinted. It is a re-compile and a re-test with some (albeit limited) specific coding. Most of the code is written in higher level languages. The kernel, drivers etc (e.g. lower level items) are the parts that require the most work and would most likely require some CPU specific code. My guess on the marginal extra work is maybe 10% based on my experience, it won't continue indefinitely, but one more release would be appropriate.
:)

[iBunny]

The only people who want to keep PPC support are those who still own PPC Machines.

I say just buy a new Machines. Stop being such tight wads people and get with the times. Macs are PC's with the ability to run OSX. Thats all... and in the PC world, if you own a computer for any longer than ~2 to ~3 years, your out of date. SO get with the times.

I have owned 2 Intel Machine already... a Intel iMac Core Duo, and Now a MacBook Pro. PPC is long gone, and was dead when Apple announced that they were switching to Intel... They told us in the Summer of 05! Its already the Summer of 08! So if you still are on PPC you should be happy enough with 10.5 and keep it until your PPC dies.

I vote for 10.6 to be Intel Only.

[MacinTek]

The internal seed may indeed support PPC. That means absolutely nothing come GM time.
You may recall as I do the notorious "Public Beta" of OS X (10.0)... it worked on machines that the final version wouldn't... I had a WallStreet power book at the time and had gotten used to that Public Beta of OS X. I was shocked when, came March 24 (or whenever it was), the Retail version wouldn't install on it.

Of course, I was so mad, I ran out and bought a TiBook... which I'm sure Apple was counting on me (and a few million others) doing when they encountered the unpleasant surprise.

[easy4lif]

The only people who want to keep PPC support are those who still own PPC Machines.

I say just buy a new Machines. Stop being such tight wads people and get with the times. Macs are PC's with the ability to run OSX. Thats all... and in the PC world, if you own a computer for any longer than ~2 to ~3 years, your out of date. SO get with the times.

I have owned 2 Intel Machine already... a Intel iMac Core Duo, and Now a MacBook Pro. PPC is long gone, and was dead when Apple announced that they were switching to Intel... They told us in the Summer of 05! Its already the Summer of 08! So if you still are on PPC you should be happy enough with 10.5 and keep it until your PPC dies.

I vote for 10.6 to be Intel Only.

some people still see the value in the old PPC machines. If all you do is email, web surf, and some minor photo editing, a PPC iMac is all you need.

[cpujockey]

PowerPC machines were sold through the end of 2006.

To drop PowerPC OS support at the beginning of 2009 would mean less than 2.5 years of OS upgrades worth, which includes only 1 major OS revision (Leopard).

Folks, that would be worse than Microsoft as far as support goes. Apple can move forward and still support existing customers for a more reasonable time period.

I define reasonable as around 3 years, which coincidentally is how long AppleCare lasts. Once 3 years is up, then the "upgrade" argument holds more weight, but right now it's a little too early to be singing that tune.

This is why psystar and cloners may become very popular very quickly. the hackintosh guys are gunna be on 10.6 like flies on ****.

Dr. D

[dukebound85]

some people still see the value in the old PPC machines. If all you do is email, web surf, and some minor photo editing, a PPC iMac is all you need.

and for that you dont need 10.6 lol

[chris200x9]

am I the only one who thinks apple can't handle success well? they just released an OS some say too early now theres already talk of a new OS to focus on "reliability" and "performance" so how much is this *service pack* going to cost us:rolleyes:

[One Ohm]

I think the installer should decide.

[avigalante]

I posted on this yesterday in the following thread: Mac OS X 10.6 Called 'Snow Leopard', All Cocoa? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=493741)

My post:
Click here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=5546982#post5546982)

PowerPC machines were sold through the end of 2006.

To drop PowerPC OS support at the beginning of 2009 would mean less than 2.5 years of OS upgrades worth, which includes only 1 major OS revision (Leopard).

Folks, that would be worse than Microsoft as far as support goes. Apple can move forward and still support existing customers for a more reasonable time period.

I define reasonable as around 3 years, which coincidentally is how long AppleCare lasts. Once 3 years is up, then the "upgrade" argument holds more weight, but right now it's a little too early to be singing that tune.

But say they officially announce 'Snow Leopard' at MWSF '09 and then deploy the OS in the usual October time frame - meaning October 2009, would it then be OK to drop PPC support? It would be potentially three years after the fact...

[belisle]

The only people who want to keep PPC support are those who still own PPC Machines. I say just buy a new Machines. Stop being such tight wads people and get with the times.

I'd love to, but do you have $40k I can borrow? We got quite a few G5s here.

[csimon2]

Its amazing how clueless so many of you are. Apple needs marketshare. And Apple needs this marketshare to continue rising. One of the easiest ways they can determine this marketshare is by total volume sales of major OS releases. Leopard has been incredibly successful for Apple. "Snow Leopard" needs to be even more successful from a sales and marketing standpoint to prove that they are definitely continuing to move forward on the marketshare front. But if they drop PPC support this soon from the release of the last G4 notebooks and G5 desktops, that is a significant portion of their installed base who will not be buying the new OS. And I can guarantee you that the vast majority of people who are left behind because of a totally arbitrary switch to Intel are not going to just go out and immediately buy a new computer (and who says that this would be an Apple computer even if it they did; I know that if they dropped PPC support in 10.6, that would probably be enough for me to look into "other" options of running 10.6 so that I could most economically replace my dropped system). Yes, maybe those left behind will eventually purchase a new mac, but it certainly won't happen in a mob-like immediate upon-release movement, enough so that Apple would be able to market Snow Leopard as "the fastest and best selling Mac OS ever" (including new hw sales). Believe it or not, Apple still needs these types of marketing opportunities and press releases.

Of all the rumors I have read regarding 10.6 and machine support, the only one that I could half see really happening is a move to 64bit-only machines. This would still leave a significant number of users in the cold, but certainly wouldn't be as bad as no PPC support at all. Afterall, the G5's are still very capable machines. I have four macs running Leopard today: Dual G4 1.25GHz, C2D MBP 2.16GHz, Quad G5 2.5GHZ, and XServe Octal 3.0GHz. I find the G4 runs Leopard pretty well, as long as you have a decent GPU (I have a 7800GS in it). From a performance standpoint, my MBP certainly beats the G4 hands-down, but then again my MBP is pretty much trounced by my Quad G5. And of course the XServe trounces the G5... But as far as "running the OS", all four of these systems run Leopard very well, its the applications that primarily separate the four.

If 10.6 is all about performance tuning, then I could easily (unfortunately) see the G4 being left behind, but I can't see the G5's being left in the dust this soon simply because of its relative performance to even today's currently shipping macs and due to how many professional users they will be leaving behind (pros who use macs for their business are the most common G5 tower owner, and for Apple to abandon those machines now would be a slap in-the-face considering all the years pros were practically the only ones keeping Apple in business). The counter argument that these G5s will still be usable after a switch to an Intel-only OS is laughable. As soon as Apple drops PPC support, so will third-parties. The big developers are only going to follow Apple's lead on this one, and while I agree that this is going to have to happen eventually, I can't fathom it happening before 2010. Plus, even if there are no enhancements or tuning updates whatsoever for PPC in 10.6 and the PPC support is the same as it was in 10.5, this would still be a whole lot better than "officially" dropping PPC with this release.

[coolfactor]

IMO, it would have been a smart move to drop PPC support.

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.

:apple:Vote NO on PPC support for 10.6!!!:apple:

You sound like a new Mac user that came along when Intel support was added, and you have very little or no experience with Macs on PPC. PowerPC is a great architecture. I'm currently on a 2.2MHz MacBook Pro, and it's only slightly faster than my old 1.5GHz PowerBook. Nearly twice the CPU speed, but very little performance improvement. That means something to me.

Apple would be smart to retain a universal view on architecture support so they can be as flexible as possible as new technologies emerge. They have that now, and it would be backwards to drop such support.

[coolfactor]

But say they officially announce 'Snow Leopard' at MWSF '09 and then deploy the OS in the usual October time frame - meaning October 2009, would it then be OK to drop PPC support? It would be potentially three years after the fact...

October is not the usual timeframe. 10.5's release was delayed because of the iPhone.

[dicklacara]

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

I have 3 G5 iMacs and a G4 AlBook-- al run Leopard fine!

[bplein]

I hear lots of people talking about disk space, DVD counts, and OS stability. There's a lot more to it than that.

Apple currently supports 64 bit, 32 bit, Intel, PPC. That's a lot of QA that needs to be done AFTER the hard work of developing the OS to work on all platforms. Multiply that by the hardware/driver support of the older PPC platforms. One reason why Vista is such a bloated hog is that legacy support, and support for a billion different vendor's hardware.

BUT.... buyers of G5 equipment certainly deserve a longer OS upgrade path than 2.5 years. 3 years is a typical business amortization of hardware, and 4 years is certainly a reasonable minimum time to expect a vendor selling expensive equipment to support the hardware.

I work for a manufacturer/vendor of high end enterprise storage. We have a similar problem: How many different OSes, different HBAs and different FC switches can we support? One has to have a clear and effective plan for end-of-support/end-of-life. In our case, it's not only for our hardware but for the hardware that we interoperate with.

Apple has the same challenges. You should expect the end-of-support for G5s to occur somewhere beyond 3 years. Major corporate purchasers of hardware will have a greater influence on Apple than individuals in forums. Given that Apple' core (no pun) audience is not large corporate sales of thousands of machines, I don't know how much corporate customer influence there is on Apple's decision making process.

[Ludde]

I was kinda liking the whole "optimized" talk, but supporting PPC is probably a wise idea.
But this calls for new features too, if OSX 10.6 had turned to be some kind of "speedy Intel-only" version of Leopard I guess it would've made sense to drop PPC.

I still hope they drop Carbon somehow though, I'm sorry - I don't really like the way it feels :p


I don't think that's bound to happen unless 10.6 introduces new APIs the developers are interested in, a lot of apps have gone 10.5 only because they use stuff like Core Animation and brand new APIs, but if 10.6 introduces nothing or almost nothing new there would be no reason not to support 10.5.

Why on earth you'd like them to drop Carbon is beyond me.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/06/07/wwdc-2008-is-mac-os-x-106-the-death-of-carbon/

[belisle]

The internal seed may indeed support PPC. That means absolutely nothing come GM time.


Of course, but all we have to go on for anything are internal builds and rumors. One rumor says yes, another says no. The data are inconclusive.

I had a WallStreet power book at the time and had gotten used to that Public Beta of OS X. I was shocked when, came March 24 (or whenever it was), the Retail version wouldn't install on it.

The installer didn't stop me from installing Mac OS X 10.1 on a Wallstreet PowerBook. Sure, it sucked, but it got me through the time that my Pismo was in the shop getting a 500 MHz G4 upgrade.

[dukebound85]

YI'm currently on a 2.2MHz MacBook Pro, and it's only slightly faster than my old 1.5GHz PowerBook. Nearly twice the CPU speed, but very little performance improvement.

you must have a defunct mbp.......

my 2.0ghz cd mb is immensly faster than my 1 ghz g4 emac

and remember you have a 2.2 DUAL processor in the mbp vs a single core 1.5ghz pb

then again, there would be no real difference if you just browsed the internet but for any "work" the mbp is a ton faster lol

[Digitalclips]

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.

If 10.6 is Intel only, there is nothing to prevent Apple updating Leopard PPC 10.5 with fixes and patches to improve it for years to come parallel to 10.6 for Intel. As a user of a PPCs and Intel Macs, I hope this is the case. Better still would be continued full support of at least G5s till OS 11.

[chas0001]

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

I have Leopard on a Powermac G5 and PowerBook G4 and it runs fine. In fact its better than fine. 10.6 is going to be a speed and stability release so there is no reason not to expect PowerPC support.

[avigalante]

October is not the usual timeframe. 10.5's release was delayed because of the iPhone.

I see - I was basing it off of Tiger and Leopard. I believe Tiger launched in October as well...

EDIT: I meant Panther and Leopard... sorry

[johan.k]

is it clear enough?... have wait till final word from Steve's mouth himself on WWDC keynote... hope that will become true...

[Kinsella217]

I have a philosophical problem with the idea that Apple (or any other computer company in a similar position) would exclude an owner from buying an OS upgrade for a machine that is still -under- -warranty- --by-- the company that makes that OS.

If Mac OS X 10.6 (in whatever form it appears) excludes PowerPC functionality -after- the last PPC computers sold as new exits it's AppleCare Protection Plan service time, I have no qualms. I do not believe this is an unreasonable expectation or a bar set too high.

[dukebound85]

I see - I was basing it off of Tiger and Leopard. I believe Tiger launched in October as well...

im pretty sure tiger launched in april

[flopticalcube]

I have a philosophical problem with the idea that Apple (or any other computer company in a similar position) would exclude an owner from buying an OS upgrade for a machine that is still -under- -warranty- --by-- the company that makes that OS.

If Mac OS X 10.6 (in whatever form it appears) excludes PowerPC functionality -after- the last PPC computers sold as new exits it's AppleCare Protection Plan service time, I have no qualms. I do not believe this is an unreasonable expectation or a bar set too high.

That could be quite a while as even last year they were still selling refurb PPC iMacs and PowerMacs and with AppleCare that would mean probably mid-2010. I have the same philosophical problem with it as you do. It just doesn't sit right with me.

[Saladinos]

Apple is not in the luxury position of being able to isolate loyal users or developers. PPC will stay, certainly for 10.6, possibly even 10.7.

Maintaining the two code branches is not easy, but not so difficult as to force Apple in to a premature cut of the PPC branch. Things like SSE can be supported through unibins - there's no obvious advantage to Intel users. Although there can be a strain on independent developers maintaining two branches, which is why I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of reverse-Rosetta for Intel-native applications.

Macs have always been known for long lifetimes. Apple doesn't want to go against this. Besides, the PPC hardware is fixed: Apple knows exactly which drivers need updating, and can do it all in-house rather than waiting on 3rd parties. It's a lot easier for them to maintain two branches than it is for, say, Microsoft.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I have Leopard on a Powermac G5 and PowerBook G4 and it runs fine. In fact its better than fine. 10.6 is going to be a speed and stability release so there is no reason not to expect PowerPC support.

I don't doubt that your PCC machines aren't stable, but anything that could make intel machines faster/more stable is welcome as PCC will be dropped in the near future anyway.

[Porco]

10.6 should support PPC. I personally think it's outrageous if the next release of OS X doesn't support what were expensive G5 macs that are perfectly capable of running it. All my macs have been able to last a good 5 years before not being able to run the latest OS - it's one the great things about the mac. Next year would just be too soon to drop G5 support IMHO.

Dropping support for G3s and early G4s like Leopard did was entirely reasonable, because those machines would start to struggle to gain any benefit from the OS upgrade. Dropping perfectly capable machines just cuts the number of people who can upgrade, and I personally believe the number of PPC users who would upgrade to 10.6 would make it financially worth Apple's while to do it. After all, it's as simple as clicking a check box right?! ;) (joking, I know updating an OS is a lot more complicated, but still).

Apple would be silly to spurn the opportunity to sell more upgrade copies to loyal customers - a)to keep them loyal and b)assuming they will upgrade to intel machines eventually, it's an extra $129 they wouldn't have spent otherwise, isn't it? So as long as the work for the PPC machines isn't losing them money, they have a strong incentive to keep those customers happy I think.

That said, if 10.6 is the rumoured 'Snow Leopard' with only a few new features and most stuff just performance and stability, it might be Apple's way of sneaking the next real version of OS X as intel-only. That is, call it 10.6 so the PPC users don't get too annoyed, but really it's just like 10.5.xx (wherever they've got to by the 10.6 release). However, if 10.6 is just about performance and stability, it seems silly to not tweak the PPC code they're leaving those users with forever.

Hey, maybe 10.6 Snow Leopard will be PPC ONLY? :D

[Booga]

Some possibilities:
1. Apple started the rumor in the hopes of gauging reaction to such a move.
2. It could still be dropped last-minute. Heck, my understanding is that early internal builds of MacOS X 10.5 included 64-bit Carbon, too, and that feature was pulled relatively late (mostly for political reasons).

[tomjleeds]

Admittedly I'm pretty new to the world of Apple. Yeah, I've had iPods since they first appeared, but only bagged myself a MacBook in November last year, so I'm not exactly well-qualified to comment on the world of PPC. However, I'm going to anyway, so here goes.

Unlike what is probably just a small minority of Intel-only owners who are making themselves heard here, I don't really care either way whether PPC support is kept or dropped. Yes, if it went then people like me would probably see a very slight performance increase in certain circumstances, but at the same time I want to see Apple keep increasing their market share and it needs continued PPC support to do so, and to keep long-term customers happy.

Do I think it should continue until the 2011 some users have suggested? No. Of course PPC users shouldn't be forced out of future upgrades too early - purchases are made expecting future potential - but there's a limit. Intel machines first appeared for sale at the beginning of 2006, and there was no secret made that the entire range would become Intel-only. However, PPC machines were still part of the main product range until the end of August of that year, so as others have said I think we should be seeing PPC support in new releases until the end of August 2009, when AppleCare agreements run out for the very last of the PPC customers.

So yes, 10.6 should have PPC support IMO - especially if, as rumoured, we're looking at primarily a stability and performance release. That would nicely tie up the PPC era for Apple, leaving them free to focus on Intel machines for 10.7 or, perhaps, 11.0?

[irun5k]

Apple has already started excluding PPC/Intel 32 bit users. Java 6 was only released for Leopard+Intel+64bit.

Loss of Power PC support will happen eventually anyway, whether it is in two years or immediately. At this point I'm not sure it is a battle worth fighting. What makes it a little worse on the Apple side is that if you stay at Leopard, a lot of software won't run when the next version is released. A lot of people always say "just don't upgrade", but if you don't, you are stuck running old unsupported versions of many apps- which is sometimes okay and sometimes not.

[SkippyThorson]

Spoken, no doubt, by someone who does not own a PPC system. Why should you be so quick to advocate that other users, most of whom have been loyal Apple customers for years, should be denied the benefits the latest OS? Why do you even care?

I still rock the last 1.33ghz iBook G4, and like most people, I would rather use the $1000 on something more practical to everyday life than upgrading a perfectly working machine. :)

[flopticalcube]

so as others have said I think we should be seeing PPC support in new releases until the end of August 2009, when AppleCare agreements run out for the very last of the PPC customers.

Except that people who purchased refurb'd PPC Macs as late as last year could still get AppleCare so you could see PPC Macs still under AppleCare as late as mid-2010.

[noodle654]

I dont see why they would just dump PPC like that. Most G5's can easily handle Leopard and run great. I still love the iBook/PB G4's. My school still has a ton of PPC computers left and they upgrade OS for every new release. I pray that they dont get rid of PPC.

[Jeffsters]

Get over it! PPC is dead and it WILL NOT be supported in 10.6. The "source" is seeing the work to support Rosetta NOTHING more. Also note that in order to test drivers etc., Apple internally has to support at least one PPC config to test Rosetta compatibility but that's all folks!

Apple will support 10.6 on Intel only. Hacking could get it to work, with issues, on PPC, but make no mistake this is an Intel release.

Given there are no "new features" it's not an issue, but since when has that stopped the Mac press from creating one! Apple has a lot of clean up work to do and a lot of PPC stuff to weed out and position the OS for the future. There is a lot of dead weight in Leopard that impacts performance and stability on Intel. THIS IS THE PURPOSE OF 10.6! To give the Intel machines an OS that is optimized for them and not dragging around a lot of PPC code.

PPC has Leopard, Intel has Snow Leopard that is nearly identical but optimized. By the time 10.7 (new features) rolls around in 2010 or so PPC will me a memory much like the 68000....some of you must remember that CPU! Anyone?

[OldTimey]

just buy a new Mac damn it....

ROTFLMAO

Never! PPC 4eva! You'll have to pry my powerbook g4 12 inch from cold dead hands.

Seriously though, what's it to you? Not everyone can afford a new mac. They are very expensive computers. Out-of-touch elitist! Don't give me the "Apple will be able to pool resources better if they drop PPC!" whiney stuff. Maybe they should drop iPhone development too! And stop making iPods, kill .Mac, delete the iTS, close their retail locations...all so they can make sure MacTel owners feel good about themselves, with an exclusive and discriminating OS!

[FF_productions]

I use a Dual Core 2.3 G5 for editing video sometimes, and it screams running Leopard, as I'm sure most G5s do. If anything, I think the G5 will be the minimum requirement for 10.6, maybe even the 1.67 ghz G4 will be the minimum.

Ok, if they don't support 10.6 for PPC, it doesn't mean that your computer will suddenly stop working for you because it feels outdated. Hell no. The G5 I use at the office should last another 5 years, because it hasn't had a change in the size of projects (no HD yet) and it has been a great workhorse since it was purchased.

[OldTimey]

Get over it! PPC is dead and it WILL NOT be supported in 10.6. The "source" is seeing the work to support Rosetta NOTHING more. Also note that in order to test drivers etc., Apple internally has to support at least one PPC config to test Rosetta compatibility but that's all folks!

Apple will support 10.6 on Intel only. Hacking could get it to work, with issues, on PPC, but make no mistake this is an Intel release.

Given there are no "new features" it's not an issue, but since when has that stopped the Mac press from creating one!
:rolleyes:

You are as clueless as anybody else. get over your inflated self.

[dukebound85]

Get over it! PPC is dead and it WILL NOT be supported in 10.6. The "source" is seeing the work to support Rosetta NOTHING more. Also note that in order to test drivers etc., Apple internally has to support at least one PPC config to test Rosetta compatibility but that's all folks!

Apple will support 10.6 on Intel only. Hacking could get it to work, with issues, on PPC, but make no mistake this is an Intel release.

Given there are no "new features" it's not an issue, but since when has that stopped the Mac press from creating one!

i love how you know this haha

it wouldnt affect me either way but my other posts explain what i think what will happen

[gnasher729]

IMO, it would have been a smart move to drop PPC support.

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.

You call it a "smart move". I call it asking for a class action, and not one run by the usual ambulance chasing lawyers, but by some rather irate customers.

Look, this is not a game played by school children, this is business. If Apple tried to tell customers that their eight core, 2.7 GHz 64 bit computer with 16 GB of RAM and 3TB hard drive that runs rings around what most posters on MacRumors can afford is not good enough for 10.6, they will have a major problem on their hands.

[SkippyThorson]

Get over it! PPC is dead and it WILL NOT be supported in 10.6. The "source" is seeing the work to support Rosetta NOTHING more. Also note that in order to test drivers etc., Apple internally has to support at least one PPC config to test Rosetta compatibility but that's all folks!

Apple will support 10.6 on Intel only. Hacking could get it to work, with issues, on PPC, but make no mistake this is an Intel release.

Given there are no "new features" it's not an issue, but since when has that stopped the Mac press from creating one! Apple has a lot of clean up work to do and a lot of PPC stuff to weed out and position the OS for the future. There is a lot of dead weight in Leopard that impacts performance and stability on Intel. THIS IS THE PURPOSE OF 10.6! To give the Intel machines an OS that is optimized for them and not dragging around a lot of PPC code.

PPC has Leopard, Intel has Snow Leopard that is nearly identical but optimized. By the time 10.7 (new features) rolls around in 2010 or so PPC will me a memory much like the 68000....some of you must remember that CPU! Anyone?


"Apple will support 10.6 on Intel only." -- Well mark my words, PPC will be supported for 10.6 no doubt, and probably 10.7 as well. There is no question about it - but from a user labeled 'newbie' with a join date of '04, I'm sure your expansive knowledge would enlighten us all on how PPC is no more and no computer on the face of this green planet uses such ancient technology.

Don't spread your opinions as fact, because the only fact remaining is that they are your own unique opinions, and no one has to or will entirely agree with anyone else. :)

The human ego just has be one of my pet peeves.

For the record, way to put off every PPC user that is now subjected to what you spew, including myself. See below.

</retort>

:rolleyes:

You are as clueless as anybody else. get over your inflated self.

[Shotgun OS]

I really don't think Apple should drop PPC support. There's still too many users out there using a PPC machine to just leave out. I use my G5 iMac as my main computer, and, even though I do own an Intel Macbook, I'd still be upset they dropped the support. There shouldn't be any reason to stop supporting machines that still have much life and power in them. Yeah, I know Intel is the new way for Apple to go, but many of us want to support our G4's and G5's. The market is still too full of PPC to just drop yet. Maybe in 4-5 years most Mac users will have an Intel machine, but not just yet.

[Doctor Q]

Saying "Yes, with some major features supported" is tempting, just to help those for whom it matters. The question is: What will we give up if Apple spends their time on this effort?

I want Apple to list for me all their internal development projects so I can give them my personal priorities. :)

[ckurowic]

Yeah...let me go find $2,000 to replace my barley over 2 year old G4....

2 year old G4? Is there a time-warp involved?? :confused:

[Sky Blue]

2 year old G4? Is there a time-warp involved?? :confused:

Could've bought an iBook in May 06. Wouldn't cost $2000 to replace though.

[gnasher729]

Maintaining the two code branches is not easy, but not so difficult as to force Apple in to a premature cut of the PPC branch. Things like SSE can be supported through unibins - there's no obvious advantage to Intel users. Although there can be a strain on independent developers maintaining two branches, which is why I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of reverse-Rosetta for Intel-native applications.

Actually, maintaining compatibility to two processors is no problem at all. The original step from PPC only to PPC + Intel, that was work. Once that is done, maintaining compatibility is no problem. It actually improves code quality. If a programmer cannot write code that runs on Intel and PPC simultaneously without problems, then you seriously don't want to hire him. That kind of programmer will _never_ manage to write 64 bit code. What _does_ cost effort is maintaining compatibility with older OS versions, and that has nothing to do with the processor.

In my current code base of about a million lines of code, there are about twenty lines that distinguish between PPC and Intel. That's it.

Think of it in fractions.
1 = install DVD
1/2 = PPC
1/2 = Intel

Compared to:

1 = install DVD
1 = Intel


I checked a random application: Address Book, because it is the first in the alphabet. Size of code (Intel + PPC): 1.1 MB. Total size: 58.2 MB. For that application, PPC code is about one percent of the total package size. Feel free to check other apps. Apple probably ships more Garageband samples size wise than it ships PowerPC code.

just my 2 cents

that 2 bridges image in the WWDC invite mean this:

10.6 will be 2 complete separate builds

there will be a PPC version and a Intel version and you can buy either one or both f you like but they won't come as one disc as 10.5 did.

So for a few percent of DVD space, Apple will be creating a support nightmare for themselves. And what will they put into a family pack? Two DVDs? Another thing you probably didn't think about: Right now you can take a Time Machine backup from a G5 and put it straight onto an Intel machine when the G5 breaks down. With your suggestion, a broken down G5 would be a nightmare.

Isn't Xcode supposed to make development of both processors much easier? I think it would be pretty bad if Apple expected other software vendors to support both platforms, but they dropped it themselves.

There is more: Software vendors would be _forced_ to support an older OS version. It is much much easier for a software vendor to convince their customers to upgrade to a new OS than to a new computer. As long as I wanted to support PPC (which is very cheap indeed) I would be forced to support 10.5 (which might be much more expensive). And it certainly would discourage me from using any 10.6 features.

[nick9191]

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

Yeah my Quad G5 Powermac is really struggling along :confused:

I think OS X still runs better on PowerPC tbh.

Oh man Intel sucks.

[kprf]

I use a Dual Core 2.3 G5 for editing video sometimes, and it screams running Leopard, as I'm sure most G5s do. If anything, I think the G5 will be the minimum requirement for 10.6, maybe even the 1.67 ghz G4 will be the minimum.

Ok, if they don't support 10.6 for PPC, it doesn't mean that your computer will suddenly stop working for you because it feels outdated. Hell no. The G5 I use at the office should last another 5 years, because it hasn't had a change in the size of projects (no HD yet) and it has been a great workhorse since it was purchased.

I will feel outdated once I will be stuck with outdated programs, updates for which will only be available for 10.6.

[Amdahl]

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

My Quad G5 feels sluggish sometimes, which is crazy because I know it's not the hardware.

I put a nice Seagate w/32MB cache in mine, and it really flies.

The people who think they are slow don't have one. The ones who think PPC code that isn't running on x86 is hurting their OS stability aren't programmers.

[Forced Perfect]

Based on what? My Power Mac G4, which is a lot more than two years old, runs Leopard just fine.



Spoken, no doubt, by someone who does not own a PPC system. Why should you be so quick to advocate that other users, most of whom have been loyal Apple customers for years, should be denied the benefits the latest OS? Why do you even care?

As someone with around 50 Macs. None of which are Intel based, I voted to drop PPC.

No, it's not just to convince the wife that I need a new Mac Pro. :P

Right now Apple is supporting 4 different CPU architectures:

32-bit PowerPC (G4)
64-bit PowerPC (G5)
32-bit x86 (original Core processors - non-Core2)
64-bit x86 (Core2/Xeon)

Totally insane. They should never have released any Macs using 32-bit Intel.

Each type adds size to applications a UB program has to have executables for both PPC and x86 (I'm not sure if you need 32 and 64-bit versions, too).

I'm sure the money they're spending on bandwidth for the inflated sizes of all programs and the OS works out to more than I make in a year. :P

I'm probably overstating it all, but I'm sure it's easier to optimize a program for a single architecture than 4.

In the end, Leopard will still run on my 400 MHz G4 long after 10.6 is out. People seem to think being left out of the newest OS breaks their computers. Would I love to run Leopard on my G3 iBook? Sure. Do I expect Apple to support it? Not a chance.

[I WAS the one]

just buy a new Mac damn it....

easy 4 U 2 Say I guess... :mad: go ahead and buy me 1 U SOAB *kidding*

[Amdahl]

I agree that they should drop PPC support soon. To whatever degree they have to maintain currently 2 codebases, dropping PPC support would make sense.
Not.

Apple said they were maintaining Intel builds since 2001 or earlier. It is NOT hard to do once you are doing it. Linux & the BSDs maintain themselves across a DOZEN architectures with sometimes just a volunteer or two keeping an architecture alive.

As everyone's aware, the thing about PPC machines, irrespective of age, is that the transition from PPC to Intel was major. It's not like changing wireless cards or memory specifications, where the amount of the code affected is considerably smaller, even in the worst case scenario.

That's what compilers are for. The amount of code that is processor specific is very limited, and it doesn't change too frequently.

[Michael CM1]

PPC owners: You're not required to upgrade to every Mac OS.

Most of the rumors about 10.6 say there isn't going to be anything major (no Time Machine, no cover flow, etc.) so it's not like you're going to be screwed out of anything. IMO one of Windows' biggest problems is Microsoft wants to support everything ever written for a Windows/DOS platform. At some point, you gotta tell people running DOS 6.0 applications that their schyte is outdated.

We're running Jaguar at work on PPC Power Mac G5 machines. The OS X apps seem to work pretty well, but the Classic stuff is full of problems. Apple went pretty far keeping support for that old crap (I hate OS 9 with a passion) and I do believe finally ditched support in Leopard. Maybe 10.6 would be too soon, but I personally wouldn't see a problem as long as they kept offering Leopard support.

But if Apple keeps it, I don't wanna hear whining in 2011 about it. By then, get a new computer folks! :)

[kprf]

PPC owners: You're not required to upgrade to every Mac OS.

Most of the rumors about 10.6 say there isn't going to be anything major (no Time Machine, no cover flow, etc.) so it's not like you're going to be screwed out of anything. IMO one of Windows' biggest problems is Microsoft wants to support everything ever written for a Windows/DOS platform. At some point, you gotta tell people running DOS 6.0 applications that their schyte is outdated.

We're running Jaguar at work on PPC Power Mac G5 machines. The OS X apps seem to work pretty well, but the Classic stuff is full of problems. Apple went pretty far keeping support for that old crap (I hate OS 9 with a passion) and I do believe finally ditched support in Leopard. Maybe 10.6 would be too soon, but I personally wouldn't see a problem as long as they kept offering Leopard support.

But if Apple keeps it, I don't wanna hear whining in 2011 about it. By then, get a new computer folks! :)

Michael, again, I will repeat like a parrot what I said before - shouldn't my 2006 Powermac G5 be new enough even for what you call a minor upgrade 10.6?

Just because it's a minor update doesn't mean that my powerful and capable G5 shouldn't have it.

[macjunkie999]

I think Apple will still support PPC for 10.6 and MAYBE 10.7 due to the fact they must still develop for PPC, considering that the iPhone is a PPC derivative (arm (Advanced RISC Machine)). Im not sure if the iPod touch and the iPod classic are PPC derivatives, if they are it would be even more logical to assume that Apple must still code Mac OS X for PPC and if they are might as well just make a full Mac OS X PPC distribution. On whether or not a PPC machine could handle 10.5 and 10.6, most definitely the MDD g4 towers would be a bit stretched without upgrades but the G5s even without any upgrades would do quite well and if you were to upgrade them then MOST definitely. If the rumor is true that Apple is focusing on optimization, performance and stability for 10.6, it would be logical to assume that if a mac can run 10.5 that, that same mac would be able to run 10.6 even better. I am reminded of 10.2 and 10.3, how 10.2 was terribly slow and unoptimized but then 10.3 came out which dramatically improved speed and performance. I no doubt that some PPC macs will have to be dropped for 10.6 as the optimizations wouldn't be enough to get 10.6 to run well on them. Even so there are still quite a few PPC macs that could run 10.6 . On a side note somewhat related to this discussion, I am throughly displeased with Apple's decision to cut CCE (Classic Compatibility Environment) on 10.6 for the PPC distribution (considering that not much if any emulation would be needed and not many more lines of code to get CCE to work with Mac OS X 10.5 . I can see why they dropped CCE on the Intel distribution as it would be quite a bit more work to get old Classic PPC and 68k applications to run on an Intel mac (requires allot more emulation and special workarounds, not to mention many more lines of code). In my opinion (which may be horribly wrong) Apple would have many more users willing to make a full switch to a new Intel mac if all there PPC applications (I would see dropping 68k classic applications as a reasonable compromise) regardless of OS X or Classic was fully supported. Obviously an all inclusive legacy support for Classic applications would be preferred. As it stands now I personally have had to move off all my Classic OS PPC applications to an iMac and all my 68k stuff to an lc575 to make the switch to 10.5 possible. I still as of yet to switch to 10.5 due to the fact that M-Audio has as of yet to release a fully supported non beta driver for my M-Audio Revolution 5.1 hardware sound card.

[Rocketman]

As someone with around 50 Macs. None of which are Intel based, I voted to drop PPC.

Right now Apple is supporting 4 different CPU architectures:

32-bit PowerPC (G4)
64-bit PowerPC (G5)
32-bit x86 (original Core processors - non-Core2)
64-bit x86 (Core2/Xeon)

Totally insane. They should never have released any Macs using 32-bit Intel.

Each type adds size to applications a UB program has to have executables for both PPC and x86 (I'm not sure if you need 32 and 64-bit versions, too).


If there are different code bases for all four then I say reduce to 64 bit only on both PPC and x86.

If 64/32 are included as a group regardless, I say support PPC for 5 years after the last PPC shipped. Applecare is obligated for 3 years and any renewal of that makes 5 reasonable.

That does not necessarily say every feature need be supported, but one wonders why Apple does not for example release an OS 9.2 compatibility upgrade for awareness of things released since then. There has to be a few relatively easy things they could do.

It appears 10.4.11 is that bridge within the OSX world to prior versions of hardware, and 10.5/10.6 is a "new era" of sorts. I for one would guess 10.7 might be the Intel only OS, but it will also include several different Intel processor types support.

Apple can't seem to escape the complexity problem. Hence the iPhone. Very unified indeed.

Rocketman

[pohl]

I've been paying close attention to this and similar threads on the subject, and I'm greatly dismayed by those who believe that the presence of PPC-supporting code, in the source of MacOS X, might somehow effect — in any way — the experience of Intel-owning Macintosh community: whether it be "bloat", or "baggage", or stability problems.

It is clear that there is some disconnect in understanding afoot here. The platform-dependent parts of MacOS X are relegated to the lowest levels of abstraction, and they exist in the form of code that is guarded by C preprocessor macros, such as

#ifdef __APPLE_ALTIVEC__
#if TARGET_CPU_X86
#if TARGET_CPU_PPC

By the time MacOS X has been compiled and placed on a DVD to ship to you, all of the code guarded by TARGET_CPU_PPC has been compiled out of the way so that the code in your x86 segment of the fat binaries is uncluttered by it, unhampered by it, unimpeded by it, and uncompromised by it.

It does not weigh your system down. It does not make your system slower than it could be. All that it does is take up a tiny fraction of disk space for the PPC segment of each fat binary, and if it really concerns you then you could get off your ass and read the man page for LIPO(1) and get on with your lives.

Seriously, people. Are you going to start bitching about #if TARGET_CPU_ARM targets that exist on the OSX iPhone branch next?

There is no way in hell that Apple is going to squander good will by dropping PPC support for machines that, in my experience, run leopard just fine if they have enough RAM.

This code that we're speaking of began life on 68030, then added suppport for SPARC, PA-RISC, and x86 — and had been ported to PPC in the NeXT labs long before their inverse-acquisition of Apple. The way that this code has been made portable is very mature and clean, and your experience does not suffer one iota from the presence of code-paths that never even make it into the binaries that you run.

Do the world a favor and get a grip & a clue. Peace out.

[twoodcc]

well this will be good news to lots of PPC users. but the end is coming

[belisle]

Right now Apple is supporting 4 different CPU architectures.... Totally insane. They should never have released any Macs using 32-bit Intel.


Right now, the NetBSD motto is "Of course it runs NetBSD" with support for 58 platforms. It's not that insane to write code that can be compiled for multiple platforms.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Michael, again, I will repeat like a parrot what I said before - shouldn't my 2006 Powermac G5 be new enough even for what you call a minor upgrade 10.6?

Just because it's a minor update doesn't mean that my powerful and capable G5 shouldn't have it.

just because it's powerful enough doesn't mean it can. There are already plenty of Intel only applications. Why? Because the code is optimized to run on intel and it takes a lot to support different architectures and that comes with the loss of optimization and disk space.

[grabberslasher]

I agree that they should drop PPC support soon. To whatever degree they have to maintain currently 2 codebases, dropping PPC support would make sense.

Not sure that would be the case, I think it's one codebase, three platforms (i386, PPC, and ARM6).

[flopticalcube]

just because it's powerful enough doesn't mean it can. There are already plenty of Intel only applications. Why? Because the code is optimized to run on intel and it takes a lot to support different architectures and that comes with the loss of optimization and disk space.
Most Intel-only apps are more to do with their uses, like Vmware Fusion, Parallels or CrossOver. NeXT had been supporting multiple architectures with little extra fuss 15 years ago. No reason it should be more difficult now.

[Fahrwahr]

Count me in for supporting machines released within the last five years with the latest version of Mac OS X. That might not be realistic if Apple decides to cut off the G4, as the iBook G4 was being sold up to the release of the MacBook in May 2006, but at the very least those who spent big bucks on the G5 towers shouldn't be left in the cold. As others have pointed out, it's about loyalty: if Apple makes it difficult for current owners to stay on the cutting edge for more than two or three years, they'll be more likely to look elsewhere.

In 2011, Apple should go completely 64-bit Intel; until then, support for 32-bit Intel and at least 64-bit PowerPC should remain.

[MacsRgr8]

I'll wade through all the posts in a minute, but I want to state one thing ASAP:

IMHO, Apple should not drop PPC support, for two reasons:

1) The latter G5's (Dual 2.7's, Quads...) are still very powerful machines, and would be crazy to not support them in a next OS. Maybe the OS requirements could be Dual (Core) G5 or higher, but Apple cannot drop the G5 this quickly.
What they can do, is limit the features. They have done that a bit in Leopard already (IIRC the video effects in iChat for example).

2) "Just in case"
I know Intel and x64 seems to be the future, and I'm sure it will be for some time.
But Steve was so clever to have an x86 version of ANY version of OS X in the closet. It sure could be a gr8 idea to keep PPC versions of > 10.5 developed...
What I mean is that development of Mac OS X could be kept alive on the PowerPC architecture, like the Power5, not just support for older types of the PPC.
It could also lead to versions of Mac OS X Server on the high-end PowerPC.

I think Steve once said: "It's good to have options".

So, if you CAN have those options, please use them.
Mac OS X Leopard is proving to be an outstanding Universal OS. Keep it up.

[akac]

It seems to me that Apple maybe made a mistake with making Leopard a Universal Binary. In Tiger, there were separate builds for Intel and PPC so they could be optimized separately. A Universal Binary Leopard probably limits their ability to do so somewhat. So Snow Tiger could come out as the Intel Build of Leopard with some improvements while Leopard will remain the PPC optimized build with Intel support maintained, but not necessarily optimized, for those Intel Macs that don't upgrade to Snow Leopard.

Universal Binary has nothing to do with optimizations. Its simply taking two binaries and putting them into one package. There are zero benefits to going to two DVDs. Zero. None. Not even imaginable ones.

Code does not care about the other architectures. Lets put it this way. If Apple was to build OS X for Intel. Then separately build it for PPC. It would be identical to them building it as a Universal Binary.

[kprf]

just because it's powerful enough doesn't mean it can. There are already plenty of Intel only applications. Why? Because the code is optimized to run on intel and it takes a lot to support different architectures and that comes with the loss of optimization and disk space.

Even if it does take a lot I still think it's worth it. Not because of "loyal PPC" users who will try to stick with PPC only because it's PPC.. but because of people like me who got what they got. If I had 8-Core Mac Pro I would be delighted but I got what I got and I'm happy.

It's a powerful, capable and stable machine. I don't think it will be fair to drop support for PPC (G5) after only one OS upgrade. At least 10.7 or 10.8..

[belisle]

There are already plenty of Intel only applications.

I've heard of only a few. A quick search found Soundbooth (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/10/why_no_powerpc.html) and the aforementioned Java SE 6. In time, it will come. John Nack pointed out (in October 2006) the same ideas as many of the posters here:

As regards Photoshop, Flash, Dreamweaver, Illustrator, etc., these apps have been tuned for PowerPC for many versions, and therefore continuing that support is a very different matter than creating support from scratch. To put the freaking out to rest: the next versions of the CS and Studio apps are being built as Universal apps, and they'll run great on PPC. Someday Apple, Adobe, and everyone else will stop supporting PPC, as they did with 68k chips, OS 9, etc.--but not anytime soon.

[CarlosG]

People do seem to have a short memory.

Development of 10.5 took a long, long time. They initially said it would be released at the end of 2006, then it was said to arrive in the spring of 2007, it was finally released in winter 2007. This was apparently because of iPhone development.

Now correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure someone thinks they know better) but don't alternate versions of Mac OS X get developed concurrently i.e., one team does 10.4 --> 10.6 while another team work on 10.3 --> 10.5. If this is true then the team that are doing 10.6 would always have planned to deliver around about this sort of time frame, with 10.5's late arrival making the gap between about 12 months.

Oc course that could all be bollocks. PPC support will stay. And we'll get new features.

[Krevnik]

It's not the 64-bit memory handling that Snow is about. It's about SSE. These chips weren't in the previous Intel chips. Snow needs the advanced SSE to utilize the core animation, core audio and Cocoa apps necessary to run the multi-touch layers better and much faster. So this isn't about 64-bit vs 32-bit memory wise.

It is a necessary evil. But like I said earlier there will be two versions of Leopard. This person probably has an alpha build with all kinds of stuff that won't be in 10.6 whether it's there now or not.

All Intel chips Apple has used support SSE3 (introduced with Prescott on the P), and SSE4.1 wasn't introduced until Penryn. SSE has nothing to do with 32-bit or 64-bit OSes, and doesn't exclude any Intel system either.

Hell, Altivec in the G4/G5 line still is comparable to SSE3 in functionality, and we have to wait until AVX/SSE5 until a lot of the nice fused ops show up on x86/x64.

Even though I have moved on and use Core 2 Duo machines, I haven't seen a really good reason why Apple would ditch PPC just yet. The hard work of the port is done and code is written in platform neutral code above the HAL. So the PPC-specific code that still needs maintaining is the HAL itself (which is a mix of headers and CPU drivers), and chipset drivers used in the G4/G5 systems that aren't used after the switch to Intel chipsets. These should have been in maintenance mode since the systems started being manufactured. This form of support is no different from supporting 2-4 year old Intel systems in the future.


Now correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure someone thinks they know better) but don't alternate versions of Mac OS X get developed concurrently i.e., one team does 10.4 --> 10.6 while another team work on 10.3 --> 10.5. If this is true then the team that are doing 10.6 would always have planned to deliver around about this sort of time frame, with 10.5's late arrival making the gap between about 12 months.

Oc course that could all be bollocks. PPC support will stay. And we'll get new features.

Sort-of. Usually what you see is a core development team that works on the next big release, but they have time budgeted to fix bugs in the old code tree (or backport fixes from the new release). Sometimes you might see a second, smaller team that takes over a big release once it RTMs and handles the majority of the post-release fixes.

The reason why the iPhone development would delay Leopard would be if this core team got partially re-assigned to help the iPhone team hit their deadlines (it does happen).

[aLoC]

I concur with those who think this will only install on 64-bit Macs (PPC and Intel). It is the equivalent of Vista 64 or XP 64. Even the Macbook and Mac Mini have 64-bit processors now.

[winterspan]

While I understand how many people have completely given up on PPC since Apple isn't producing products with PowerPC processors in it, there's still a plethora of PowerPC users that want to keep their legacy machines. I have two intel and two PowerPC machines, I don't plan on just getting rid of the PPC machines. I can use them for other purposes or give them to someone needy. *SNIP*


I've been paying close attention to this and similar threads on the subject, and I'm greatly dismayed by those who believe that the presence of PPC-supporting code, in the source of MacOS X, might somehow effect — in any way — the experience of Intel-owning Macintosh community: whether it be "bloat", or "baggage", or stability problems.

There is no reason to get rid of PPC machines, they work just fine on Leopard and Tiger. However, I don't think that means Apple should continue putting any effort into PPC when working on a NEW OS. Now I understand that maintaining basic compatibility with PPC doesn't affect the stability or "bloat" of Intel machines, and much of their current code is platform-agnostic. However, if Apple is able to drop PPC support when they are working on 10.6 for performance and stability, wouldn't they be able to optimize different parts of the operating system and their software for x86-64? And if they are spending time on maintaining PPC compatibility and the testing that is involved, that means there is less time for everything else.

[chumsdock]

Dropping Carbon instead of PPC sounds more reasonable.
OSX is a multi-platform OS, but it should be unified for development,
and independent for platforms.

[MacsRgr8]

BTW.. 10.6 being "Snow Leopard".... :rolleyes:

It doesn't feel right.
If Apple were to introduce a brand new 10.6, I'm pretty sure this new OS would get a name based one a new big and fierce cat. Yes, it is only an internal name, but so have been all past 10.x names.
Snow Leopard. Saber Tooth Tiger (could have been x86 version of 10.4.x)...

The name really does suggest an upgrade, and/or enhancement. Or maybe something else:
Check the banners @ WWDC:
No more Mac OS X Leopard, but OS X Leopard.
We're also getting OS X iPhone.

"Snow Leopard" could be the "slimmed down" version of OS X Leopard, not optimised... the OS on the, and dare I say it... future "non-Mac" OS X releases, i.e. tablets, iPhones, future iPods etc.

[Ludde]

I've been paying close attention to this and similar threads on the subject, and I'm greatly dismayed by those who believe that the presence of PPC-supporting code, in the source of MacOS X, might somehow effect — in any way — the experience of Intel-owning Macintosh community: whether it be "bloat", or "baggage", or stability problems.

It is clear that there is some disconnect in understanding afoot here. The platform-dependent parts of MacOS X are relegated to the lowest levels of abstraction, and they exist in the form of code that is guarded by C preprocessor macros, such as

#ifdef __APPLE_ALTIVEC__
#if TARGET_CPU_X86
#if TARGET_CPU_PPC

By the time MacOS X has been compiled and placed on a DVD to ship to you, all of the code guarded by TARGET_CPU_PPC has been compiled out of the way so that the code in your x86 segment of the fat binaries is uncluttered by it, unhampered by it, unimpeded by it, and uncompromised by it.

It does not weigh your system down. It does not make your system slower than it could be. All that it does is take up a tiny fraction of disk space for the PPC segment of each fat binary, and if it really concerns you then you could get off your ass and read the man page for LIPO(1) and get on with your lives.

Seriously, people. Are you going to start bitching about #if TARGET_CPU_ARM targets that exist on the OSX iPhone branch next?

There is no way in hell that Apple is going to squander good will by dropping PPC support for machines that, in my experience, run leopard just fine if they have enough RAM.

This code that we're speaking of began life on 68030, then added suppport for SPARC, PA-RISC, and x86 — and had been ported to PPC in the NeXT labs long before their inverse-acquisition of Apple. The way that this code has been made portable is very mature and clean, and your experience does not suffer one iota from the presence of code-paths that never even make it into the binaries that you run.

Do the world a favor and get a grip & a clue. Peace out.

You just gave me words to the clue that I did have, even though I don't know much about programming. Thank you.

[emulator]

if they want to advance, they must forge legacy support. that's what killed the real advancement in the windows world.

[SiliconAddict]

Good. Sorry but Apple gets too much of a free ride about dumping older OS and hardware. For all the complaints MS gets about their OS, MS's backwards support of most of their OS's is outstanding. They are still supporting Windows 2000 Pro until 2010. 10 years for an OS vs. Apple dropping support after what? Typically 3-4? Again Apple is held up to different standards. If MS behaved the same every enterprise environment in the world would converge on Redmond and go kamikaze on their sorry butts.

Personally I want to see PPC support until at least 2011-2012. 5 years MINIMUM is respectable. Anything less is a slap in the faces of those who supported Apple even after the initial announcement (6/2005) that they were moving to Intel. Apple has a metric crap ton of cash on hand. There is NO reason what so ever that they can't dip into that for co developing both Intel and PPC versions of at least the next OS if not the next 2. There are still people out there who think Apple is this lean company who is strapped for cash. They can plenty of cash to burn if needs require and in this case the need is there. Do the right thing Apple instead of doing what makes you the most money.

[commander.data]

Dropping Carbon instead of PPC sounds more reasonable.
OSX is a multi-platform OS, but it should be unified for development,
and independent for platforms.
Dropping Carbon should be the least reasonable option. Without carbon, the application selection on the Mac will look very bare. And if I'm not mistaken, a lot of the integrated OS apps are still Carbon or make use of Carbon including the Finder.

Apple can just as easily encourage developers to move to Cocoa, by developing compelling new features that are only accessible via Cocoa such as 64-bit GUI in Leopard. Perhaps they have another "Core" technology available, such as Core Touch, that will only be accessible via Cocoa. They should also lead by example by moving Finder and all other Apple apps to Cocoa first and make sure they are stable before cutting off Carbon, otherwise they are just making life difficult for themselves, much less developers and users.

[pohl]

However, if Apple is able to drop PPC support when they are working on 10.6 for performance and stability, wouldn't they be able to optimize different parts of the operating system and their software for x86-64? And if they are spending time on maintaining PPC compatibility and the testing that is involved, that means there is less time for everything else.

They need not spend any time maintaining PPC compatibility. It already exists. I would bet my first born that MacOS X is living other "secret double lives" in the labs, and that preprocessor macros for SPARC, and perhaps even Itanium, are in the source — albeit removed by whatever automated process that builds the header files that ship with Leopard.

As for optimizing, what you suggest pretty-much happens for free. All they need to do is profile on the architecture for which they want to optimize. Stripping out PPC support from the source would have no positive impact on such an effort.

[Mykbibby]

What if they sold two versions, one for PowerPC and one for Intel, and then announced that 10.7 will have no support for PowerPC?

[AdventTech67]

The PPC Architecture from the jump was a sound computing experience. With the Introduction of the Intel chip (X86), there have been various problems, from lawsuits, to certain bad decisions. I've heard of rumors of Apple looking into the AMD chip for a couple of years folks. It's all speculation folks, but who knows?

[MacBooksRock]

Apple should definitely keep with PPC support. And, they should make Snow Leopard snapier and smoother, and then it would run on those 867MHz G4s, and faster, as well as on an Intel machine... Just my thoughts.

[tomjleeds]

Except that people who purchased refurb'd PPC Macs as late as last year could still get AppleCare so you could see PPC Macs still under AppleCare as late as mid-2010.

OK, fair point, but even then that's probably not going to be within the time-frame of the next release, and thus doesn't change the situation. Plus, if you're buying a refurbished unit, you should be prepared to not get the full luxury treatment.

Don't give me the "Apple will be able to pool resources better if they drop PPC!" whiney stuff. Maybe they should drop iPhone development too! And stop making iPods, kill .Mac, delete the iTS, close their retail locations...all so they can make sure MacTel owners feel good about themselves, with an exclusive and discriminating OS!

That's just stupid. It may not have occurred to you, but iPods, .Mac, the iTS etc are all current products. Like it or not, PPC models haven't been part of the range for nearly two years - by the time 10.6 rolls around it'll be nearly three and past that it just gets ridiculous.

Don't misjudge my point, go check out my previous post in this thread if you want to see what I think on the whole situation, but comparig dropping products which make Apple hundreds of millions of dollars per year to dropping support in new products for hardware which hasn't been on the market for years is bonkers.

[TwinCities Dan]

The only people who want to keep PPC support are those who still own PPC Machines.

I say just buy a new Machines. Stop being such tight wads people and get with the times. Macs are PC's with the ability to run OSX. Thats all... and in the PC world, if you own a computer for any longer than ~2 to ~3 years, your out of date. SO get with the times.

I have owned 2 Intel Machine already... a Intel iMac Core Duo, and Now a MacBook Pro. PPC is long gone, and was dead when Apple announced that they were switching to Intel... They told us in the Summer of 05! Its already the Summer of 08! So if you still are on PPC you should be happy enough with 10.5 and keep it until your PPC dies.

I vote for 10.6 to be Intel Only.

Would you be singing the same song if 10.6 turns out to be only 64-bit and you and your iMac are outta luck? :confused: ;)

[Fahrwahr]

I concur with those who think this will only install on 64-bit Macs (PPC and Intel). It is the equivalent of Vista 64 or XP 64. Even the Macbook and Mac Mini have 64-bit processors now.
It's not about what Macs have 64-bit processors now; it's about when the most recent Macs with 32-bit processors were sold, and how long into the future it's reasonable for owners of such machines to expect to be supported by the latest version of Mac OS X. The Mac mini hasn't even been 64-bit for a year yet: it went Core 2 Duo on August 7, 2007, the same day that the iMac went aluminum and glass. I'm not arguing that Apple's processor support decisions should be based on the mini -- it's clear that the mini has not been a high priority for the company -- but history and loyalty are important for a company to have the reputation it needs to nurture and maintain growth.

[flopticalcube]

OK, fair point, but even then that's probably not going to be within the time-frame of the next release, and thus doesn't change the situation. Plus, if you're buying a refurbished unit, you should be prepared to not get the full luxury treatment.

The speculation is that 10.6 will be out by next year so its well within the time frame. I don't see why I shouldn't receive the "full luxury treatment" just because I buy a refurb. Every customer should be entitled to the same Apple experience and that includes the traditional long support of hardware.

[link92]

Now correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure someone thinks they know better) but don't alternate versions of Mac OS X get developed concurrently i.e., one team does 10.4 --> 10.6 while another team work on 10.3 --> 10.5. If this is true then the team that are doing 10.6 would always have planned to deliver around about this sort of time frame, with 10.5's late arrival making the gap between about 12 months.

That was true in the early days: 10.4 was the first release from a single monolithic team, and 10.5 and onwards will continue to be all from a single team making one release then moving on to the next. As far as I know, the same team does the maintenance too.

[King Mook Mook]

Now look I think that Apple should drop PowerPC support but I think that you are forgetting Apple was selling eMac with PowerPC processors to school's well into the end of 2006. There would be an uproar from schools if Apple just said "No upgrades for you" and walked off. It would be the equivalent of Microsoft dropping most PC's because they did not fit the high requirements of Vista.

King Mook Mook

[D*I*S_Frontman]

I remember when Apple first went to PPC with the G5. We thought "wow, way better than Motorola, and much sharper design than Intel." But Intel just kept on innovating past IBM where it really matters--speed and power.

But who is to say that Intel's great run might come to an end, or that some new design at IBM leads to some massive speed breakthrough? Shouldn't PPC support remain, if only as a "Marklar"-like back-up plan? Isn't always better to have competing vendors vying for your business?

[TwinCities Dan]

Totally insane. They should never have released any Macs using 32-bit Intel.


This is what worries me! I am getting the feeling that the 32-bit intel will be dropped BEFORE the PPC that I upgraded from! :eek:

Not saying I won't buy a new one, but that is a lil' messed up. :(

Not to mention I just dropped about another grand into upgrading the thing.

My 1.83 CD MBP had a cracked screen so I sent it in to get fixed, and since I was going without it, I had them max out the RAM to 2 GB and replace the 80 GB HD with a 320 GB. It's only 2 years old! :eek: :(

[bogg]

I remember when Apple first went to PPC with the G5. We thought "wow, way better than Motorola, and much sharper design than Intel." But Intel just kept on innovating past IBM where it really matters--speed and power.


What exactly do you mean by "first went to PPC with the G5" ?

You do know that Apple had been using PPC chips for YEARS before they started using the G5 (G3, G4 and alot of earlier chips before that).

[theidoctor]

it isnt a matter of should they drop it but more like when should they drop it...
i would give them a years notice or something like that

[TwinCities Dan]

I remember when Apple first went to PPC with the G5.

Umm...What?

Apple started using the PPC 601 in 1994.

[TheReef]

First gen G5 user here, running Leopard great. I get all the eye candy goodies excluding iChat and Photobooth background effects.
It may be 4 years old but I'm running Leopard at full speed. I feel it could last until 10.8 if they supported PPC till then (unlikely).


Even a base level 450mhz Sawtooth (+ Ati 9000 PRO) is running it.
I sure hope Apple continues the OS support for PPC, Mac's don't get old like PC's do.

[Dagless]

Yea, don't kill off support for my PowerBook just yet :o hope they keep it going.

[totoro]

I think that there are 2 possibilities with Snow Leopard if that is the name
1 Snow Leopard is the touch OS and there will be a tablet or announcement that :apple: is making displays or touchpad to use multitouch with. Leopard is already built with touch in mind. Coverflow, Stacks and Timemachine could be easily adapted for multitouch
OR
2 Snow Leopard will contain an update purely for Intels that will only boost performance on INTEL machines both 32 and 64 bit. There will be absolutely no reason that PPC users would need it.
In another 18 months after 10.6 there would be a true update to OS X. Built only for Intel.
It would be about 5 years after the last Gs were released and thee would be minimal complaints about upgrading.

[macjunkie999]

If there are different code bases for all four then I say reduce to 64 bit only on both PPC and x86.

If 64/32 are included as a group regardless, I say support PPC for 5 years after the last PPC shipped. Applecare is obligated for 3 years and any renewal of that makes 5 reasonable.

That does not necessarily say every feature need be supported, but one wonders why Apple does not for example release an OS 9.2 compatibility upgrade for awareness of things released since then. There has to be a few relatively easy things they could do.

It appears 10.4.11 is that bridge within the OSX world to prior versions of hardware, and 10.5/10.6 is a "new era" of sorts. I for one would guess 10.7 might be the Intel only OS, but it will also include several different Intel processor types support.

Apple can't seem to escape the complexity problem. Hence the iPhone. Very unified indeed.

Rocketman

for apple to drop support for 32 bit processors but at same time still support ppc would lead to an issue of older machines being support than new simply because of 64 bit , so in a sense you would have g5s being supported but new intel macs of 32 bit not being supported EVEN though they have the performance necessary to support it. so apple must support 64 bit and 32 bit on intel side and on the ppc side they dont absolutely have to support the 32 but since its not that hard to do so its really dumb and mean to the customers to drop it. I say 10.7 should drop ppc all together but 10.6 needs occur for ppc as its supposed to be a stability and performance release, apple really should have last supported be really stable.

[belisle]

What exactly do you mean by "first went to PPC with the G5" ?

You do know that Apple had been using PPC chips for YEARS before they started using the G5 (G3, G4 and alot of earlier chips before that).

Not only that, but the PowerPC was a joint effort between Apple, IBM and Motorola. It's not like they ditched Motorola. They ditched the 68k architecture.

[tomjleeds]

The speculation is that 10.6 will be out by next year so its well within the time frame. I don't see why I shouldn't receive the "full luxury treatment" just because I buy a refurb. Every customer should be entitled to the same Apple experience and that includes the traditional long support of hardware.

Did you even read my post? Yes, it's well within the time-frame for 10.6, and I've consistently said that I think it would be unwise and somewhat unfair for 10.6 to drop PPC support.

The reason you shouldn't receive the 'full luxury treatment' is two-fold. One, you make up a very small percentage of customers and two, refurb products are likely to be out-dated compared to the main product range, hence why they're sold in the refurb store rather than be salvaged and repackaged as new.

[flopticalcube]

Did you even read my post? Yes, it's well within the time-frame for 10.6, and I've consistently said that I think it would be unwise and somewhat unfair for 10.6 to drop PPC support.

The reason you shouldn't receive the 'full luxury treatment' is two-fold. One, you make up a very small percentage of customers and two, refurb products are likely to be out-dated compared to the main product range, hence why they're sold in the refurb store rather than be salvaged and repackaged as new.

Sure I read your post. You said PPC support until August 09 when the last AppleCare agreements for PPC customer run out. I said those will be mid-2010 due to refurbs. You then said "but even then that's probably not going to be within the time-frame of the next release", but it is.

I still disagree with your argument that refurb customers should be treated differently. They are not sold in the refurb store because they are more likely to be outdated, they are sold there because they have been used previously.

[macjunkie999]

At the point of 10.7 which I assume would be a features version, probably the only PPC macs that would be able to handle it would be the very late G5s so at that point I would not be surprised if Apple were to drop support for PPC right then and there. As for the AIM alliance (apple ibm motorola) which developed the PPC architecture Apple really wasnt the betrayer, it really was more of the gaming industry all jumped on PPC type processors which made Apple no longer the biggest customer therefore not tailored to in the way Apple likes, not to mention more efforts were driven towards making to game platform procs than the desktop procs which is partly why the G5 processor was not on the schedule of enhancement apple wanted. I see the switch to intel more about the benefits of virtualization ,being posix compliant (sadly but true posix compliance demands intel architechture) and being able to run linux and bsd apps without needing to recompile to ppc (much less to port if same proc type), the second rate treatment from ibm and motorola was the catalyst/excuse to do so.

[Eric5h5]

if they want to advance, they must forge legacy support. that's what killed the real advancement in the windows world.

Keeping PPC support doesn't slow advancement in any way, shape, or form. PPC isn't "legacy" anything, it's just a different CPU architecture, which is in widespread use, just not in Macs anymore. Keeping the codebase endian-clean (which is what PPC support requires, aside from Altivec stuff) is a good idea anyway, PPC or no PPC. Because you never know what CPU you might want to run OS X on next...since OS X isn't just for laptops/desktops anymore....

--Eric

[TwinCities Dan]

Keeping PPC support doesn't slow advancement in any way, shape, or form. PPC isn't "legacy" anything, it's just a different CPU architecture, which is in widespread use, just not in Macs anymore. Keeping the codebase endian-clean (which is what PPC support requires, aside from Altivec stuff) is a good idea anyway, PPC or no PPC. Because you never know what CPU you might want to run OS X on next...since OS X isn't just for laptops/desktops anymore....

--Eric

Excellent point! I was just thinking, wasn't that PA Semiconductor company that Apple snatched up recently mainly working on the PPC architecture? Perhaps Apple really wants to expand the OS X over different architecture (Not in Macs, but other future products)

[tomjleeds]

Sure I read your post. You said PPC support until August 09 when the last AppleCare agreements for PPC customer run out. I said those will be mid-2010 due to refurbs. You then said "but even then that's probably not going to be within the time-frame of the next release", but it is.

Yes, and by the next release I was referring to whatever follows 10.6, not 10.6 itself! Hence why I went on and on about how I think 10.6 should support PPC. If we're looking at mid-2009 for 10.6, we're not looking at mid-2010 for its successor.

I still disagree with your argument that refurb customers should be treated differently. They are not sold in the refurb store because they are more likely to be outdated, they are sold there because they have been used previously.

OK, poor wording on my part. However, the simple fact of the matter is that many items in the refurb store are outdated and/or no longer part of the main product range. Refurb customers are surely aware that they're less likely to get the full regal treatment...then again, maybe I'm just an optimist.

[flopticalcube]

Yes, and by the next release I was referring to whatever follows 10.6, not 10.6 itself! Hence why I went on and on about how I think 10.6 should support PPC. If we're looking at mid-2009 for 10.6, we're not looking at mid-2010 for its successor.



OK, poor wording on my part. However, the simple fact of the matter is that many items in the refurb store are outdated and/or no longer part of the main product range. Refurb customers are surely aware that they're less likely to get the full regal treatment...then again, maybe I'm just an optimist.

Ahhh! Ok, I assumed you where talking about 10.6. I completely agree and as a further point, I don't even see AppleCare as a necessary reason why Apple needs to backward support older hardware, it just seems like a reasonable timeline to me. To be honest, if they do cut PPC support short in (even early) 2010, I don't think there would be much complaining....at least not from me.

[JAYGEE]

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



Agreed. One more PPC update to make the OS stable, then after that, 10.7 should be just Intel.

[HyperZboy]

While I want PPC support and am very unhappy with Apple's current poor PPC support in 10.5, this debate sort of borders on somewhere between the senseless to the neurotic because we all know there is ONLY ONE person who will make this decision and that is Steve Jobs himself, potentially the most neurotic Mac user of all time! :D :apple:

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.

Otherwise, Steve Jobs wouldn't have been able to pull a Bill Gates named shivering rabbit out of a hat like he so enjoys doing during Keynotes like when the Intel switch was announced. :D

All in all though, the rumor really tells us nothing about future PPC support.

And one more thing... For those with last generation iMac G5s and tricked out Powermac G5s, I would think Apple would be stupid to drop PPC support so soon for ONE simple reason...

The Mother of All Class Action Lawsuits against Apple, Inc.

Sure, we'll all get just $9.75 and a couple Apple store coupons as a result, but you would surely hope that when Steve Jobs visits the zoo, he at LEAST knows NOT to feed the LAWYERS! They do bite. :D

[macjunkie999]

Ahhh! Ok, I assumed you where talking about 10.6. I completely agree and as a further point, I don't even see AppleCare as a necessary reason why Apple needs to backward support older hardware, it just seems like a reasonable timeline to me. To be honest, if they do cut PPC support short in (even early) 2010, I don't think there would be much complaining....at least not from me.

Well I think there actually might be a substantial amount of moaning and groaning mainly from the creative artist customer base, (whice just so happens to be a large portion of apples customer base)

Many of those men and women spent a ton of money to buy high end machines/clusters that were supposed to last them a good 5-10 years ie quad G5s xserve g5, if apple were to dump PPC support in 10.7 major brand creative applications would soon follow suite and drop universal binares, leaving those creative artists in the dust with a very bitter and rotten taste of apple in there mouth possibly so bad to send them running in droves back to the windows platform.

Sadly the windows platform has had far better legacy support of applications for older architectures and os variants, until the inception of vista a person could run a program all the way from the dos 1.0 era with official compatibility environment for dos applications. If I remember correctly the lowest app era that can be used in vista officially is from the windows 95 era which is still pretty darn good. You wont EVER see apple having a compatibility environment for the APPLE (6502 architechure ie //gs) line of computers in OS X (this didn't exist in the classic os either).

[AidenShaw]

With the Introduction of the Intel chip (X86), there have been various problems, from lawsuits, to certain bad decisions.

The class action lawsuit that Apple lost because OSX didn't really run right on the Bondi IMacs predated the Intel transition.

On the whole, Apple never "does the right thing" until they lose a lawsuit - and it's been that way for a long time.

[HyperZboy]

If I remember correctly the lowest app era that can be used in vista officially is from the windows 95 era which is still pretty darn good. You wont EVER see apple having a compatibility environment for the APPLE (6502 architechure ie //gs) line of computers in OS X (this didn't exist in the classic os either).

I owned several Macs with a 6502 Apple ][e Compatibility card and 1 Mac with a Pentium PC Compatibility card. So Apple has historically supported older Apple machines and even Windows as best they could during big transitions.

Some of those decisions were made when Steve Jobs was NOT at Apple however, so who knows.

OH, I should mention, some of these Macs and Compatibility cards are actually STILL functional and to some extent can even get on the internet, albeit quite slowly.

I really need to clean out my attic though! LOL

[FightTheFuture]

i'll have to agree at some level that Apple should drop PPC support for 10.6. but only with a featureless 10.6. if they could continue support for both 10.5 & 10.6 by the time 10.7 comes around, then that would make the October 2005 G5s almost 5 years old and PPC owners won't be missing out on any new features. the same people who bought those machines for the speed of the hardware would definitely be willing to upgrade by then. just an idea.

sure it seems odd to support 10.5 while supporting 10.6. but dropping support on machines that will be only 3 and a half years old while Tiger ran on G3s and iTunes 7 runs on Panther is even more odd.

[Bregalad]

I agree that they should drop PPC support soon. To whatever degree they have to maintain currently 2 codebases, dropping PPC support would make sense.

As everyone's aware, the thing about PPC machines, irrespective of age, is that the transition from PPC to Intel was major. It's not like changing wireless cards or memory specifications, where the amount of the code affected is considerably smaller, even in the worst case scenario.

And no one needs further reminder also that a new OS doesn't somehow automatically break old OSes running FINE on older hardware.

While I certainly believe dropping PPC now would simplify matters greatly for Apple I have two serious reservations.

1. Leopard doesn't run FINE, as you put it, on any hardware right now. Not only does wireless networking remain an open sore, it does thoroughly unsafe things that should immediately disqualify it from being called Unix. Try reading the blogs at Rixstep for comment from people much more knowledgeable than me in that area.

2. Dropping support for 3 year old hardware is the kind of thing that will prevent Apple from gaining any traction in the enterprise. Right now I feel they have an opportunity to make major inroads into the corporate world. Telling the world's IT departments and CIOs that they have to replace all their hardware every 3 years will prevent Apple from ever being taken seriously.

Let's make the last release for PPC a good one. Then we can all rejoice when SJ announces that 10.7 will be pure Intel.

[Stridder44]

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

With Leopard certainly not, but with 10.6 yes.

[Eriamjh1138@DAN]

My comments:
Apple typically supports machines for about 5 years. That hasn't changed in MANY years. Tiger actually worked on 7 year-old Pismos until Leopard finally came out.

Apple slammed M$ for having multiple versions of Vista. It will NOT do the same thing with OSX. :mad: There will NOT be an Intel-only version for another few years.

Apple claimed that supporting PPC was just a click away in XCode. It's not a huge burden to support them for another few years. You are using the dropping of PPC argument that PC SW writers have used for years not to support the Mac: small market share.

My 2-year-old CD iMac runs very well. It out performs an equivalent G5 PPC. It also runs everything very well. I do not need a new machine just to get 64-bit any more than a 2GHz G5 owner needs to.

There's a great article on Cult-of-Mac (http://cultofmac.com/wwdc-flashback-why-its-taken-10-years-from-carbon-to-snow-leopard/2046#more-2046) about Jobs seemingly deliberate slow transition of OSX to the revolution it is. Snow Leopard is not going to be what the unsubstantiated rumors are claiming. It doesn't fit.

[commander.data]

I'm kind of curious where all this talk of 3 years of support and/or AppleCare comes into OS decisions. I don't think there are any statements in the warranty, OS X license agreement or AppleCare support that guarantees that the computer must be supported by any OS released in that period.

In any case, in terms of PPC support, even with a 3 year window, by January 2009, it'll really only be some PowerMac G5 owners that could complain, since the Mac Pro was the last to be launched. If x86 support is dropped than I suppose they would fit into the 3 year window as well.

However, this is all assuming that 10.6 replaces 10.5. The point I think is that it may not be the case. Based on the name Snow Leopard, I really think that 10.6 will supplement 10.5 rather than replace it. So unlike Leopard and Tiger where Tiger stop receiving 10.4.x updates when Leopard was released, both Leopard and Snow Leopard will continue to be sold alongside each other and Leopard will continue to receive 10.5.x updates. Both 10.5 and 10.6 will then be replaced by 10.7 together.

This way, whether 10.6 is Intel only, 64-bit PPC and Intel only, or 64-bit Intel only, it doesn't really matter to unsupported computers since 10.5 will still be marketed, sold, and supported. The question then is whether 10.6 will cost something over 10.5.

EDIT: In terms of Steve Job's statements on the Vista multiple version thing, I don't believe that this is the same thing. Vista is the same operating system with different features and the point is that they charge different amounts for them. If 10.5 and 10.6 are shipped side-by-side, they would have the same price point. Existing 10.5 owners could probably then trade up to 10.6 for free, like the 10.0-10.1 transition. Only new 10.6 buyers, who didn't have 10.5 before would have to pay.

[jragosta]

If they drop PPC support, what am I going to do with my PowerBook G5?

[commander.data]

If they drop PPC support, what am I going to do with my PowerBook G5?
Convince someone inside Apple to leak you a copy of their internal PPC builds?

[jragosta]

Now look I think that Apple should drop PowerPC support but I think that you are forgetting Apple was selling eMac with PowerPC processors to school's well into the end of 2006. There would be an uproar from schools if Apple just said "No upgrades for you" and walked off. It would be the equivalent of Microsoft dropping most PC's because they did not fit the high requirements of Vista.

King Mook Mook

How many schools regularly update their OSs? Probably not very many.

That's the key issue. How many PPC users would pay to buy 10.6? Especially considering the rumors that 10.6 wouldn't have many new features but would essentially be a streamlining effort.

Under that scenario, I wouldn't expect many PPC users to bother. And I would expect the price to be lower than $129.

But it's all just guesswork at this point.

[shigzeo]

i am also a ppc user: but i find tiger to be fine and no reason to upgrade to leapard and certainly to snow leapard on the g4. really, ppc users should not slow down progress in the os just for continuing to support legacy hardware.

[Kinsella217]

Speaking only for myself, please note that in my contribution, I specifically declared my philosophical issue with the timing in relationship to AppleCare. It was never my assertion that Apple explicitly or implicitly assured users otherwise.

"In any case, in terms of PPC support, even with a 3 year window, by January 2009, it'll really only be some PowerMac G5 owners that could complain, since the Mac Pro was the last to be replaced."

Actually, in very few cases would anyone's three year window expire in January of 2009. The iMac and MacBook Pro were announced at January's MacWorld Expo, but most did not ship until February. That nit-pick aside, of course the MacBook wasn't introduced until May and as you mentioned, the Mac Pro followed late that summer. The xServe, to be thorough, didn't ship until November.

Now this is all a matter of timing. We certainly don't -know- anything (as I write this, it's Sunday night) about 10.6, it's release date, or virtually anything at all.

My point is only a matter of opinion... Apple doesn't -owe- me compatibility contractually... I just believe that, as a matter of good business, they should afford me the ability to upgrade what I still feel is a "new" computer, even if that term is purely subjective.

[BlakTornado]

There are no PowerPC Macs in my house, so I could care less about it.

Would be nice for PowerPC users, but I'm not gonna complain if they drop it.

[rhett7660]

I know I would be mad if I was a PPC user and the next update didn't support what I was using, but my question is, at what point do you stop supporting the PPC platform? This is a serious question.....

I do think apple should get there act together and make a product that is reliable. If we are still seeing threads with people complaining about loss of wifi or wifi drops etc... they need to step up and fix this problem before moving on.

[Cassie]

I see it happening like this.

10.5 dropped G3

10.6 will drop G4

and 10.7 will eliminate all PPC code.

Does that make you guys happy?:rolleyes:

[Stella]

The screams of 'drop PPC' are too early. G5s are still very capable machines and should be supported for several more years to come.

There are still too many PPC machines for Apple to drop. Apple would be facing a publicity nightmare.

Support may be dropped in 10.7.... more like 10.8.

[belisle]

I'm kind of curious where all this talk of 3 years of support and/or AppleCare comes into OS decisions. I don't think there are any statements in the warranty, OS X license agreement or AppleCare support that guarantees that the computer must be supported by any OS released in that period.

Where does it come in? Common sense. Apple has never dropped OS support for a major (any?) piece of Mac hardware this soon. Doing it while the machine is still under warranty takes a level of gall that only Steve Jobs would attempt. After all, "This is life in the technology lane."

That said, I'd take a few-hundred-dollar credit to the Apple Store as compensation if I were a G5 owner.

[tbohlsennswssrg]

In my honest opinion dropping PPC support in 10.6 is influenced by the following factors:

a) When they release it
b) How many more features
c) People's Budgets to buy new intel Macs (Cost)
d) Stability in this new Operating System

ALL of the above

[mr.steevo]

If they drop PPC support, what am I going to do with my PowerBook G5?

I thought those weren't coming out until next Tuesday.

s.

:rolleyes:

[ltldrummerboy]

OK, lets assume that 10.6 changes all the Apple apps to Cocoa (Finder, etc.) and drops PPC support. Let's also assume that it's basically an optimized Intel-only Leopard. If apps created in "Snow Leopard" will still run on PPC Leopard, would all you iBook and Power Mac users out there have a problem with not having it? It's not like they'd be adding Core Animation or anything groundbreaking. Snow Leopard is Intel-only wicked-fast optimized OS X. Weigh in.

[kenaustus]

My little reality check:

Apple maintained an Intel version of OS X from 10.0 so it would be a bit queer that they can't keep PPC versions going for the 5 years Steve J mentioned.

PPC users were pretty good to Apple in the area of buying the new OS X new cats when they came out. At $129 a pop this loyalty brought in a fair chunk of change to Apple - especially considering the cost of goods sold per OS X box. I don't think that Apple will be willing to give up THAT revenue for a while yet.

Looking at the PPC base and their upgrade patterns (which Apple will know very well) I would find it hard to believe that PPC OS X upgrade revenues don't pay for the costs of maintaining PPC as part of OS X. Those revenues probably pay that cost many times over.

Leaving PPC users hanging and angry would be bad karma, which Steve J would probably like to avoid after the Vista screw up.

I can see Apple adding Intel only features in a limited manner, but believe that they will still have some form of Snow Leopard to sell to PPC users. That's good for cash inflow, profits and karma.

Good for me too. :)

[koobcamuk]

There are no PowerPC Macs in my house, so I could care less about it.

Would be nice for PowerPC users, but I'm not gonna complain if they drop it.

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.

[Amdahl]

OK, lets assume...Snow Leopard is Intel-only wicked-fast optimized OS X. Weigh in.

Sounds like you should get it for free. 10.5.4.

[Will_reed]

Well for the time being I only have a Powerbook G4 so if they just decided to drop PPC I wouldn't be very thrilled.

[commander.data]

Where does it come in? Common sense. Apple has never dropped OS support for a major (any?) piece of Mac hardware this soon. Doing it while the machine is still under warranty takes a level of gall that only Steve Jobs would attempt. After all, "This is life in the technology lane."

That said, I'd take a few-hundred-dollar credit to the Apple Store as compensation if I were a G5 owner.
It's not like it's never happened before. The last time that I can find that there was were short support periods were ironically in another architectural transition, albeit smaller, between the PowerPC 603e/604e and the G3.

For example, the Twentieth Anniversary Macintosh was sold until March 1998, yet did not support OS X 10.0 when it was released in March 2001, so the last buyers had exactly a 3 year period. It didn't receive support to the end of the Mac OS line either since it only supported up to OS 9.1 and not OS 9.2 released on July 2001. Admittedly, the Anniversary Mac was kind of a novelty, but it was priced as high as $10,000 USD, so you'd think they would get better support.

An area that you'd think would get good support would be servers. Yet the Workgroup Server 9650 was sold until February 1998, and it didn't support the Mac OS X Server 1.0 aka Rhapsody released just a year later in March 1999. It also didn't support OS X 10.0. Admittedly, OS 8.6 was actually released after Rhapsody, so the 9650 could be said to still be supported, but being only a year old, you'd think it would be able to run Apple's next-gen server OS in Rhapsody, but it couldn't. Neither did it support Mac OS to the end either, being limited to OS 9.1.

So when faced with a CPU architectural transition, Apple has cut support short, even having as little as 1 year's grace, in the case of servers and Rhapsody. I'm not saying I like it, but it could happen since it has happened before.

[Jeffsters]

"Apple will support 10.6 on Intel only." -- Well mark my words, PPC will be supported for 10.6 no doubt, and probably 10.7 as well. There is no question about it - but from a user labeled 'newbie' with a join date of '04, I'm sure your expansive knowledge would enlighten us all on how PPC is no more and no computer on the face of this green planet uses such ancient technology.

Don't spread your opinions as fact, because the only fact remaining is that they are your own unique opinions, and no one has to or will entirely agree with anyone else. :)

The human ego just has be one of my pet peeves.

For the record, way to put off every PPC user that is now subjected to what you spew, including myself.



LOL....I'll check in here tonight and look for your apology.

I know what I am talking about...here's another tid bit for ya! Layers and Slices...doesn't mean anything now but will after tomorrow, if you're a developer anyway. ;-)

And for the record I have my fair share of PPC machines....only difference between you and I is I understand the implications and the real impact not FUD or ignorance.

[chrismcdowell25]

I would think Apple is for sure going to support PPC. They have been all about universal binaries lately. OS X will run on multiple platforms at the kernel level for sure. The iPhone runs an ARM processor which I believe is very similar to PPC architecture. There are still PPC processor developments coming out such as the cell chip and Power 5 processors. I don't really think Apple is going to switch back to PPC but I am sure their code base is still going to be portable to multiple platforms for a considerable time longer. At least so that they have options in the future and do not have to play catch up. They need to be able to run OS X on their mobile platform which at this time is not an x86 device. I think it would therefore not be too much of a problem for them to keep PPC support for a short while more since their API's and kernel will be running on multiple hardware platforms anyways. I think major developers will start dropping PPC before Apple such as Adobe with their next rewrite of their CS line and when the demand for PPC application support has died off a bit then Apple will cut their ties for their OS releases but still keep internal builds portable. PPC is still a very large portion of their business and their developers business. That is a lot of money to leave on the table at this time and I don't think that is money they would be happy to leave behind. I think there is allot more optimization that Apple can do to their code to gain speed improvements on both PPC and x86 that would not have as much of an impact on their business.

[Jeffsters]

Dropping Carbon instead of PPC sounds more reasonable.
OSX is a multi-platform OS, but it should be unified for development,
and independent for platforms.

Drop Carbon? Ok...bye Office? Bye Adobe Creative Suite? Yeah, and while they're at it let's drop Rosetta too!

[evilgEEk]

Couldn't care less!

Ha! That is a huge pet peeve of mine. It's couldn't, people! :)

I think all this discussion is moot because there is no way Apple will drop PPC support in 10.6. If they do then I'll eat my socks, but I just don't think it will happen.

I only have one PPC left in the house, but it could definitely handle 10.6. I'm only running Tiger on it right now because I haven't forked out for Leopard just yet (Father's Day ;) ).

My dual G5 is a great machine, even if it is three years old and needs a new superdrive. :D

[Jeffsters]

I would think Apple is for sure going to support PPC. They have been all about universal binaries lately....PPC is still a very large portion of their business and their developers business. That is a lot of money to leave on the table at this time and I don't think that is money they would be happy to leave behind. I think there is allot more optimization that Apple can do to their code to gain speed improvements on both PPC and x86 that would not have as much of an impact on their business.

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...

[Jeffsters]

I think all this discussion is moot because there is no way Apple will drop PPC support in 10.6. If they do then I'll eat my socks...


Looking forward to pics tomorrow!

Nite!

[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...

If they were to drop support for PPC on the desktop and laptops they would still have to support the iPhone. The iPhone is not an x86 device and they are still going to have to make all their base code and API's portable to other architectures since the iPhone runs the full OS X. I think Apple would be smart to keep their API's portable to other platforms because of the options that could present themselves in the future. Graphic accelerated code like nvidia's CUDA are technologies where platform portable code would be a great option to be able to support. From what I have heard OS X is built on layers of their technologies. Core Audio, Video, Animation, Cocoa, Carbon, Aqua... All of these API's have to be portable to other platforms to work with the product apple sells today. the iPhone is not x86 and portable code will have to be supported in the future as the iPhone does use these technologies. If they are supporting code on multiple platforms I do not see why they would drop support for PPC as it is still a capable and possibly future option platform. (Cell and future Power PC chips are being created for the future and im sure apple would not abandon those options.) Their code will run on more than just Intel until the iPhone and everything they sell that runs OS X is x86 and they decide to deadlock themselves into one platform. Until then their API's and code will have to be portable.

[macjunkie999]

I owned several Macs with a 6502 Apple ][e Compatibility card and 1 Mac with a Pentium PC Compatibility card. So Apple has historically supported older Apple machines and even Windows as best they could during big transitions.

Some of those decisions were made when Steve Jobs was NOT at Apple however, so who knows.

OH, I should mention, some of these Macs and Compatibility cards are actually STILL functional and to some extent can even get on the internet, albeit quite slowly.

I really need to clean out my attic though! LOL

I TOTALLY forgot about that neat card but even so that was when apple was experimenting with the possibility of hardware assisted multi-platform emulation, such as the dos compatibility card. As for steve jobs, he is of the mindset NO LEGACY QUICK FAST CUT, upgrades are a bug ect ect. (first imac dumping all old ports and floppy (yes i know internally adb existed but it was not official)

[belisle]

I'm not saying I like it, but it could happen since it has happened before.

I stand corrected. I could argue over the meaning of "major" or suggest that "mainstream" is the correct word, but I'll just admit that it has happened before. I'm fine with a life cycle of "exactly three years", since I was agreeing with others who went at it from the 3-year AppleCare angle.

However, to do a little nitpicking, the Workgroup Server 9650 was supported to Mac OS 9.1, no? So both examples were exactly 3 years, even though the server didn't get Mac OS X. AppleShare IP's last version included Mac OS 9. I don't count Mac OS X Server 1.0 as a real release, since it was effectively the precursor to Mac OS X Public Beta. (Did anybody use it for production?)

Wasn't 9.2 basically an update that consisted primarily of Classic bug fixes? If so, it doesn't concern me that a machine that can't run Mac OS X wasn't included in it. But you could probably make a case that Snow Leopard is like 9.1->9.2.

The thing about Mac OS 9 -> Mac OS X is that it was a totally different code base. That's not looking to be the case here with 10.5->10.6. Unless Steve has some compelling explanation if he announces EOL for PPC support before August 2009, I won't be convinced. ("We don't value our high-end customers who waited so long while we saved the Mac Pro for last" will be all I'll hear.)

[belisle]

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.

By and large, "total rewrite" for multiple architectures is false. The vast majority of the code is already written.


4. Apple has to not only support the OS on two CPUs but also all the developer tools, code, documentation etc. ...
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?


You talk like you have a vested interest in dropping PPC support. Why? If there are no new features and it's just a bug-fix/optimization release, then they could release 10.6 including PPC support, do nothing to help the PPCs along over 10.5, and nobody would notice.

[macjunkie999]

Well in a perfect world Apple would allow the users to decide when PPC support should be dropped. This could be done simply by Apple watching the user base of various oses until such drops to less than 10% of the total user base.

[knightlie]

Fact of the matter is you don't NEED to run 10.6, you only want. There's a big difference between a want and a need. You may WANT a big nice house, a fast shiny car, a trip to some exotic land, but you don't NEED those things. You need to eat, have a roof over your head, and have a Mac, clearly you already have those, everything else is purely wants, not required things.

Yeah, and when people come on here saying they only have 10.5 and can't run such-and-such an app, you'll be the first to tell them they're living in the past. I would guess that you are Intel-only, in which case supporting PPC does NOT affect you, or any other Intel-Mac owner, in the slightest.

Dumping two-year-old machines is far too early, especially when those machines are perfectly capable of running Leopard (as reported in this thread). I have a 1st Gen Intel iMac which is 32-bit - should Apple drop support for me after 18 months just to switch to 64-bit?

But then again, I think every 10.6 rumour we've heard is total BS, including dropping PPC support.

[theappleguy]

But then again, I think every 10.6 rumour we've heard is total BS, including dropping PPC support.This report (http://www.maccrazy.net/2008/06/08/wwdc-what-we-know-so-far/) suggests that you might be correct: Only minor updates at WWDC that will be compatible with PPC Macs (though it doesn't make any comment on whether 10.6 will be Intel only when it does come out).

[RatGeek]

I haven't upgraded any of my PPC machines to Leopard - although I may upgrade the PB G4, which my partner uses.

That would be it though, if "Snow Leopard" is Intel only, so be it. I rather it be optimised for my Intel machines.

Why not release a big PPC update for Leopard at the same time, with the security features?

[gnasher729]

I see it happening like this.

10.5 dropped G3

10.6 will drop G4

and 10.7 will eliminate all PPC code.

Does that make you guys happy?:rolleyes:

It doesn't make sense. Dropping G3 gave certain advantages: With G3 gone, all supported PowerPC processors have Altivec available, so Apple can do certain optimizations without having to maintain alternative code in case the processor has no Altivec. Dropping G4 support doesn't gain anything. Any 32 bit code that runs on a G5 runs just as fine on a G4.

The truth is that there are quite a few people posting here who don't have the slightest clue about software development who don't understand the (positive) implications of being forced to write portable software. The cost of maintaining PowerPC compatibility is probably not zero, but actually negative. And I think Steve Jobs plans that MacOS X will be here longer than Intel x86.

[matthutch]

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

Umm.... my Rev. A Dual 2Ghz G5 is handling Leopard without a problem at all...

[psychofreak]

The reason I see 10.6 dropping PPC is that it looks like it may be a multi-touch OS.

Even if its not, the only PPC Macs that are able to run Leopard really really smoothly (and therefore will run 10.6 pretty well) are the G5s, and to be honest, they make up quite a small proportion of the OSX userbase; only the iMacs and PMs went G5.

[FightTheFuture]

Umm.... my Rev. A Dual 2Ghz G5 is handling Leopard without a problem at all...10.5 is running well with a Rev. A dual 1.8Ghz G5 here too. i can't imagine that it wouldn't run well on a G5. perhaps 10.6 will simply phase out the PPC G4s but will still utilize the 64bit G5s.

[takao]

And I think Steve Jobs plans that MacOS X will be here longer than Intel x86.

ironically x86 has it's 30th birthday today despite being called dead already 20 years ago ;)

x86 still has enough years (very likely decades) ahead of itself ... and no platform is close in replacing it on the desktop .. especially with the current intel roadmap

[28monkeys]

..hmm, i don't care..becoz my next laptop will be an apple's. But again i do have sympathy for those who still own G4 and G5 though.

however, if u are saying that u cannot afford the modern mac models, then u are being ridiculously fake. People who owns a mac are usually have good education and probably a good job too Seriously, im not being prototyping, but i feel it's true. So u should consider changing your job now lol :apple:

[tomjleeds]

Ahhh! Ok, I assumed you where talking about 10.6. I completely agree and as a further point, I don't even see AppleCare as a necessary reason why Apple needs to backward support older hardware, it just seems like a reasonable timeline to me. To be honest, if they do cut PPC support short in (even early) 2010, I don't think there would be much complaining....at least not from me.

Wahey :)

I'm kind of curious where all this talk of 3 years of support and/or AppleCare comes into OS decisions. I don't think there are any statements in the warranty, OS X license agreement or AppleCare support that guarantees that the computer must be supported by any OS released in that period.

I certainly haven't been using the AppleCare argument based on any contractual requirement, and I doubt others have, it's simply because 3 years is a nice amount of time and supporting hardware in new releases until the end of its extended warranty seems like a decent way to go.

[BlackDan]

if it is more a performance and stability improvement rather than a matter of new features, I don't see why it couldn't run better than 10.5 on PPC. In which case it would be an incentive for customers with older machines to pay for the upgrade, rather than sit it out and wait for their machine to break down and get replaced. Apple sells it's OS (again), the customer gets more life from his 3-4 year-"old" machine, everybody's happy?

Also, why did Apple just recently buy a company specialized in designing PPC-cpu's if they're about to drop all support? Apple - obviously - still sees potential for the PPC in the future. Low power mobile platforms perhaps?

P.S.: I like the new codename :cool:

[Riemann Zeta]

Why should they drop PPC support if it is basically free for them? That is, they obviously have optimized compilers (GCC4) that target both PPC and x86 machines, so why not just click an extra check box? Obviously, they aren't going to support PPC machines themselves, with new firmware updates and the like, but the OS is already multi-platform. It makes little sense to spend the extra time specifically ensuring that OS X is only single-platform from here on out.

That said, I'm sure all of their time, compiler-wise, will be spent optimizing for the x86/SSE platform, so PPC owners aren't likely to see too many speed boosts in whatever 10.6 becomes.

As for the eventual death of x86: I think we've seen that x86 is pretty much un-killable in the computer industry. It may not be the most efficient architecture possible in theory, but it is here to stay and people have done some amazing things with it (now with SSE/2/3/4/5/6 and AMDx86-64). Even Intel thought they could replace x86 with IA-64; but 8 years later, x86-64 is alive with an ever increasing market and Itanium is as dead as a bag of rocks. I feel that some derivative of x86 will still be around when I am an old fussy greybeard.

[madmax_2069]

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


My Digital Audio handles Leopard just about as well as it does Tiger. i dont see the system straining to run it or to be useful.

[AidenShaw]

Why should they drop PPC support if it is basically free for them?

It's a lot more than a "check box" - the PPC code has to be tested across the range of supported hardware, tech support has to be trained on PPC issues, bug fixes have to be made and tested on both platforms, performance optimizations need to be done on both (SSE/AltiVec) ....

There's also the cost of fat binaries - cost in disk space (if you had an MBA with the solid state disk you'd really be aware of this), network bandwidth for updates, more testing.

When Apple drops PPC/x86 support completely (I'd bet on 10.7 for this, not 10.6) you can be assured that they'll still do the development builds to keep the code multi-platform clean and to have a backup strategy. Just like the OSX Intel was being built for years with few people knowing about it, hidden builds of PPC will continue after the support is removed from the released system.

[supremedesigner]

IMO, it would have been a smart move to drop PPC support.

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.





:apple:Vote NO on PPC support for 10.6!!!:apple:

Let me think... oh yeah I remembered.. when apple announced that they are moving to intel, everyone, including MR, whined about it "why intel? they are dark force" and now you guys want to drop PPC that you guys once beloved? :P haha I find this hilarious. :D

[supremedesigner]

Umm.... my Rev. A Dual 2Ghz G5 is handling Leopard without a problem at all...

Same here, my G4 dual 1.42 powermac does handle Leopard as well, pretty smoothly and no sluggy at all. I already maxed out the 2GB of ram when I first bought it (not from apple.. just crucial.com)

[supremedesigner]

..hmm, i don't care..becoz my next laptop will be an apple's. But again i do have sympathy for those who still own G4 and G5 though.

however, if u are saying that u cannot afford the modern mac models, then u are being ridiculously fake. People who owns a mac are usually have good education and probably a good job too Seriously, im not being prototyping, but i feel it's true. So u should consider changing your job now lol :apple:

I assumed that the guy you are referring to is probably working at mcDeath or even worse- Walmart. haha

[heisetax]

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

Apple needs to get their current OS 10.5.3 to run in a somewhat stable manner. My copy will only run for over 10-15 minutes at the Apple store connected to 1 15" VGA display. My current version of Mac OS 10.5.3 that is connected to my Intel Mac Pro has only the included in the OS install plus Kensington MouseWorks & MS Office 2004. That is it. Any attempt to add any additional software freezes the system, when at home.

I have 10.5.3 running on my PPC 17" PowerBook. The OS is doing a little better on the PPC than it is on my Intel Mac, but not much better. I haven't been able to do any useful work on my PPC Mac just as I haven't been able to any useful work on my Intel Mac. But at least the PPC Mac doesn't freeze every 1-15 minutes.

Mac OS 10.5 has ended support for my Macs. I'd like to see Mac OS 10.6 add back support for both my PPC & Intel Macs. At the present time I know my people that own PPC Macs than those that own Intel Macs. I'm sure that a few of those would eventually like to change to a newer operating system. I no longer will use the term "upgrade" when discussing OS 10.5 or 10.6 when comparing it to OS 10.3 or 10.4. To me upgrade means that one is changing to a better system. OS upgrades need to work on both PPC Macs & Intel Macs alike. This insures that the maximum number of Macs can use any new software that becomes available. This would give a larger market to help develop more Mac software developers More software never hurts anything.

Your idea of barely working & my idea of barely working make or may not be different, but I don't think that se should be the ones alone to determine whether the new Mac OS would include real support for both the PPC & intel Macs or not. That is a question that should be allowed to be answered by the whole Mac User base. In reality that decision will be made by Apple. With Steve Jobs history of killing support for an old technology when a new technology comes out makes me surprised to see that there was support fot the PPC Mac in Mac OS 10.5.

The PPC Mac still does a lot of useful work & will for a long time to come. It would be nice is those many Mac Users could be the ones to determine whether they want a new OS for their computers.

Bill the TaxMan

[Gasu E.]

Fact of the matter is you don't NEED to run 10.6, you only want.

I just bought an epson desktop printer to replace an older printer that just broke down. The new drivers do not support any OS below 10.4.

Next year's print drivers may not support anything below 10.5.

The 2010 print drivers may require 10.6.

Peripherals and software stop becoming available to you as your system ages. Sure, the hardware may matter, but OS obsolescence matters even more-- and is avoidable.

I have made a considerable investment in my dual G5 machine, with an eye toward a long useful lifetime. I'd like to see some consideration from Apple toward protecting that investment, as they have done in the past. It is a rather too large and overly equipped hunk of machine to be relegated to net-surfing. Apple has generally been protective of their high-end (and high margin!) machines in the past; if they are changing their philosophy toward short usable lifetimes I am going to have to change my buying patterns toward buying cheaper, low-margin machines more frequently. More waste, and less profit for Apple.

[heisetax]

IMO, it would have been a smart move to drop PPC support.

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.

:apple:Vote NO on PPC support for 10.6!!!:apple:

Does that really mean Progress or does that really just mean change.

Bill the TaxMan

[Gasu E.]

There's also the cost of fat binaries - cost in disk space (if you had an MBA with the solid state disk you'd really be aware of this).

You are saying they should drop support for G5s a year early in order to save 200MB on solid state disk MBAs?

I'll bet you there are 3 orders of magnitude more users with G5s than there are with SSD MBAs. If Apple thought this way (and I'm sure they don't) they would deserve to lose share.

I know you gave more reasons, and I took this out of context; but I just had to blow this duck out of the water.

[Gasu E.]

My little reality check:

Apple maintained an Intel version of OS X from 10.0 so it would be a bit queer that they can't keep PPC versions going for the 5 years Steve J mentioned.

PPC users were pretty good to Apple in the area of buying the new OS X new cats when they came out. At $129 a pop this loyalty brought in a fair chunk of change to Apple - especially considering the cost of goods sold per OS X box. I don't think that Apple will be willing to give up THAT revenue for a while yet.

Looking at the PPC base and their upgrade patterns (which Apple will know very well) I would find it hard to believe that PPC OS X upgrade revenues don't pay for the costs of maintaining PPC as part of OS X. Those revenues probably pay that cost many times over.

Leaving PPC users hanging and angry would be bad karma, which Steve J would probably like to avoid after the Vista screw up.

I can see Apple adding Intel only features in a limited manner, but believe that they will still have some form of Snow Leopard to sell to PPC users. That's good for cash inflow, profits and karma.

Good for me too. :)

You logic is spot-on. I could live with some fantabulous new feature being Intel-only, but the basic core functions in OS 10.6 will need to support PPC.

[Mr Maui]

just buy a new Mac damn it....

Did they introduce a NEW MacDamnIt?

[BlackDan]

Just to make sure everyone understands: dropping PPC will not improve performance for x86. It will just take up less space. Not even that much. try trimthefat or xslimmer and you'll see.

What will impact performance is better code. Think Spotlight on Tiger vs Spotlight on Leopard. Newer and/or better algorithms can have a major impact.

[OldTimey]

That's just stupid. It may not have occurred to you, but iPods, .Mac, the iTS etc are all current products. Like it or not, PPC models haven't been part of the range for nearly two years - by the time 10.6 rolls around it'll be nearly three and past that it just gets ridiculous.


spoken like an out of touch elitist...

whatever happened to mac users being a "community?" While APL's growth is fantastic for stockholders, some new mac users are slightly annoying because they spent most of their computing life up to this point on Windoze machines.

PPC vs. Intel, iPhone as a status symbol...makes me want to vomit. i just want to get work done on my fully loaded and terribly expensive G5. I've never run out of power for what I use it for, and refuse to upgrade until that happens. (because I cannot afford to) As a loyal Mac user, I expect OS's to be made available for my Mac until it is no longer feasible performance-wise. This is the way they have usually done things, and I don't expect that to change, despite what new Mac owners think or want or think they want. And I scoff at anyone who claims a dual-core macbook 2.0 with integrated graphics and a 5400 rpm drive (or for that matter one of those near useless Macbook Airs) can outperform a stock Quad g5, let alone one with fast boot drives, lots of RAM, and the best vid card available.

this is boring. Im going to follow the keynote now.:apple:

[AidenShaw]

What will impact performance is better code.

Not having to maintain PPC code, however, frees resources that can be devoted to better code.

So the net result, over time, can be better x64 performance.

And, of course, dropping x86 support means that all code can be compiled using the potentially faster x64 ISA.

[BlackDan]

Not having to maintain PPC code, however, frees resources that can be devoted to better code.

So the net result, over time, can be better x64 performance.

And, of course, dropping x86 support means that all code can be compiled using the potentially faster x64 ISA.

Not really. The codebase should be exactly the same. It just gets compiled twice or even three times (PPC, x86 and IA-64). (the kernel might be an exception).

[diamond.g]

Not really. The codebase should be exactly the same. It just gets compiled twice or even three times (PPC, x86 and x64). (the kernel might be an exception).

Fixed that for you....


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

[ambush]

I'd be very disappointed with Apple if they dropped PPC support in their next release.

My machine, a 1.33ghz, maxed-out and well loved 12" Alu PowerBook G4 runs Leopard *perfectly* and at very reasonable speeds.

I do all my work on this machine, including Photoshop work.

No need to upgrade for now, as I am 100% pleased with the performance of my machine.

So please make 10.6 compatible with PPC.