Latest Mac OS X 10.5.6 Seed; Rosetta Becomes Optional in Snow Leopard? [Archive]

MacRumors

Dec 8, 2008, 01:38 PM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/12/08/latest-mac-os-x-10-5-6-seed;-rosetta-becomes-optional-in-snow-leopard/)

Last week Apple seeded developers with Build 9G52 (http://www.hmbt.org/blog/2008/12/05/adc-news-mac-os-x-1056-9g52/) of Mac OS X 10.5.6. The latest seeds ask developers to continue testing Mobile Me syncing and Mail character sets and continues to list a number of fixes from previous versions. Apple is expected to release Mac OS X 10.5.6 in the near future.

HMBT.org also publishes (http://www.hmbt.org/blog/2008/12/04/snow-leopard-10a222-apple-send-for-adc-members/) seed notes from the latest Snow Leopard build (10A222) which was also released to developers (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/12/03/latest-mac-os-x-10-6-snow-leopard-builds-still-have-work-to-be-done/) last week. The newest seed offers new additions to Grand Central, which provides developers an easier way to harness the power of multiple processor cores.

Separately, we've heard that the newest version of Snow Leopard makes Rosetta an optional installation. Rosetta is Apple's PowerPC emulator for their Intel Macs, allowing Intel Mac owners to run legacy software that has not been upgraded for the Intel platform. This news comes shortly after an announcement (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/11/20/ibm-to-acquire-transitive/) that IBM had purchased Transitive, the company behind Rosetta's technology. The final release of Snow Leopard is also rumored to require an Intel Mac, thereby being the first version of Mac OS X to drop PowerPC support.

Apple first announced (http://www.macrumors.com/2005/06/06/macintosh-moving-to-intel-processors/) its transition from PowerPC to Intel processors in June, 2005.

Article Link: Latest Mac OS X 10.5.6 Seed; Rosetta Becomes Optional in Snow Leopard? (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/12/08/latest-mac-os-x-10-5-6-seed;-rosetta-becomes-optional-in-snow-leopard/)

thejadedmonkey

Dec 8, 2008, 01:41 PM

On one hand I like that Apple is fully embracing the intel switch, but I'm not so happy that they're pushing everyone else to do the same, especially not so fast.

La Porta

Dec 8, 2008, 01:42 PM

Everyone brace for the PPC owner backlash in this thread...

Sky Blue

Dec 8, 2008, 01:44 PM

Everyone brace for the PPC owner backlash in this thread...

They can still run 10.5. No one is being forced to upgrade.

Looks like Apple is going back to it's pre-Christmas OS Update it used to do. 10.5.6 around 15/16th December me thinks.

maclancer

Dec 8, 2008, 01:45 PM

What is wrong with 10.5.5? it is very stable for me in my iMac

iindigo

Dec 8, 2008, 01:47 PM

They can still run 10.5. No one is being forced to upgrade.

But, but... Snow Leopard has pretty shinies! :P

*goes back to scrounging up pennies in the couch to put towards his Intel Mac fund*

Ja Di ksw

Dec 8, 2008, 01:49 PM

Sigh, getting harder and harder to run my 5 year old PowerBook.

Does that count as a backlash? :)

ravenvii

Dec 8, 2008, 01:50 PM

On one hand I like that Apple is fully embracing the intel switch, but I'm not so happy that they're pushing everyone else to do the same, especially not so fast.

Fast? Macs has gone completely Intel in 2005. By the time Snow Leopard comes out, it will have been 4 years since PPC disappeared from the Mac lineup.

La Porta

Dec 8, 2008, 01:52 PM

They can still run 10.5. No one is being forced to upgrade.

Completely agree with you! Just saying that SOMEONE is going to do it.

jayducharme

Dec 8, 2008, 01:53 PM

What is wrong with 10.5.5? it is very stable for me in my iMac

I was using Leopard in a lab where I was teaching. I guess I'm just too used to Tiger. Leopard seemed somehow more cluttered to me. It also took significantly longer to boot up and shut down. And I didn't like the look of the dock on the bottom of the screen. That little blue dot just wasn't enough of an indication for when an app was open.

As always, things are changing. Even though it's still running great, I guess it's about time to take a deep breath and get rid of my PowerMac G5, especially if I want to start working with the iPhone SDK.

Small White Car

Dec 8, 2008, 01:55 PM

On one hand I like that Apple is fully embracing the intel switch, but I'm not so happy that they're pushing everyone else to do the same, especially not so fast.

I disagree with "forced."

Other upgrades have added new features (Expose, Time Machine) that everyone might want. It's fair to say "forced" in those situations, because those features were so useful, everyone would like to have them.

Snow Leopard, on the other hand, seems to mostly be adding hardware optimization that only speeds up newer hardware. Meaning: Intel hardware.

So, even if they offered 10.6 for PPC, the changes would be minimal. So you'd get minimal changes and they'd have to put in a LOT more work. That's why it's called "Snow Leopard." It's pretty much the same as "Leopard!"

10.7 will be the first time PPC owners actually miss out on new features.

MrCrowbar

Dec 8, 2008, 01:56 PM

Well, it's cool that Snow Leopard will still have Rosetta, even if optional. My currently favorite nerd party games (Starcraft 1 and Liquid War) are PPC and work just fine under Rosetta.

Any inside info on whether they fixed 10.5.5's bug with ATSServer going crazy when generating thumbnails for certain PDF files? (http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=8306295)

sananda

Dec 8, 2008, 01:56 PM

Macs has gone completely Intel in 2005.

i bought a ppc mac in nov 2005.

nubero

Dec 8, 2008, 01:56 PM

Last week Apple seeded developers with Build 9G52 (http://www.hmbt.org/blog/2008/12/05/adc-news-mac-os-x-1056-9g52/) of Mac OS X 10.5.6.

Shouldn't that read "10.6" ?

Small White Car

Dec 8, 2008, 01:58 PM

Fast? Macs has gone completely Intel in 2005. By the time Snow Leopard comes out, it will have been 4 years since PPC disappeared from the Mac lineup.

If by "completely Intel in 2005" you mean STARTED to transition in 2006, you'd be right.

Mykbibby

Dec 8, 2008, 01:59 PM

I was using Leopard in a lab where I was teaching. I guess I'm just too used to Tiger. Leopard seemed somehow more cluttered to me. It also took significantly longer to boot up and shut down. And I didn't like the look of the dock on the bottom of the screen. That little blue dot just wasn't enough of an indication for when an app was open.

As always, things are changing. Even though it's still running great, I guess it's about time to take a deep breath and get rid of my PowerMac G5, especially if I want to start working with the iPhone SDK.

That's why I use this Leopard dock...

http://macsoda.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/picture-16.png?w=1312&h=56

arn

Dec 8, 2008, 01:59 PM

Shouldn't that read "10.6" ?

no. the article reports on both 10.5.6 and 10.6 seeds. Sorry if it's confusing. The 10.5.6 report wasn't really interesting enough by itself, so I just combined them into one story.

arn

La Porta

Dec 8, 2008, 02:00 PM

Shouldn't that read "10.6" ?

No, they are discussing two different things: a shortly-coming 10.5.6 update, and new news on 10.6 for the future.

MrCrowbar

Dec 8, 2008, 02:01 PM

I was using Leopard in a lab where I was teaching. I guess I'm just too used to Tiger. Leopard seemed somehow more cluttered to me. It also took significantly longer to boot up and shut down. And I didn't like the look of the dock on the bottom of the screen. That little blue dot just wasn't enough of an indication for when an app was open.

Put the dock on the sides, looks different and way sleeker. If you want the dock to look like that, enter the following into Terminal:

defaults write com.apple.dock no-glass -boolean YES; killall Dock

Replace "YES" with "NO" do get the 3D look back. I've gotten used to have the dock on the left side now. Makes sense with widescreen displays and Quicksilver (or Spotlight) to launch you apps. I only keep some in the dock for easy drag and dropping.

xUKHCx

Dec 8, 2008, 02:01 PM

Fast? Macs has gone completely Intel in 2005. By the time Snow Leopard comes out, it will have been 4 years since PPC disappeared from the Mac lineup.

i bought a ppc mac in nov 2005.

The change was announced in 2005 and the first Intel Macs were made available in early 2006 but the change wasn't complete until August 2006.

Shouldn't that read "10.6" ?

Nope 10.5.6, apple is currently working on both 10.5.6 and 10.6 concurrently. The build referenced is for the next update to Leopard.

MrCrowbar

Dec 8, 2008, 02:03 PM

That's why I use this Leopard dock...

http://macsoda.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/picture-16.png?w=1312&h=56

Is that the sound preferences in the dock? How did you get this there?

yetanotherdave

Dec 8, 2008, 02:04 PM

What would be the advantage of not installing rosetta? If it's not running, surely there's no overhead.

Small White Car

Dec 8, 2008, 02:09 PM

What would be the advantage of not installing rosetta? If it's not running, surely there's no overhead.

Drive space. I find this reason a bit silly, but I KNOW there are people out there who take the time to strip other languages out of iLife programs to save a few MB, so someone out there will like it for this reason.

As for me? I won't be installing it because I want to have the fastest experience possible. If I come across a program using Rosetta I either upgrade it or ditch it for a different program.

I try and keep track, but sometimes one slips by me for awhile and I don't notice it until I check my 'process' report window.

Being told right away: "This program won't run" would make me happy. I'll be glad to have this option.

xUKHCx

Dec 8, 2008, 02:09 PM

Is that the sound preferences in the dock? How did you get this there?

http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20080927025638293

You have to put it over by the trash.

spaceballl

Dec 8, 2008, 02:11 PM

Ah I love this idea - let's trim the fat!

PeterQVenkman

Dec 8, 2008, 02:12 PM

Drive space. I find this reason a bit silly, but I KNOW there are people out there who take the time to strip other languages out of iLife programs to save a few MB, so someone out there will like it for this reason.

Just reformatted my brand new MacBook. By eliminating all the unneeded extras like fonts, languages, and printer drivers (3.1 GB of printer drivers! No wonder things "just work" in Mac OSX!), X11, and iDVD/Garage band extra content, you can cut the 15 GB Mac os X install down to 6 GB.

That's a lot of stuff to clear out! :)

Erwin-Br

Dec 8, 2008, 02:12 PM

Drive space. I find this reason a bit silly, but I KNOW there are people out there who take the time to strip other languages out of iLife programs to save a few MB, so someone out there will like it for this reason.

As for me? I won't be installing it because I want to have the fastest experience possible. If I come across a program using Rosetta I either upgrade it or ditch it for a different program.

I try and keep track, but sometimes one slips by me for awhile and I don't notice it until I check my 'process' report window.

Being told right away: "This program won't run" would make me happy. I'll be glad to have this option.

Both my HP printer AND scanner use PPC software drivers. And they're not THAT old that I want to replace them, so I'm glad they will still support it.

rosalindavenue

Dec 8, 2008, 02:14 PM

i bought a ppc mac in nov 2005.

I bought the last G4 ibook in August 05, after the intel switch had been announced but before it was implemented. I didn't want to wait to get a mac. It was well worth it. I've never upgraded it to Leopard. I've since bought 2 intel macs but the ibook is still in use. Anyway, I don't think there will be a whole lot of grumbling about the intel-only status of Snow Leopard.

jellomizer

Dec 8, 2008, 02:14 PM

But, but... Snow Leopard has pretty shinies! :P

*goes back to scrounging up pennies in the couch to put towards his Intel Mac fund*

Don't forget those pretty shinies will probably make your PowerPC mac that much slower.

My Intel MacBook Pro has just past its 2 year mark. While still doing fine it is no longer considered the speed daemon, it once was. It will do its jobs well for a couple more years barring any major hardware failure. But for those with Power PC Macs Those days are numbered and people with Intel Core (1) Duo Macs are probably starting to ready themselves for an upgrade in 2009-2010

yetanotherdave

Dec 8, 2008, 02:14 PM

Drive space. I find this reason a bit silly, but I KNOW there are people out there who take the time to strip other languages out of iLife programs to save a few MB, so someone out there will like it for this reason.

As for me? I won't be installing it because I want to have the fastest experience possible. If I come across a program using Rosetta I either upgrade it or ditch it for a different program.

I try and keep track, but sometimes one slips by me for awhile and I don't notice it until I check my 'process' report window.

Being told right away: "This program won't run" would make me happy. I'll be glad to have this option.

I'm a drive obsessive, I run xslimmer to trim my universal binaries, I'm at 10% drive space free now, but I can't see a few Mb being a good enough reason for Apple to allow it's removal, it will make things not "just work" and we know they like to keep things standard.
Personally I will be installing it, given the option. I can't think of anything specific, but why not have that functionality?

chuckiej

Dec 8, 2008, 02:19 PM

Everyone brace for the PPC owner backlash in this thread...

Well, yeah. Since I plan on keeping some of my PowerPC stuff for media servers and the like I would like to have the "cleaned up OS" to run on them. I would certainly want them to clean it up first for all of us - then go all Intel for 10.7

ztigerpaw

Dec 8, 2008, 02:19 PM

Sigh, getting harder and harder to run my 5 year old PowerBook.

Does that count as a backlash? :)

Just be glad Apple gave developers the option for Universal applications are there be an even bigger backlash right now.

jaw04005

Dec 8, 2008, 02:19 PM

Nope 10.5.6, apple is currently working on both 10.5.6 and 10.6 concurrently. The build referenced is for the next update to Leopard.

I would like to see both of those Mac OS X teams in action. How do they decide who works on what? If you're a semi-good programmer you get to patch the current operating system, and if you're really good you get to work on 10.6? :D

I would imagine most of the software engineering team would prefer to work on the new operating system.

gnasher729

Dec 8, 2008, 02:21 PM

Everyone brace for the PPC owner backlash in this thread...

PowerPC owners don't need Rosetta.

rychencop

Dec 8, 2008, 02:21 PM

Sigh, getting harder and harder to run my 5 year old PowerBook.

Does that count as a backlash? :)
5 years? it's time to upgrade anyway. bite the bullet!

rikers_mailbox

Dec 8, 2008, 02:21 PM

Small White Car

Dec 8, 2008, 02:24 PM

I can't think of anything specific, but why not have that functionality?

I notice more crashes when things are running in it.

When I used to run MS Office in Rosetta I would see Final Cut crash a lot more often. Since I moved to Pages I see less of that.

Both my HP printer AND scanner use PPC software drivers. And they're not THAT old that I want to replace them, so I'm glad they will still support it.

And this kind of thing worries me MOST of all! When is a print-driver running? When I print? Sure, but for how long after? Does it shut down and go away, or remain in some sort of stand-by mode? Is it affecting my stability the same way other Rosetta programs have in the past?

I haven't got a clue to any of these questions which is why I'll be glad to be rid of the whole thing.

Mr Skills

Dec 8, 2008, 02:24 PM

What would be the advantage of not installing rosetta? If it's not running, surely there's no overhead.

Does it take up a lot of space? Maybe they are doing everything they can to get a slim install of Snow Leopard. That would be useful for something with lower hard drive capacity like a netbook or a tablet. :eek:

the vj

Dec 8, 2008, 02:25 PM

And I do not feel the need of installing Leopard on the power PCs...

I have one 17" MBP with Leopard and I am fine with it because somke features here and there but I have a quad G5 and I am fine with it.

I mean, OSX'a on Macs are actually up to you, I do not see any improvement in performance and I work with 3D animation.

infernohellion

Dec 8, 2008, 02:26 PM

5 years? it's time to upgrade anyway. bite the bullet!

I agree. My MBP is 2.5 years old and it's started to fall apart. I am waiting for the 17" Unibody MBP. Once its out... ;)

BigD58

Dec 8, 2008, 02:26 PM

The times...they are a changin'

billandy

Dec 8, 2008, 02:27 PM

Just reformatted my brand new MacBook. By eliminating all the unneeded extras like fonts, languages, and printer drivers (3.1 GB of printer drivers! No wonder things "just work" in Mac OSX!), X11, and iDVD/Garage band extra content, you can cut the 15 GB Mac os X install down to 6 GB.

That's a lot of stuff to clear out! :)

gosh, now with an average 160GB+ hard drive space, is it really worth to save that 9GB of space trading off great convenience which is the very reason most switchers made their decisions. probably makes more sense to macbook air users, but definitely i suppose most macbook/macbook pro users are very happy to let os x take that little extra bit of space. my guess would be that pretty much all mac users wouldn't care about this too much just like they wouldn't bother to separate the layers of toilet paper just so they get 3x value.

Jon the Heretic

Dec 8, 2008, 02:28 PM

Everyone brace for the PPC owner backlash in this thread...

Why shouldn't there be?

Amdahl

Dec 8, 2008, 02:33 PM

I disagree with "forced."

Until Apple provides five years of security updates after last date of retail sale for an OS, the upgrades are forced.

Amdahl

Dec 8, 2008, 02:35 PM

i bought a ppc mac in nov 2005.

Yes, Macs were not 'completely Intel' until October 2006 when the Mac Pro shipped. Quad G5s were sold for months afterward in the stores, since intel apps were not widely available.

steve9013

Dec 8, 2008, 02:36 PM

Since when is Rosetta an PPC "emulator"?

darwinian

Dec 8, 2008, 02:36 PM

As far as I know, the only PPC app I still use is MTR. There's really no substitute, though.

fleshman03

Dec 8, 2008, 02:37 PM

Out with the old and in with the new.

BTW - with rosetta being optional, what does that actually mean? Can I simply choose not to install it when installing 10.6?

talkingfuture

Dec 8, 2008, 02:38 PM

Removing rosetta would make sense for those who don't need it. I've been using Macs since May 2006 and only used rosetta to run MS Office on my Macbook. Now I've got an iMac and use iWork. I have no need it for it taking up room on my machine.

arkmannj

Dec 8, 2008, 02:38 PM

it's a shame. 10.6 with better OpenCL will better utilize discrete graphics cards. Yet the slower PPC processors that could really benefit from the technology won't be supported.

My 1.33 GHz Powerbook struggles to keep up with anything H.264 and the latest HD YouTube clips. Getting some optimization for running these would breath new life into the older machines.

I would guess Apple is hoping people will be encouraged to purchase new machines.

As a side note, is anyone out there wanting to sell an older (even core 1's) macbook or macbook pro, please PM me.

incoherent1

Dec 8, 2008, 02:40 PM

Just reformatted my brand new MacBook. By eliminating all the unneeded extras like fonts, languages, and printer drivers (3.1 GB of printer drivers! No wonder things "just work" in Mac OSX!), X11, and iDVD/Garage band extra content, you can cut the 15 GB Mac os X install down to 6 GB.

That's a lot of stuff to clear out! :)

Has anyone checked to see exactly how much space one could save by axing Rosetta? If we're talking several gigs here, I can easily see this being a good option (especially for MB/MBP/MBA users - I'm always running out of space and having to shuttle things to an external drive, so every gig counts).

Mal

Dec 8, 2008, 02:41 PM

Everyone brace for the PPC owner backlash in this thread...
Why shouldn't there be?

Why should there be? PPC owners aren't affected by anything going on in 10.6 because it won't run on their machines; that's been known for several months. There's nothing more for them to complain about.

jW

MrZebra

Dec 8, 2008, 02:43 PM

Since when is Rosetta an PPC "emulator"?

Exactly.
"Rosetta dynamically translates most of your PowerPC-based applications to work with your Intel-based Mac. There’s no emulation." (from apple website)

Jon the Heretic

Dec 8, 2008, 02:45 PM

Why should there be? PPC owners aren't affected by anything going on in 10.6 because it won't run on their machines; that's been known for several months. There's nothing more for them to complain about.

jW

That is irrelevant.

Why shouldn't Intel Mac owners complain about losing Rosetta?

TwinCities Dan

Dec 8, 2008, 02:47 PM

Until Apple provides five years of security updates after last date of retail sale for an OS, the upgrades are forced.

Who made this "magical five year" date? I don't recall ever being promised such a thing or ever being forced to upgrade anything? :confused:

Stridder44

Dec 8, 2008, 02:48 PM

From the 10.5.6 release notes:

Fixed issue with AirPort Drivers and “off” setting

Oh thank GOD! Please let this finally be the end to horrible wireless dropouts/slow connections in Leopard.

wizard

Dec 8, 2008, 02:48 PM

Everyone brace for the PPC owner backlash in this thread...

Really I just wish all the whinney PPC users would just roll over and drop out of the Mac sceen. Apple should have dropped PPC support years ago after intel hardware doubled real world performance. That doesn't mean not to support PPC on a stable version of OS/X but to simple not to support development for future revisions.

Frankly continued PPC support is a waste of good money!

Dave

poundsmack

Dec 8, 2008, 02:50 PM

Exactly.
"Rosetta dynamically translates most of your PowerPC-based applications to work with your Intel-based Mac. There’s no emulation." (from apple website)

thats a fancy way of saying emulator. if it wasnt an emulator it would require hardware to power it, not software "emulation" and since x86-64 has no PPC or RISC components Rosseta emulates it via software. thats right software.

technicaly thats right and wrong. Rosseta is based on Quick Trasnsit technology provided by Transitive ( http://www.transitive.com/support/faq ). so its almost like a combo of emulation and virtualization. its really hard to explain.

jaw04005

Dec 8, 2008, 02:50 PM

I'm glad Apple is abandoning PowerPC and making Rosetta an optional install. At some point, you have say "We're moving on." otherwise you wind up like Vista where everything from Windows 95 back is supported (with special compatibility modes, etc).

Backward compatibility should be maintained for a reasonable time frame. For example, 10.6 shouldn't abandon Macs with Core Duo processors just because they don't support 64-bit. However, if its support somehow prevents your product from moving forward — cut it.

I think around three and a half years (Jan 2006 to August 2009*) of post-PowerPC support is reasonable.

* Obviously, 10.6 doesn't have a ship date but I'm personally expecting it to ship in August around the same time as 10.2 Jaguar shipped.

By the way, I'm sympathetic to PowerPC owners. I have two great machines, an iMac G4 and PowerMac G3 B/W, myself. It's been six great years with the iMac and I don't know how many with the G3. It's time to retire them. :)

poundsmack

Dec 8, 2008, 02:52 PM

That is irrelevant.

Why shouldn't Intel Mac owners complain about losing Rosetta?

who said they are loosing it? have you heard about optional components? X11 for example is an optional OSX install. same with other things. even MS has been doing it with windows for years like IIS is with XP/Vista and other features. its not all or nothing peoples there are chades of grey in this world ;)

Stephen123

Dec 8, 2008, 02:59 PM

Fast? Macs has gone completely Intel in 2005. By the time Snow Leopard comes out, it will have been 4 years since PPC disappeared from the Mac lineup.

Um... removing support after 4 years? Maybe that works in Windowsland. But lots of folks use their Mac for more than 4 years. What happens to creative professionals who bought the last round of towers?

gnasher729

Dec 8, 2008, 03:01 PM

Frankly continued PPC support is a waste of good money!

I would see it as an ugly precedent that Apple can't be trusted. One of the biggest complaints about Microsoft Vista is that it doesn't work (satisfactory) on existing hardware. That is not where I would want Apple to go. If they cut off support for PowerPC machines that are no three years old, what will they stop supporting in three years time?

Now lets say a small company has six quad core G5s and four quad core MacPros. And Snow Leopard doesn't run on the G5. Do they

1. Not upgrade
2. Only upgrade the Intel machines
3. Throw out six perfectly fine machines and replace them with MacPros
4. Say "**** Apple", run these machines until they break down, and switch to Dell PCs?

Why should there be? PPC owners aren't affected by anything going on in 10.6 because it won't run on their machines; that's been known for several months. There's nothing more for them to complain about.
Your definition of "known" is different from mine. Sure, I have seen threads with hundreds of posts full of irrational arguments why PowerPC support is evil, but nothing so far from Apple.

iindigo

Dec 8, 2008, 03:02 PM

wizard

Dec 8, 2008, 03:06 PM

From the 10.5.6 release notes:

Oh thank GOD! Please let this finally be the end to horrible wireless dropouts/slow connections in Leopard.

When it comes right down to it WiFi is the only bad component of my experience with my early 2008 MBP. Sadly the last WiFi update actually made the machine worst on a number of networks I use. I do hope they get this corrected and reliable.

Dave

twoodcc

Dec 8, 2008, 03:07 PM

interesting. so i wonder if this means that once snow leopard is out, all those old PowerPC apps won't work at all anymore?

gnasher729

Dec 8, 2008, 03:08 PM

It's not that we don't want to abandon our PPC Macs for new Intel ones, it's just that in most of our cases, we don't have thousands to throw around for a new decent-specced Mac whenever we want.

Example: I'm a 19-year-old (almost 20) unemployed soon-to-be college student living in an area where it's tough to even get hired at McDonalds. Money isn't exactly easy to come by.

Now if you weren't 19 year old and unemployed, but the filthy rich owner of a company using 1000 quad core PowerPC MacPro's, would you want to spend two million to replace them with Intel machines, when the old machines do their job perfectly well?

crees!

Dec 8, 2008, 03:10 PM

I agree. My MBP is 2.5 years old and it's started to fall apart. I am waiting for the 17" Unibody MBP. Once its out... ;)

2.5 years and falling apart? Yikes. My 2003 PowerBook is hummin' along and solid. Albeit slower than the new line. I'm probably going to wait till 10.7 to upgrade to new hardware.

Blue Velvet

Dec 8, 2008, 03:11 PM

What happens to creative professionals who bought the last round of towers?

A lot of people and studios bought up the last G5s because Adobe dragged their heels in releasing a universal binary of Creative Suite. CS and CS2 didn't run well at all through Rosetta. The people bitching about those pesky PPC owners don't understand the need for smooth and reliable hardware and software transitions in a production environment.

However, these machines will still run Leopard. It will be at least another 18 months — if not longer — before most mainstream apps make Leopard a minimum system requirement. Adobe CS4, for instance, will still run with Tiger.

smartalic34

Dec 8, 2008, 03:15 PM

I would see it as an ugly precedent that Apple can't be trusted. One of the biggest complaints about Microsoft Vista is that it doesn't work (satisfactory) on existing hardware. That is not where I would want Apple to go. If they cut off support for PowerPC machines that are no three years old, what will they stop supporting in three years time?

Now lets say a small company has six quad core G5s and four quad core MacPros. And Snow Leopard doesn't run on the G5. Do they

1. Not upgrade
2. Only upgrade the Intel machines
3. Throw out six perfectly fine machines and replace them with MacPros
4. Say "**** Apple", run these machines until they break down, and switch to Dell PCs?

Your definition of "known" is different from mine. Sure, I have seen threads with hundreds of posts full of irrational arguments why PowerPC support is evil, but nothing so far from Apple.

I agree with your mixed systems argument... why should the mac pros be held back at the G5s' expense? however, microsoft vista is so bloated and doesnt work on current machines because, ironically enough, it was designed to work on some pretty old machines (hence the basic versions)... there's a lot of legacy code in there bogging it down.

also, to iindigo and gnasher729:

apple isnt cutting off support of PPC macs. they will continue to get security and quicktime updates (via 10.5 Leopard). they will also service your machine just like they would an older Intel machine. I dont understand what PPC users are upset about. the optimizations that are being put in place for snow leopard are for MULTI-CORE chips, which except for the G5, PPC doesnt have. there are no new features PPC users are missing out on. they cant make the OS any faster for PPC... this is optimization for intel... without this chip transition, there wouldnt be a snow leopard.

I do feel bad for quad G5 owners though, but they make up a very small percentage of the established market share...

Mal

Dec 8, 2008, 03:17 PM

That is irrelevant.

Why shouldn't Intel Mac owners complain about losing Rosetta?

Did you read the post you were replying to? I said nothing about Intel Mac owners, and they're not losing Rosetta anyways. I said that PPC owners shouldn't come in here and whine.

jW

Veri

Dec 8, 2008, 03:17 PM

Office 2000 receives security patches until mid-2009. Windows 2000 receives security patches until some time in 2010. Windows XP gets ~3 more years on top of this. All these products were released in the same year, or earlier, than OS X 10.0.

How's that OS X 10.0 support doing, Apple? 10.1? 10.2? 10.3? But why invest in making the enterprise take you seriously when you could just.. erm.. keep the money in the bank?

*glances over at the OpenVMS-powered VAX in the corner... it might weigh as much as an upgrade treadmill, but it certainly doesn't need to be bought with one*

MacsRgr8

Dec 8, 2008, 03:18 PM

interesting. so i wonder if this means that once snow leopard is out, all those old PowerPC apps won't work at all anymore?

If you don't select installing Rosetta at setup, you're right.
But the Rosetta install-option is on by default, so old PPC apps will work like they do running on Leopard.

Jon the Heretic

Dec 8, 2008, 03:19 PM

If you don't select installing Rosetta at setup, you're right.
But the Rosetta install-option is on by default, so old PPC apps will work like they do running on Leopard.

Terrible user experience.

Mal

Dec 8, 2008, 03:21 PM

Terrible user experience.

No, that's a good user experience. On by default, removable by those who know what they're doing. Sheesh, you'd think you were reading something else and then posting here with how much sense your posts in this thread are making.

jW

Stephen123

Dec 8, 2008, 03:22 PM

One obvious reason to make Rosetta optional is their stated goal of making all versions of OS X use the same code base. iPhone would be a good example of where you might want to remove Rosetta.

MacsRgr8

Dec 8, 2008, 03:23 PM

Terrible user experience.

You mean running Rosetta in 10.5?
IMHO it works fine. Had to use Office 2004 using Rosetta, but luckily I have no apps now that require it, so I'm happy Apple makes installing Rosetta an option.... on this beta, not sure about the final product of course.;)

luke.a.jones

Dec 8, 2008, 03:25 PM

Now if you weren't 19 year old and unemployed, but the filthy rich owner of a company using 1000 quad core PowerPC MacPro's, would you want to spend two million to replace them with Intel machines, when the old machines do their job perfectly well?

If there doing their job perfectly well, then there is no reason to upgrade them.

Just because somthing new comes out does not mean you have to jump all over it, and companies wont and that is a fact.

Once you feel that your machines are not as fast as you require, then you upgrade accordingly.

kingtj

Dec 8, 2008, 03:29 PM

Ultimately, this is going to be more or less of a perceived "problem" by PPC users, depending on how Apple winds up marketing OS X 10.6.

Truthfully, it's just like you're saying. "Snow Leopard" is basically a modified version of Leopard that unlocks new capabilities only found in the new Intel CPUs. If Apple keeps this fact crystal clear in the advertising, PPC owners *should* really shrug, and figure "I'm still running the same thing with Leopard, relative to what my PPC processor and video chipsets' capabilities are."

I *think* it may wind up a little more "murky" to people though, because inevitably, Apple will put some new "gee whiz" features in 10.6 that illustrate what can be done with the underlying new Intel-only technologies. PPC users will see those things, feel "slighted" that their OS can't do them, and get upset.

I disagree with "forced."

Other upgrades have added new features (Expose, Time Machine) that everyone might want. It's fair to say "forced" in those situations, because those features were so useful, everyone would like to have them.

Snow Leopard, on the other hand, seems to mostly be adding hardware optimization that only speeds up newer hardware. Meaning: Intel hardware.

So, even if they offered 10.6 for PPC, the changes would be minimal. So you'd get minimal changes and they'd have to put in a LOT more work. That's why it's called "Snow Leopard." It's pretty much the same as "Leopard!"

10.7 will be the first time PPC owners actually miss out on new features.

kjs862

Dec 8, 2008, 03:39 PM

If they drop PPC in 10.6 I hope they still provide software updates for 10.5. My PowerMac G5 still has a lot of life left in it, even though though I can't play 1080p movies on it.

AidenShaw

Dec 8, 2008, 03:39 PM

so its almost like a combo of emulation and virtualization. its really hard to explain.

But a virtual machine is an emulation of a physical machine, so Rosetta is still definitely an emulator.

Many Apple users believe in a narrow interpretation of the word "emulation" to mean only "ISA (Instruction Set Architecture) emulation" like the Virtual PC on PPC uses.

Small White Car

Dec 8, 2008, 03:41 PM

How's that OS X 10.0 support doing, Apple? 10.1? 10.2? 10.3? But why invest in making the enterprise take you seriously when you could just.. erm.. keep the money in the bank?

And why on earth would Apple want 'enterprise' to take them seriously?

So they can enter a crowded commodity market where "cheapest" is the biggest factor for buyers? So they can fight over smaller and smaller profit margins as IT departments save money by spreading out purchases?

Why doesn't Apple make cash registers for grocery stores? Or the little computers in gas station pumps?

None of these are markets where Apple wants to (or needs to) compete.

Kan-O-Z

Dec 8, 2008, 03:42 PM

I think it's great for Apple to drop PPC support. Intel Macs will benefit further by doing this as the OS will be even more streamlined, smaller footprint, and more stable by not trying to support PPC.

As for the PPC Mac owners, they are not missing out on much. Snow Leopard is going to offer more performance by using the architecture of today's latest and greatest CPUs and video cards. Even if Snow Leopard were available for PPC, it would really be of no benefit as they don't really have an architecture where you have tons of cores nor do they have the latest and greatest video cards of today. For PPC Mac users, Leopard will last them a good long time while offering them the latest and greatest features. I hate to make this comparison but think about how long people have used XP and are still using it today. As long as applications are made for Leopard (and they will be for a while), PPC Mac owners should be happy. Personally I think the problem for PPC Mac owners in the long term will be dated hardware and not the OS. PPC Macs are going to be 4-5 years old(if not older) by the time Snow Leopard comes out. Add a few more years to this and you've got a really dated computer which will need to be replaced.

Kan-O-Z

La Porta

Dec 8, 2008, 03:42 PM

PowerPC owners don't need Rosetta.

...which has absolutely nothing to do with 10.6 being Intel-only.

La Porta

Dec 8, 2008, 03:46 PM

Example: I'm a 19-year-old (almost 20) unemployed soon-to-be college student living in an area where it's tough to even get hired at McDonalds. Money isn't exactly easy to come by.

Props to you for doing that...at least you aren't selling crack to buy a new Mac Pro!

Eidorian

Dec 8, 2008, 03:49 PM

College is the best time to get employment. Even better if it's on campus.

I'm waiting for 10.5.6 and ogling the Blu-ray drives for my Q6600 tower.

Macsterguy

Dec 8, 2008, 03:49 PM

macFanDave

Dec 8, 2008, 03:52 PM

The final release of Snow Leopard is also rumored to require an Intel Mac, thereby being the first version of Mac OS X to drop PowerPC support.

Rumored to require an Intel Mac? I've always understood that Snow Leopard would be Intel-only. My PowerMac G5 that I bought in October of 2003 is working well enough and my wife can't understand why I need to buy an new one. (Even my iBook (G3) from 2001 is still useful even though it is quite slow and can't use Leopard. It is the most stable computer I've ever worked with, Mac or PC.)

Snow Leopard is going to be my sure-fire excuse to get a new Mac.

My iBook which is allegedly "obsolete" because it is frozen in Tiger is still quite a usable machine. I suspect that my PowerMac G5 and my daughter's eMac (G4) will still operate just fine even though they will be frozen on Leopard. And they will work fine for years!

wizard

Dec 8, 2008, 03:59 PM

I would see it as an ugly precedent that Apple can't be trusted. One of the biggest complaints about Microsoft Vista is that it doesn't work (satisfactory) on existing hardware.

Did you grow up in a BS factory or what? I can't remember a time when Apple has done a better job with a transition than with the intel switch. They clearly involved both the development community and the user community and frankly the transition was much smoother than the one to PPC.

Like the jump to PPC years ago the hardware took gigantic leaps in capability and thus left the 68000 world far behind. It simply didn't make sense to support 68000 in the OS for years and the same can be said of Mac OS/X today. It just doesn't make sense to back port to hardware features that can't be supported well there!

That is not where I would want Apple to go. If they cut off support for PowerPC machines that are no three years old, what will they stop supporting in three years time?

That is easy they will stop support new features on hardware that can't support the development in an economical manner. Note that if 10.6 does go intel 64bit only, it doesn't mean that they can't do something like putting 10.5.x into maintenance or security update mode.

Now lets say a small company has six quad core G5s and four quad core MacPros. And Snow Leopard doesn't run on the G5. Do they

1. Not upgrade

Obviously if no upgrade to the OS is available they can't upgrade!

2. Only upgrade the Intel machines

A wise move in my book! Let's face it a wise business isn't going to go out and update all machines at once anyways. Especially servers and machines running legacy apps.

3. Throw out six perfectly fine machines and replace them with MacPros

I would not expect six good machines to go out the door immediately. You seem to imply that they become worthless immediately upon arrival of 10.6 which is not the case at all. These machines will not suddenly stop working because of SL just like they didn't stop working because of Vista. The PPC machines will remain viable as long as the current OS is safe on the network.

4. Say "**** Apple", run these machines until they break down, and switch to Dell PCs?

Most companies do run their PCs until they break down. That doesn't cause them to rush out and buy Dells though. In any event anyone taking this attitude clearly doesn't have his head screwed on tight.

Look at it this way, go Dell and you are switch to a new OS. An OS by the way known to have a huge number of problems currently. Mean while you are operating that PPC hardware on a stable OS. If ran until breakdown you don't even have to worry about SL until the new machine is purchased! Actually if run to breakdown you may be well past SL and onto 10.8 or something. I just don't see this as a reasonable part of your argument, the norm is to run the hardware as long as is possible and make replacement decisions based on the realities at that point.

This doesn't even factor in the state of the economy which might have you moth balling hardware anyways.

In any event I just don't see how any of this factors into a buying decision for current intel hardware. Really what do you expect Apple to do switch to another processor architecture? If so which one as there is little to compete with AMD64 and intels work alikes.

Your definition of "known" is different from mine. Sure, I have seen threads with hundreds of posts full of irrational arguments why PowerPC support is evil, but nothing so far from Apple.

This is exactly what I mean when I talk about the PPC whinners. You guys reject all rational discussion and insist that your precious PPC machines are still relavant today as OS development platforms. Clearly this is not the case. Performance simply is not there and nothing new is being developed. Between that and the common plea that PPC machines will become useless at the first release of OS/X that doesn't support them, your credibility is severely challenged. PPC machines won't die a horrible death just because 10.6 doesn't support them.

In any event feel free to convince me that you have a good ecuse for your position. Right now I haven't heard one from anybody.

Dave

osarda

Dec 8, 2008, 04:01 PM

Fast? Macs has gone completely Intel in 2005. By the time Snow Leopard comes out, it will have been 4 years since PPC disappeared from the Mac lineup.

Actually - I purchased my g5 quad in january 2006 so it's more like 2 1/2 - 3 years... Enough to piss off some people including me. That's not much time considering I spent $11,000 on the workstation at the time loaded up. They should support power pc systems a bit longer... A year or so...

La Porta

Dec 8, 2008, 04:12 PM

I suspect that my PowerMac G5 and my daughter's eMac (G4) will still operate just fine even though they will be frozen on Leopard. And they will work fine for years!

Exactly. My Mac Plus can still start up from either a HD or 800k and give these newer machines a run for their money on startup time. It still works....and it doesn't run 10.6! Imagine that...

KindredMAC

Dec 8, 2008, 04:24 PM

Fast? Macs has gone completely Intel in 2005. By the time Snow Leopard comes out, it will have been 4 years since PPC disappeared from the Mac lineup.

Oooohhhhhhhh sorry..... -1 for not realizing that you could still buy PPC Power Mac G5s up until the end of August/Beg Sept.

I am the proud owner of said PMG5. I couldn't wait for Apple to decide when the Mac Pros were coming out due to a huge project I had for work in February of 2006 so I had to make the purchase.

And yes I am pissed about the lack of PPC support for Snow Leopard. Every Mac I have ever owned has been able to upgrade at least TWICE in the OS dept.

My PM 6500 went OS7.5.5->OS8.0->OS8.5->OS8.6->OS9.0.

My iBook 900mhz G3 went 10.2.6->10.3->10.4.

My MacBook is going 10.4.6->10.5-> and so on.

My PMG5 (last gen PMG5 ever made and the most powerful PPC Mac ever made) will end up going 10.4.2->10.5....

Wow..... I got to update my G5 once. I feel like Charlie Brown at Halloween..... "I got a rock".......

I understand that Apple is trying to right the wrong that is Leopard, but really? Getting rid of support of the graphics and video production stations that have faithfully given you money for how many years and put Apple on the map? That's just bad form. The G5 PPC should have been included in 10.6 and let 10.7 be the transition to all X86. But with M$ dumping Vista and going headlong into System 7 I guess Apple realized they had to cut the pork from the programming since that is what Windows is doing.

MacsRgr8

Dec 8, 2008, 04:25 PM

Actually - I purchased my g5 quad in january 2006 so it's more like 2 1/2 - 3 years... Enough to piss off some people including me. That's not much time considering I spent $11,000 on the workstation at the time loaded up. They should support power pc systems a bit longer... A year or so...

I understand your frustration, as it does seem quite fast after your purchase. But you did buy your Quad half a year after Apple had announced the switch to Intel.
Yes, apps like Adobe's CS could have forced you to buy the latest and greatest PPC, but Apple had made the Intel transition public knowledge, and it is common sense that Apple would ditch PPC support sometime...

Must admit I do think they might keep PPC development (another "just-in-case") up and running though... but not support.

ThomasJL

Dec 8, 2008, 04:27 PM

Separately, we've heard that the newest version of Snow Leopard makes Rosetta an optional installation.

If someone decides to install Rosetta (just in case) but is not running any programs which require it , will his computer run slower than the exact same computer of someone else who did not install Rosetta?

ATimson

Dec 8, 2008, 04:36 PM

I'm glad Apple is abandoning PowerPC and making Rosetta an optional install. At some point, you have say "We're moving on." otherwise you wind up like Vista where everything from Windows 95 back is supported (with special compatibility modes, etc).
If you built your OS right in the first place, keeping compatibility with older versions isn't a problem. It's only if you didn't design a good versioning system for your APIs and libraries that it becomes a pain to maintain forward compatibility. (And Windows obviously doesn't have that--DLL hell, anybody?)

ATimson

Dec 8, 2008, 04:38 PM

A wise move in my book! Let's face it a wise business isn't going to go out and update all machines at once anyways. Especially servers and machines running legacy apps.
No, a wise business will update everything at once, after updating a separate test machine to make sure that everything still works. Keeping the environment in sync makes IT's job significantly easier.

Bakey

Dec 8, 2008, 04:42 PM

Fast? Macs has gone completely Intel in 2005. By the time Snow Leopard comes out, it will have been 4 years since PPC disappeared from the Mac lineup.

Heck yeah!

I can see and understand the reasoning as to why people would be peeved - but, like you've already said, it'll be four years since Apple went Intel... That's quite sometime in the world of IT!!

manowarwi

Dec 8, 2008, 04:53 PM

Perhaps Apple is trying to save money on licensing? I'm sure they have to pay for each "install" of Rosetta, and as the article stated, Transitive is being purchased by IBM which means new contracts and new fee structures (especially since Apple dumped IBM for processors).

This is part of the reason why Vista was split up into all of the different versions - MS saves a ton of money by not having to license certain media codecs for business machines and certain business apps such as Fax software for media PCs. Yeah it causes frustration, but the dollar is the bottom line for better or worse.

It would be nice if Apple put more emphasis behind getting Leopard to run better though. I really get the feeling that they are blowing over it and focusing on Snow Leopard. I hate to say it, but I support both worlds and I get the same feeling about Leopard/Snow Leopard that I do about Vista/Windows 7. I've seen engineers from both groups already talk about things being "fixed" in the next release instead of the current.

vansouza

Dec 8, 2008, 04:53 PM

Shouldn't that read "10.6" ?

No, Snow Leopard is 10A222 and the beta for 10.5.6 is G.

gnasher729

Dec 8, 2008, 04:58 PM

If you built your OS right in the first place, keeping compatibility with older versions isn't a problem. It's only if you didn't design a good versioning system for your APIs and libraries that it becomes a pain to maintain forward compatibility. (And Windows obviously doesn't have that--DLL hell, anybody?)

If you look at a completely different discussion thread, you will find that in the near future a lot of Apple software might be required to run on an ARM processor. And if we look a few years into the future, 32 bit x86 code will be gone quite soon, and 64 bit x86 code might very well be gone in 10 years time. The easiest way to ensure that code written today will run everywhere is to make sure it runs on a PowerPC as well.

synth3tik

Dec 8, 2008, 05:12 PM

I think I will hold off on this 10.5.6 and I am sure I will wait until 10.6.X to upgrade. I have learned my lesson at a painful price.

I honestly think the last time I was excited about an update was with 10.2 when Apple introduced Core Audio and I was finally able to upgrade from 9.2.2.

Eric S.

Dec 8, 2008, 05:22 PM

Apple is expected to release Mac OS X 10.5.6 in the near future.

Get ready for a zillion inane "the update is XXX MB on my system" posts.

Everyone brace for the PPC owner backlash in this thread...

Again. Seriously, haven't we been through all the arguments two or three times in the past six months?

If they drop PPC in 10.6 I hope they still provide software updates for 10.5.

I expect Apple will behave as it has in the past: once the new version is released, we will get only "security updates" for the old OS.

I think it's great for Apple to drop PPC support.

Let me guess, you don't own any PPC Macs, right? :) It's always OK when someone else's technology is abandoned. But as many owners of Firewire devices recently discovered, next time Apple may come after your technology. Most of the arguments advanced as to why PPC systems won't benefit from 10.6 apply equally well to early Intel machines too.

Personally I don't care (much) about Apple dropping PPC support in 10.6. What does bother me is Apple's increasing indifference to the wishes of its installed base of computer users, and the relegation of its computer products to a status secondary to its consumer electronics business.

(Even my iBook (G3) from 2001 is still useful even though it is quite slow and can't use Leopard. It is the most stable computer I've ever worked with, Mac or PC.)

Really? :eek: Of all the Macs I've owned over the years, the iBook G3 was the only one that went belly-up to the extent that it was not even worth it to repair - and that was after I had shipped it off once already for a new logic board.

alexbates

Dec 8, 2008, 05:42 PM

KindredMAC

Dec 8, 2008, 05:45 PM

Eric S.

Dec 8, 2008, 06:05 PM

yojitani

Dec 8, 2008, 06:07 PM

I really hope that there are some fixes for spaces here. I'd like to have MS Word work properly, but that is apparently up to apple.

Cassie

Dec 8, 2008, 06:08 PM

I guess I'm going to have to grumble a little bit.

I can see 10.7 having no PPC support, that seems fair. But 10.6, why not have it? I think Apple is rushing too fast, give a few years before you ditch us lowly PPC owners.

I forsee 10.7 coming out around 2011. Five years after PPC. That seems like a good time to ditch it, but 2009 is a little early in my book.

Also, it seems the number one argument for getting rid of PPC is "You guys aren't missing out on any new features, they're just streamlining Leopard."

Oh, so you're saying Intel owners get the new, fast and improved version of OS X, while us PPC owners should get stuck with the slow and unreliable version? Hmm yeah, that makes perfect sense.:rolleyes:

Anonymous Freak

Dec 8, 2008, 06:19 PM

And yes I am pissed about the lack of PPC support for Snow Leopard. Every Mac I have ever owned has been able to upgrade at least TWICE in the OS dept.

Yes, being 'locked out' sucks. But it's not like this is the first time Apple has done this.

When 10.5 came out, they locked out the 800 MHz G4s, some of which (iBook G4) were less than two years old. (In fact, the first generation of iBook G4 can only run 10.3 or 10.4, same basic range as your G5.) When 10.0 came out, they locked out everything before the G3, with system less than 3 years old being excluded. When 8.5 came out, they killed off 68k, where the PowerBook 190 had only been discontinued for two years.

Apple is known for doing this.

The potential abandonment of Rosetta is much more worrying. I may not run PPC-native software often, but I do still run some. (For example, I still run an old copy of QuickBooks.) They let Classic live for a very long time; it's worrying to see PPC-compatibility die so quickly.

smartalic34

Dec 8, 2008, 06:22 PM

Oh, so you're saying Intel owners get the new, fast and improved version of OS X, while us PPC owners should get stuck with the slow and unreliable version? Hmm yeah, that makes perfect sense.:rolleyes:

10.5 Leopard is very reliable and will be rock solid by the time 10.5.9 rolls around. Snow Leopard is not just streamlining code, but mainly optimizing the code for multi-core processors. eve if Apple made snow leopard for PPC available, there wouldnt be as much improvement (except for the G5). as a G4 owner myself (eMac) I know that there isnt much 10.6 can offer that machine, save for a few GB of extra hard drive space. if you have a quad G5, complain. G4... theres nothing new for you anyway...

Catfish_Man

Dec 8, 2008, 06:35 PM

The main potential advantage I can see to not having Rosetta is it would allow not installing the PPC side of various things. I'd be sorta surprised if they actually did that though... I really need to get around to installing 10A222; been busy with other things.

merlin

Dec 8, 2008, 06:43 PM

Humm, I'm not sure I'm understanding this. Does this mean that I'll be able to run some OS 9.x like I'm doing now via Classic in Tiger? This is the only issue that is preventing me from getting one of the new Intel Macs. I've got one program that I MUST use & it's not been & never will be ported to OS-X.

Thanks to anyone with the answer to this!

Hugh

Dec 8, 2008, 07:00 PM

Eric S.

Dec 8, 2008, 07:03 PM

When 10.5 came out, they locked out the 800 MHz G4s, some of which (iBook G4) were less than two years old.

There are easy workarounds for the below-867 MHz G4's (and some people have shown that 10.5 has OK performance on G4's as slow as 400 MHz). What they also did in 10.5, for no real technical reason, was kill off Classic mode. Unfortunately, the only alternative is a hack like SheepShaver.

10.5 Leopard is very reliable and will be rock solid by the time 10.5.9 rolls around. Snow Leopard is not just streamlining code, but mainly optimizing the code for multi-core processors. eve if Apple made snow leopard for PPC available, there wouldnt be as much improvement (except for the G5). as a G4 owner myself (eMac) I know that there isnt much 10.6 can offer that machine, save for a few GB of extra hard drive space. if you have a quad G5, complain. G4... theres nothing new for you anyway...

But let's emphasize the multi in multi-core. IMO dual-core systems won't see much, if any, improvement from 10.6's new development. Which means that today's Macbooks and iMacs will be left in the dust too, with 10.6 really aimed at Mac Pros and future quad (and above)-core systems.

chuckiej

Dec 8, 2008, 07:05 PM

doubleusn

Dec 8, 2008, 07:07 PM

Hi

I am probably way off but when I read this "This news comes shortly after that IBM had purchased Transitive..." all I could think about was.

Steve Jobs: IBM ...Papermaster is not the droid(s) you're looking for, send him to me. :)

Cheers
-wsn

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/12/08/latest-mac-os-x-10-5-6-seed;-rosetta-becomes-optional-in-snow-leopard/)

Last week Apple seeded developers with Build 9G52 (http://www.hmbt.org/blog/2008/12/05/adc-news-mac-os-x-1056-9g52/) of Mac OS X 10.5.6. The latest seeds ask developers to continue testing Mobile Me syncing and Mail character sets and continues to list a number of fixes from previous versions. Apple is expected to release Mac OS X 10.5.6 in the near future.

HMBT.org also publishes (http://www.hmbt.org/blog/2008/12/04/snow-leopard-10a222-apple-send-for-adc-members/) seed notes from the latest Snow Leopard build (10A222) which was also released to developers (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/12/03/latest-mac-os-x-10-6-snow-leopard-builds-still-have-work-to-be-done/) last week. The newest seed offers new additions to Grand Central, which provides developers an easier way to harness the power of multiple processor cores.

Separately, we've heard that the newest version of Snow Leopard makes Rosetta an optional installation. Rosetta is Apple's PowerPC emulator for their Intel Macs, allowing Intel Mac owners to run legacy software that has not been upgraded for the Intel platform. This news comes shortly after an announcement (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/11/20/ibm-to-acquire-transitive/) that IBM had purchased Transitive, the company behind Rosetta's technology. The final release of Snow Leopard is also rumored to require an Intel Mac, thereby being the first version of Mac OS X to drop PowerPC support.

Apple first announced (http://www.macrumors.com/2005/06/06/macintosh-moving-to-intel-processors/) its transition from PowerPC to Intel processors in June, 2005.

Article Link: Latest Mac OS X 10.5.6 Seed; Rosetta Becomes Optional in Snow Leopard? (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/12/08/latest-mac-os-x-10-5-6-seed;-rosetta-becomes-optional-in-snow-leopard/)

bobertoq

Dec 8, 2008, 07:20 PM

I can not wait for the final release of Snow Leopard. I really do hope Apple does what ever it takes to increase performance, even if that includes dumping PC processors and applications. I use an iBook G4 as my main laptop -- and I mainly use my laptop -- and I don't mind. Probably because I'm going to get an iMac soon, but I want to see some of Apple applications snappier. Like Safari :D

commander.data

Dec 8, 2008, 07:53 PM

I hope Apple isn't using IBM buying Transitive as an excuse to pull Rosetta early. With Apple push towards appealing to corporate environments by adding Exchange support, pulling Rosetta and thereby Office 2004 for VBA support would be a step backwards. Even dropping Rosetta in 10.7 maybe too early.

And for the love of god please think of Starcraft. :eek:

G4DP

Dec 8, 2008, 08:18 PM

I hope Snow Leopard is also going to be considered "revolutionary" like Leopard was when it came out. I can see some major improvements coming in the Finder and how the operating system is structured itself. I think the Finder can use a better design. It has looked almost exactly the same for a long time. Since it has been rumored to be written in cocoa, I know there's something big coming. I think the operating system will be modifyed so Mac's will have faster boot times and require less memory to run.

How in god's name was Leopard 'revolutionary'? The things that were crap in Tiger are still crap in Leopard. Oh woohoo, they added eye candy like Time Machine and Spaces. Not exactly mind shattering. The only thing that will be great about Snow Leopard is Grand Central. Those of us with multi-core machine can actually use them properly.

As for PPC users, it may seem harsh to some, but those that were locked out from Leopard will still be able to run the machines the same. Those that will be locked out with the release of Snow Leopard will still be able to use the machines as they do today. Technology moves on, Apple has to drop support at some point, unless you guys want it to become similar to Windows.

Roderick Usher

Dec 8, 2008, 08:19 PM

Again. Seriously, haven't we been through all the arguments two or three times in the past six months?
It's ever-closer to being a non-issue, if it isn't one already:

http://www.easyscreens.info/gallery/20081208/2.png

(from Net Applications)

jayducharme

Dec 8, 2008, 08:37 PM

Put the dock on the sides, looks different and way sleeker.

That's the way I keep it on my own computer (with Tiger). I do like that look in Leopard much more than the bottom dock. But in the lab where I teach, the dock is kept on the bottom for consistency. :-/

I like that alternate bottom dock. I wish there was a simple preference setting for how the dock look (rather than having to use Terminal).

ppc750fx

Dec 8, 2008, 08:39 PM

How in god's name was Leopard 'revolutionary'? The things that were crap in Tiger are still crap in Leopard. Oh woohoo, they added eye candy like Time Machine and Spaces. Not exactly mind shattering. The only thing that will be great about Snow Leopard is Grand Central. Those of us with multi-core machine can actually use them properly.

So much vitriol, yet so few facts...

1) Time Machine isn't just eye candy. Like it or not, it's the first user-friendly implementation of a whole-drive versioning backup system.

2) Leopard contained a substantial amount of "under-the-hood" upgrades. Granted, not exactly the sort of stuff that non-technical users get psyched about, but a significant improvement for developers and power users. The kernel gained improved SMP performance (via the removal of several locks), the Finder gained more stable handling of networked volumes, and encrypted disk images gained 256-bit AES support as well as sparse bundles (i.e. striped disk images) -- just to name a few. Oh, and 64-bit app support was greatly improved.

3) Leopard contained significant security enhancements. Again, not the sort of thing that non-technical users notice, but important nonetheless. Partial ASLR, sandboxes, and executable quarantining were introduced, in addition to several other features.

4) Your comment about using multi-core machines "properly" indicates a gross misunderstanding of what Grand Central is. Grand Central is not a fix for a broken SMP implementation -- Leopard's SMP support is quite good -- rather, it's a set of libraries and technologies designed to make it easier for programmers to take advantage of multiple CPUs in their applications. Multi-threaded programming is hard to do well, and the introduction of such libraries will help speed the arrival of programs that can effectively utilize multiple CPUs.

On another note: yes, Rosetta does have a substantial disk space requirement. In order for that PPC->x86 magic to function correctly, Rosetta requires both PowerPC and x86 versions of all the OS libraries. Needless to say, this requires a substantial amount of space.

You can actually run 10.4/10.5 without Rosetta right now if you'd like. Simply fire up Monolingual and use it to strip out all other architectures (other than your current one) from all the OS libraries/binaries. Be forewarned though: Rosetta will not work, and some programs you didn't think depended on PPC libs will fail.

KindredMAC

Dec 8, 2008, 08:55 PM

commander.data

Dec 8, 2008, 09:06 PM

I really wish Apple would have left the door open in the PowerMac line for the PPC Power 6/7's.

Everyone got on IBM for not being able to break 3.0 GHz three to four years ago.... well look at where we are today with Intel. We JUST broke 3.0 GHz in the last year. Everyone is moving to multi-core for performance boosts. IBM could have done the same and actually is doing the same.
That assumes IBM had plans to produce PowerPC versions of the Power6 or Power7 architectures. I don't think they ever really did. If I'm not mistaken the G5 was actually Power4 derived. Apple was just too small a market for design a dedicated processor for. The console market was probably very lucrative in comparison and other PowerPC designs were optimized for the embedded market.

And it's not like the door is completely closed to PPC. Even if OS X is not longer released as a UB, PPC builds will still be kept in sync internally. If for no other reason than to hold as a threat over Intel that Apple could always initial a high profile breakup and go back to PPC if Apple doesn't continue getting special treatment.

heynsmd2

Dec 8, 2008, 10:46 PM

Both my HP printer AND scanner use PPC software drivers. And they're not THAT old that I want to replace them, so I'm glad they will still support it.

I'm more worried by the fact that drivers need to be 64 bit... What will happen with older printers and scanners? Even with rosetta they might not work.

SydneyDev

Dec 8, 2008, 10:49 PM

It's not really needed any more (Rosetta). Nearly everything is UB. Office, Photoshop etc, all UB.

Vidd

Dec 8, 2008, 11:13 PM

Everyone got on IBM for not being able to break 3.0 GHz three to four years ago.... well look at where we are today with Intel. We JUST broke 3.0 GHz in the last year.
Your point being?

Anyway, the more Apple trim off and the more efficient the OS gets, the better. I'm all for it.

Cassie

Dec 8, 2008, 11:18 PM

Your point being?

Anyway, the more Apple trim off and the more efficient the OS gets, the better. I'm all for it.

Point being, exactly what was the point of switching to Intel? (OK, running Windows is a given)

Vidd

Dec 8, 2008, 11:24 PM

Point being, exactly what was the point of switching to Intel? (OK, running Windows is a given)
How is comparing processors from "three to four years ago" to the dual-core ones of today (only on the basis of clock speed) useful?

I think the advantages of the Intel switch-over have been covered very well by now.

Winni

Dec 8, 2008, 11:24 PM

Um... removing support after 4 years? Maybe that works in Windowsland. But lots of folks use their Mac for more than 4 years. What happens to creative professionals who bought the last round of towers?

Sorry, but in Windows-Land we're used to more consistency than we get in OS X-land. For example, Windows XP was released in 2001 and Microsoft will support it until 2014.

I know of a company where two years ago NEW installations of Windows NT Server & Exchange 5.5 were rolled out - yes, that was ten years after the original release of NT 4, and they could still get new licenses for that platform. And yes, it makes perfect sense to do something like that when you don't want to be forced to upgrade an entire corporate environment to a new software release.

Dell also offers optional five years of warranty for all their products.

So in Windows-Land, you can expect real long term support for your purchased products.

Now it's 2008 and Apple neither supports Cheetah, Puma or Jaguar anymore. I'm not even sure if they are still providing security updates for Panther. They sold their last high-end, professional PowerPC G5 workstations in 2006 and now already drop the software support for those machines in 2009.

In Windows-Land, business customers would quickly migrate to another platform if they didn't have at least five years of support. Or to be more to the point, they wouldn't have bought from such a vendor in the first place.

By the way, in many countries those five years are the time frame over which you can deduct/write off hard- and software investments from your taxes (or whatever the English term for this is - I'm German and we call this "von der Steuer abschreiben").

Blue Velvet

Dec 8, 2008, 11:28 PM

Point being, exactly what was the point of switching to Intel?

Cassie, there was no reasonable roadmap for PPC processors for laptops, the most popular form of computer sold today. Not the G5, nothing... nothing that could have been reasonably priced and engineered into a popular product. The whole thing was a dead end.

Winni

Dec 8, 2008, 11:47 PM

It's not really needed any more (Rosetta). Nearly everything is UB. Office, Photoshop etc, all UB.

Well, Microsoft Office:Mac 2004 isn't, and whoever wants to use VBA makros is forced to stay on this version. Many printer drivers also haven't been re-written and are still using PPC code. There's most likely a huge amount of legacy (business) apps still in everyday use that won't ever be ported to the Intel architecture.

People like to bash Microsoft for their backwards compatibility, but that enormous compatibility is one of the main reasons why Windows is so successful in the corporate world. By maintaining that level of compatibility, Microsoft is giving their (enterprise) customers what they are asking for. In every big company you will find software that has been in use for years (in the mainframe world even for --decades--, just look at all that legacy COBOL code) without ever having been changed. Why would you want to invest in a re-write or a port to a new architecture when what you have already works?

QueenZ

Dec 9, 2008, 12:13 AM

I just don't understand, why did they have to make it Intel only? :( I really would like to see it on my own computer..

czesco

Dec 9, 2008, 12:14 AM

AidenShaw

Dec 9, 2008, 12:19 AM

The easiest way to ensure that code written today will run everywhere is to make sure it runs on a PowerPC as well.

That's one good way, don't know if "easiest" is the right word.

Note, of course, that "making sure it runs on PPC" doesn't imply "selling and supporting it for PPC machines".

We all now know that Apple kept building and testing the x86 support that NeXT had, even though many years passed before they started to sell x86 systems.

Eric S.

Dec 9, 2008, 01:28 AM

I feel bad for those people who bought their PPCs in late 2005, but I'm sure there will be continued updates on Leopard for some time after the release of 10.6, so all is not lost.

I'm sure there won't be, except for "security" updates that they're probably under a legal obligation to provide. And once Apple abandons PPC for OS development, all application vendors will drop it shortly afterward.

commander.data

Dec 9, 2008, 01:40 AM

Some people are complaining about the switch off of PPC but this is not unprecedented. The first PPC Mac was introduced in March 1994 and OS 8.5 released in October 1998 was the first update to run only on PPC. So, that was about 4.5 years. The Intel processors were introduced in January 2006 so if they release Snow Leopard in the middle of 2009 that would be 3.5 years. Not exactly the same but fairly close.
Not unprecedented is very true.

Some examples of short support cycles:

The Apple Workgroup Server 9650 was sold until February 1998. It wasn't supported by Mac OS X Server 1.0 released in March 1999, just 13 months later. Admittedly, OS X Server 1.0 was more of a preview for OS X, but the 9650 wasn't supported in the final OS X Server 10.0 released in May 2001 either or the final classic OS 9.2 released in July 2001. Keep in mind this is a server where they would probably expect better support.

The first PowerBook G3 called Kanga was sold until May 1998. Like the Workgroup Server 9650 it also didn't support OS X 10.0 released March 2001 (under 3 years) or OS 9.2 released July 2001.

The Twentieth Anniversary Macintosh was sold until March 1998. It also didn't support OS X 10.0 released March 2001 (exactly 3 years) or OS 9.2 released July 2001. Supposedly the original price was $10,000. You could either view it as it doesn't matter if support was cut early since for that price, it's obviously more for display than use. Or you could view it as, if you paid $10,000 in 1998 for a computer, you'd think you'd get a little bit more life out of it.

The last PPC Macs to be replaced were the Power Mac G5 with the Mac Pro at WWDC 2006 in mid-2006. I believe Apple stated at WWDC 2008 that Snow Leopard would come 1 year later, so assuming a WWDC 2009 launch, it'll be exactly 3 years from when the last PPC Mac was replaced. The 3 year cut-off for PPC support isn't completely out of line with the last major Mac transition and culling, which was the switch from OS 9 to OS X, where my 3 examples above come from.

TwinCities Dan

Dec 9, 2008, 02:48 AM

...Many valid points...

but in order to be a cutting edge computer company, things like this will happen.

I embrace progress and trust Apple's decisions... I can't wait for Snow Leopard even if it means I must make my first gen MBP my backup machine... ;) :)

Daveoc64

Dec 9, 2008, 03:49 AM

As long as we get the option of keeping Rosetta I don't mind.

I have a few nifty PPC apps that haven't been updated but that are still very useful.

ppc750fx

Dec 9, 2008, 04:12 AM

Why would you want to invest in a re-write or a port to a new architecture when what you have already works?

Take a good hard look at the registry, autoexec.bat, and WOW and get back to me ;)

ryanwarsaw

Dec 9, 2008, 04:16 AM

Um... removing support after 4 years? Maybe that works in Windowsland. But lots of folks use their Mac for more than 4 years. What happens to creative professionals who bought the last round of towers?

They buy a new computer as they make their living off of it. The other way of coping is to use the computer as they bought it and upgrade it to Leopard. If you make more than a hundred bucks a month doing web design and are really a professional you have an investment ahead of you, if not..... stick with PPC.

I have many issues with Apple but I am certainly not a "professional" on antiquated equipment. If it works well for you as a "professional" how it is now, why upgrade? Most companies are in no hurry to do so.

My garbage posts should be enough proof that I am also a creative professional. If you can not afford a Mac every 4 or 5 years you should do something else.

Infrared

Dec 9, 2008, 06:55 AM

Fast? Macs has gone completely Intel in 2005.

No, they started going Intel in early 2006.

Macmel

Dec 9, 2008, 07:10 AM

Drive space. I find this reason a bit silly, but I KNOW there are people out there who take the time to strip other languages out of iLife programs to save a few MB, so someone out there will like it for this reason.

As for me? I won't be installing it because I want to have the fastest experience possible. If I come across a program using Rosetta I either upgrade it or ditch it for a different program.

I try and keep track, but sometimes one slips by me for awhile and I don't notice it until I check my 'process' report window.

Being told right away: "This program won't run" would make me happy. I'll be glad to have this option.

With the language thing you can save SEVERAL GBs and not a few MB. Last time I did it I recovered like 2 or 3 Gb, I don't exactly remember. It is a big difference.

Macmel

Dec 9, 2008, 07:17 AM

Reading some people complaints, it seems to me that PPC computers running Leopard are going to self-destroy the very minute they release Snow-leopard.
What's the problem, guys?. If your system is working for you, it will continue working later on. Anyway, there's not the smallest chance that you are going to enjoy all this new features in Snow-Leopard with a PPC, so why bother?.
I think it is absolutely natural to develop software that takes advantage of new hardware.
Do you go complain video game companies for making games that won't run in 2 year-old computers because of GPUs or whatever?. Computing is a feast evolving world. If you want to be always on top, renew your computer every year and you'll enjoy always the new released toy.

Veri

Dec 9, 2008, 07:37 AM

And why on earth would Apple want 'enterprise' to take them seriously?
They seem to be trying with the iPhone. 10.6's features are useful for more than gaming and pretty UI effects, too.

So they can enter a crowded commodity market where "cheapest" is the biggest factor for buyers?
NT is competing respectably with Linux. Enterprise also cares about support, OEM apps, 3rd party apps, training, admin/developer availability, integration, etc. Particularly on the server, "is the initial purchase cost as low as possible?" is not a top priority.

You're probably thinking about PC hardware that runs little more than Office (that'll be expensive MS Office, not cheap OpenOffice) and/or some vertical app... the Mac Mini has confirmed that they're not interested in such market.

Why doesn't Apple make cash registers for grocery stores? Or the little computers in gas station pumps?
Because parsimony is to Apple as Skeletor is to He-Man. :p

Shagrat

Dec 9, 2008, 08:49 AM

From the 10.5.6 release notes:

Oh thank GOD! Please let this finally be the end to horrible wireless dropouts/slow connections in Leopard.

Sorry, i don't get this, have NEVER had dropouts/slow connections with WiFi in Leopard...either on my original Netgear Wifi router, or subsequently on my Airport Extreme connected tp my Virgin Media cable modem.

And this is on a Macbook (Mark 1) that I have updated, not clean installed since I bought it.

Shagrat

Dec 9, 2008, 08:53 AM

With the language thing you can save SEVERAL GBs and not a few MB. Last time I did it I recovered like 2 or 3 Gb, I don't exactly remember. It is a big difference.

not so much on my Macbook since I replaced the drive with a 160GB drive, and I will just Clone and restore to a 320 Gb drive soon, as my Aperture library is getting a tad big, at the moment!

Shagrat

Dec 9, 2008, 09:18 AM

Sorry, but in Windows-Land we're used to more consistency than we get in OS X-land. For example, Windows XP was released in 2001 and Microsoft will support it until 2014.

Yes, but only because just about everyone, including the bank I'm currently working for which is one of the biggest (well it WAS one of the biggest!) in the world, have decided that Vista is not only not good enough, but also too expensive to update a large proportion of it's infrastructure for. They are currently STILL on Win 2K, and will (probably) transition to XP next year.

So it's not so much that MS support their OS's for a long time, it's just that in the corporate world their cutomers demand it.

I can GUARANTEE you, that if this wasn't the case, XP would have been EOL'd by now!

newb16

Dec 9, 2008, 11:16 AM

Really I just wish all the whinney PPC users would just roll over and drop out of the Mac sceen.

of the McSean?
"To our valuable customers that have bought new Mac in 2005 and later. Others, 2004 included, may bugger off".

newb16

Dec 9, 2008, 11:25 AM

Um... removing support after 4 years? Maybe that works in Windowsland. But lots of folks use their Mac for more than 4 years.
In windowsland, only 64bit vista can't run '82 dos apps.

What happens to creative professionals who bought the last round of towers?

They will buy new round of towers to find them worthless after 4 years, when new iSuperPhone sdk will run only on ARM towers.

wizard

Dec 9, 2008, 02:11 PM

Sorry, i don't get this, have NEVER had dropouts/slow connections with WiFi in Leopard...either on my original Netgear Wifi router, or subsequently on my Airport Extreme connected tp my Virgin Media cable modem.

That is good for you! However my experience is mixed. I use WiFi on the go and the last WiFi update made some locations very unreliable to the point where one isn't usable anymore. Other sites became more reliable so it is not like the update didn't fix anything.

And this is on a Macbook (Mark 1) that I have updated, not clean installed since I bought it.

This on an intel MBP which seems to be an indicator of a problem machine. I don't think any of the PPC machines see this issue at all.

Dave

wizard

Dec 9, 2008, 02:53 PM

Yes, but only because just about everyone, including the bank I'm currently working for which is one of the biggest (well it WAS one of the biggest!) in the world, have decided that Vista is not only not good enough, but also too expensive to update a large proportion of it's infrastructure for. They are currently STILL on Win 2K, and will (probably) transition to XP next year.

Last I knew support for 2K had already passed. Doesn't matter because Apple hasn't indicated at all as to how long they will support the 10.5 series of Mac OS/X. Support is a massively different concept from delivering a new OS version with new features. Frankly MS offfers up new OS revisions, that aren't compatible with old hardware all the time. That is the reality of the business new hardware offers up capabilities that new revisions of an OS can exploit. Eventually as a user you get left behind.

In some ways though I believe people are jumping the gun here as Apple hasn't laid out any specific transition plan for old hardware yet. Even when it comes to intel hardware SL is only running fully on a small number of intel machines. We are not even sure that PPC will be excluded from SL. It makes a lot of sense that it would be due to SL being a major transition but that is another issue.

So it's not so much that MS support their OS's for a long time, it's just that in the corporate world their cutomers demand it.

In the corporate world it is an issue of many competeing forces not just the OS cost. Free updates are easy to take of course but the cost of Apple upgrades at retail isn't that bad. Often other cost of an upgrade are more important.

I'm any event there have been many times locally where the corporate people have skipped upgrades due to the quality of what would be the upgrade platform. Vista is just one example from MS but let's face it the first few revs of OS/X didn't invite a lot of adopters. The key with corporate updates is the minimzation of trouble.

I can GUARANTEE you, that if this wasn't the case, XP would have been EOL'd by now!

That is a bit of a stretch because MS has already EOL'ed Windows 2K that you are currently using. XP staying around for longer than planned is just MS admitting that Vista has issues. MS has phased out a number of OS versions no matter the whinning and thrashing of those to cheap to update.

In any event your argument doesn't even acknowledge that some corporate locations are still running NT and other phased out MS operating systems. Just like old NT users nothing forces Apple users to update, often on an old platform you are better off with an older software rev anyways.

All the belly aching aside, a PPC machine isn't going to stop working when SL hits the street. People need to realize this.

Further it currently looks like some of SL features are directed at developers. It could be months or longer before a compelling suite of apps hit the marketplace to justify consumer uptake of SL. As I've said before I just don't see where PPC users have a leg to stand on right now.

wizard

Dec 9, 2008, 03:03 PM

Cassie, there was no reasonable roadmap for PPC processors for laptops, the most popular form of computer sold today. Not the G5, nothing... nothing that could have been reasonably priced and engineered into a popular product. The whole thing was a dead end.

The above is all true but is only part of the story. One big issue with PPC is that it sucked big time as a general purpose processor. The G5 was significantly slower than the intel processors of the day when introduced. It had some advantage in float and vector operations but even that was a short term reality.

The other big issue is that both intel and AMD had road maps that showed significant improvements in new processors about to come to market. The PPC world had nothing and frankly it appeared that IBM was really affraid to improve PPC significantly.

To put it bluntly Apple with PPC was on a set of tracks going no where.

twoodcc

Dec 9, 2008, 03:11 PM

The above is all true but is only part of the story. One big issue with PPC is that it sucked big time as a general purpose processor. The G5 was significantly slower than the intel processors of the day when introduced. It had some advantage in float and vector operations but even that was a short term reality.

The other big issue is that both intel and AMD had road maps that showed significant improvements in new processors about to come to market. The PPC world had nothing and frankly it appeared that IBM was really affraid to improve PPC significantly.

To put it bluntly Apple with PPC was on a set of tracks going no where.

but what about the cell processor?

Eric S.

Dec 9, 2008, 03:19 PM

Sorry, i don't get this, have NEVER had dropouts/slow connections with WiFi in Leopard...either on my original Netgear Wifi router, or subsequently on my Airport Extreme connected tp my Virgin Media cable modem.

And this is on a Macbook (Mark 1) that I have updated, not clean installed since I bought it.

I have problems with wifi dropouts. Normally it's not noticeable because Airport automatically rescans and reconnects, but when I'm connected via VPN, the VPN connection gets dropped which is a major pain. I don't know if the problem is Leopard or the new Macbook, but it doesn't ever happen with Tiger on my iBook G4.

bluefido

Dec 9, 2008, 04:01 PM

All I care about is whether Diablo II will work with my MacBook. I love my MacBook, but it absolutely blows as a gaming machine. Hence, I retreat to older games like Diablo II to get my fix.

contractcooker

Dec 9, 2008, 05:33 PM

On one hand I like that Apple is fully embracing the intel switch, but I'm not so happy that they're pushing everyone else to do the same, especially not so fast.

Ok... it's really not that fast.... it's already been 3 years. That means that all the PPC machines will be running out of applecare extended support by the time Snow Leopard is out. I don't know how ANYONE can be surprised that Apple are doing this. Really it's a good choice because it cuts down the time they need to develope for something that is at the end of it's life... I suppose they could have gone one more version with PPC support BUT Apple has always been a forward facing company.... even to a fault. If you have a PPC machine Leopard should be just as good as snow leopard. From what I understand most of the optimizations will be focused on solidifying intel support so PPC machines wouldn't benefit much from this version anyway.

Sigh, getting harder and harder to run my 5 year old PowerBook.

Does that count as a backlash? :)

Nope not backlash just understandable annoyance at how quickly hardware becomes obsoleted.

Fast? Macs has gone completely Intel in 2005. By the time Snow Leopard comes out, it will have been 4 years since PPC disappeared from the Mac lineup.

Uh... not really might want to check the timeline. But I think that even though it's only been 3 years since the switch that has been enough time. I understand that there may be a few people who bought PPC machines on the cusp of the intel transition. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.... it happens to everyone once in a while, especially where technology is concerned.

I disagree with "forced."

Other upgrades have added new features (Expose, Time Machine) that everyone might want. It's fair to say "forced" in those situations, because those features were so useful, everyone would like to have them.

Snow Leopard, on the other hand, seems to mostly be adding hardware optimization that only speeds up newer hardware. Meaning: Intel hardware.

So, even if they offered 10.6 for PPC, the changes would be minimal. So you'd get minimal changes and they'd have to put in a LOT more work. That's why it's called "Snow Leopard." It's pretty much the same as "Leopard!"

10.7 will be the first time PPC owners actually miss out on new features.

I agree

i bought a ppc mac in nov 2005.

Sucks to be you :(..... seriously my sympathies. That is an awkward and annoying situation to be in.

Is that the sound preferences in the dock? How did you get this there?

LOL drag and drop?

swagi

Dec 9, 2008, 06:04 PM

Really I just wish all the whinney PPC users would just roll over and drop out of the Mac sceen. Apple should have dropped PPC support years ago after intel hardware doubled real world performance. That doesn't mean not to support PPC on a stable version of OS/X but to simple not to support development for future revisions.

Frankly continued PPC support is a waste of good money!

Dave

Guess we have a switcher here :rolleyes:

No, really, without any personal sentiment in this argument, I could care less about Snow Leopard.

I'm currently in a tough decision: Should I roll back my machines to Tiger or to Panther. 10.3.9 was a real stable OS. Tiger is usable, soetimes a little clunky compared to Panther, but still quite solid.

Leopard sux big time on my Powerbook. Mail frequently crashes, 10.5.5 killed my old Flash MX that still worked in 10.5.4 (and I don't feel the need to upgrade) - so - in effect I can only pray to MF god, that Snow Leopard will finally bring some stability back.

Compared to Leopard on my PB I can honestly say, that Vista 64-bit is a godsent on my other machine. And that is my real honest feeling about this. I really hesitate to upgrade the Intel machines, as they are working machines, and my PB is private. 10.5 offers nothing to me, so I guess I'll wait til the dust settles with 10.6.3 and then upgrade my work machines.

Your stupid PPC-bashing has nothing to offer, except showing your ignorance. If you get the chance, try out a 1 GHz Powerbook with Panther. Maybe then you'd realize how much of a hog Leopard is.

So back on topic: Maybe Snow Leopard will finally get rid of all this stupid stuff. It's so bloody annoying that QuickTime has gotten worse with every iteration. Same applies to iTunes. Less function more bloat seems to be Apple's current mantra.

*calms down, because he's still so balantly pissed, that he can't cut, edit and create MP3s from Quicktime anymore*

On a side note I'll wait for Nehalem for the next Laptop upgrade. But I'm looking forward to rolling back my Powerbook to the pristine software condition with a clean system restore from Panther. I'll then compare both systems on everyday tasks :cool:

contractcooker

Dec 9, 2008, 06:11 PM

Props to you for doing that...at least you aren't selling crack to buy a new Mac Pro!

HMMMMMM..... now there's an idea.... lol

contractcooker

Dec 9, 2008, 06:12 PM

College is the best time to get employment. Even better if it's on campus.

I'm waiting for 10.5.6 and ogling the Blu-ray drives for my Q6600 tower.
Yeah, seriously what's apple's deal with blu-ray?

contractcooker

Dec 9, 2008, 06:18 PM

Actually - I purchased my g5 quad in january 2006 so it's more like 2 1/2 - 3 years... Enough to piss off some people including me. That's not much time considering I spent $11,000 on the workstation at the time loaded up. They should support power pc systems a bit longer... A year or so...

DUDE.... why the hell did you buy an $11,000.00 PPC mac in 2006? I mean... if it was worth it to you for the extra processing power then... there's your answer and your probably have enough money to shell out for a new $11,000 MacPro.... (mouth watering).... If you just bought it to have the best machine then you sir, are stupid. Everyone knows that the mid-range is the best place to purchase hardware (as far as processes per unit price) The only reason to spend that much money would be if you made enough more money from the increased speed that it justified the exhorbitant price tag

xrayzed

Dec 9, 2008, 06:20 PM

I feel the pain of the PPC owners, not least because I have a G4 iBook.

Having said that, the current move away from PPC is pretty much on the timetable I expected. In my case I factored it in to my purchase decisions.

I bought my iBook around the time the Intel changeover was being announced. I knew that I was buying an obsolescent machine, but I either had to go for a PC solution that didn't offer what I wanted (Mac OS + apps such as FCP) or had to wait until the Intel chips were on the market.

Weighing up the options I went for the G4 iBook on the theory that by the time PPC was being dropped from support I'd be ready for my next purchase. My next buy will be a desktop, so I'm leaning towards waiting until the next iMac upgrade, and possibly even waiting until Snow Leopard comes out.

That will give me the processing power to do the more graphics-intensive work I'd like, will let me run Windows (my wife needs it for work, while I have squillions of Windows games I couldn't bear to part with). My iBook still works fine on Tiger and I can keep that for word processing, email and such when I'm not at home or work.

This is a very different situation to someone running a business with a large PPC install base, of course. The issues with EOL on PPC may have been foreseeable, but that doesn't make the problems involved with upgrading any less painful for these people.

Concorde Rules

Dec 9, 2008, 06:21 PM

Everyone got on IBM for not being able to break 3.0 GHz three to four years ago.... well look at where we are today with Intel. We JUST broke 3.0 GHz in the last year. Everyone is moving to multi-core for performance boosts. IBM could have done the same and actually is doing the same.

Except the clock for clock performance on the C2D/C2Q are better than that of the G5 and whatever the G6 was going to be?

I for one am glad apple went Intel.

As for 10.6, its about time PPC is dropped. Allows apple to code for one instruction set.

Its not like 10.5 is rubbish is it.

Im also for apple dropping PPC support.

diamond.g

Dec 9, 2008, 06:44 PM

apsterling

Dec 9, 2008, 06:52 PM

The clock speed is only as good as the other speeds in the computer. Slow RAM? Too bad, your computer will only run as fast as it can read and write to memory.

4Ghz is overkill until RAM is faster.

Mackilroy

Dec 9, 2008, 07:17 PM

Guess we have a switcher here :rolleyes:

I'm so glad you're one of those who believes that if someone doesn't care or want Snow Leopard on PPC that they're automatically a switcher. :rolleyes:

Personally, I've been using Macs since 1994, and if PPC Macs don't get Snow Leopard I'm not going to worry too much about it –*we have two Intel and two PPC Macs in my house and they all get along fine with Leopard, thank you.

As far as Rosetta being optional, that's good for me, as all my apps are now Intel-only or Universal.

diamond.g

Dec 9, 2008, 07:21 PM

The clock speed is only as good as the other speeds in the computer. Slow RAM? Too bad, your computer will only run as fast as it can read and write to memory.

4Ghz is overkill until RAM is faster.

Ram isn't the problem, disk access is.

Eric S.

Dec 9, 2008, 08:14 PM

Apple has always been a forward facing company.... even to a fault.

I was able to run 68K programs from as far back as 1986 on the latest OS version right up until Apple killed Classic in 10.5. That's the kind of backward compatibility one used to expect from Apple.

As for 10.6, its about time PPC is dropped. Allows apple to code for one instruction set.

I would guess that 95% or more of OS X is C or C++ code that is common to PPC and Intel. Testing all the various hardware platforms is the real resource hog here.

Let's face it, Apple is trying to move people off the old hardware and get them to buy new systems, because that's where they make their profits. Once PPC machines are are abandoned they will next find ways to orphan the early Intel boxes.

Fresh Pie

Dec 9, 2008, 08:27 PM

http://i309.photobucket.com/albums/kk398/zanderrocks/ppc.jpg

Ashka

Dec 9, 2008, 10:00 PM

I'll still feel sad for all the PPC users if ALL PPC Macs are at the end of their upgrade path with OSX 10.5.? ~ Still no definite Yay or Nay from Apple.

I bought my 14" iBook March '06 before the intel Macs were even in the Country (New Zealand) Apple Care continues until March 2009.

AidenShaw

Dec 9, 2008, 10:29 PM

Once PPC machines are are abandoned they will next find ways to orphan the early Intel boxes.

If 10.6 is 64-bit only, Apple will have orphaned all of the Core Duo and Core Solo Intel boxes.

And, In Aiden's Opinion (IAO) - that would be a good thing.

Apple should never have sold *any* 32-bit Intel chips when the 64-bit laptop chips were only a few months later.

sporadicMotion

Dec 9, 2008, 11:00 PM

Ya know, reading this thread just makes me miss the 68k days... things just worked. Dear god, making a boot disk was as simple as copying the System and Finder over to a floppy and bang, instant boot dist. Photoshop was snappy, HyperCard was a fun little tool, anyone else remember using FirstClass BBS software (which is still around... I know SFU was using it as recently as 2006). Ah the good ole days back when fashion wasn't the reason to buy a Mac... back then Apple understood sticking by its customers. Don't get me wrong, I still vastly prefer Apples OS over the other options out there... but why cut off full OS updates for the people that are on Macs that are 2 years old? PPC isn't that far behind us and they still make great productive machines... as many people here know first hand.

The really unfortunate part about this is simply this: the people on the PPC machines are the classic Mac users in a lot of cases. They're the ones who are accustomed to being able to buy a Mac and having it stay a useful and valid machine for close to five years. They're the ones that were willing to shell out the extra money (I remember the pain and joy of dishing out near $8000 (CAN) for a Quadra 900) just to use an OS that they believed in and enjoyed using. There really is no reason why Apple should halt support for PPC when there is still a large customer base out there using G4 and G5 machines... especially in a time when the average persons pocket book is feeling a little lighter.

Have a heart Apple.

smartalic34

Dec 10, 2008, 12:30 AM

If 10.6 is 64-bit only, Apple will have orphaned all of the Core Duo and Core Solo Intel boxes.

And, In Aiden's Opinion (IAO) - that would be a good thing.

Apple should never have sold *any* 32-bit Intel chips when the 64-bit laptop chips were only a few months later.

I dont think 10.6 will be 64-bit only, but looking towards the future, I would be perfectly okay if 10.7 was 64-bit only. all I want is a leaner, faster leopard, and once I have that, I'll be content as long as my core duo MBP shall live.

TwinCities Dan

Dec 10, 2008, 02:00 AM

I dont think 10.6 will be 64-bit only, but looking towards the future, I would be perfectly okay if 10.7 was 64-bit only. all I want is a leaner, faster leopard, and once I have that, I'll be content as long as my core duo MBP shall live.

I was about to type up a response to AidenShaw and sporadicMotion, but then I read your comment and I thought a prop would suffice... ;) :)

+1 for smartalic34

swagi

Dec 10, 2008, 03:31 AM

I'm so glad you're one of those who believes that if someone doesn't care or want Snow Leopard on PPC that they're automatically a switcher. :rolleyes:

Personally, I've been using Macs since 1994, and if PPC Macs don't get Snow Leopard I'm not going to worry too much about it –*we have two Intel and two PPC Macs in my house and they all get along fine with Leopard, thank you.

As far as Rosetta being optional, that's good for me, as all my apps are now Intel-only or Universal.

No, you misunderstood me, sorry.

If SL is one major stability overhaul, I'm all over it. Problem is, they should really enhance the stability in 10.5 as well, and that includes PPC machines.

Maybe I should put it another way: Leopard is the weakest OS X I personally used since 10.0.0. And yes, I really think the very limited 10.1 build with little features was MORE STABLE than Leopard, at least in my personal experience.

If they officially leave PPC in the dust, I could care less, as long as they start building high quality computers and OS's again. And I think it's freaking annoying, that they will ship a so called update of what Leopard should have been in the beginning!

*Disclaimer: Bit the bullet with 10.2.0, 10.3.0 and 10.4.0. All had their hiccups, I know, but 10.5.0 was the greatest freaking mess I ever experienced on an Apple machine - and it still remains with 10.5.5*

I just went for the flamebait considering PPC users. During the PPC times we may had inferior chips in our computers, but we had a rock solid OS bundled with great and FUNCTIONAL software. Now we have fast processors as everyone else, our OS and bundled software is deteriorating with every new build and we are just becoming the same mainstream as Windows Vista.

I never thought I would think that way, but honestly Apple's direction of the last years makes me really anxious to follow the Linux distros (Sabayon looks fine, Ubuntu o.K.) or wait for Windows 7.

ztigerpaw

Dec 10, 2008, 07:17 AM

I just went for the flamebait considering PPC users. During the PPC times we may had inferior chips in our computers, but we had a rock solid OS bundled with great and FUNCTIONAL software. Now we have fast processors as everyone else, our OS and bundled software is deteriorating with every new build and we are just becoming the same mainstream as Windows Vista.

I never thought I would think that way, but honestly Apple's direction of the last years makes me really anxious to follow the Linux distros (Sabayon looks fine, Ubuntu o.K.) or wait for Windows 7.

The thing is Apple use to be as mainstream as Windows back in the Apple II days. Everyone has had it with Windows & Vista. Its about time someone take there place again. No one wants another decade with them and Apple needs to grow in order to stay ahead (FYI the Intel switch). I've been waiting for this day since I jumped back into the Mac universe after sticking with Windows till, sadly, late 2005.

My guess is Leopard in a sense complete reboot of the Mac OS X platform. Which is why its almost as unstable as 10.0 and why 10.6 nothing more then what 10.1 was at the time.

AidenShaw

Dec 10, 2008, 08:31 AM

My guess is Leopard in a sense complete reboot of the Mac OS X platform. Which is why its almost as unstable as 10.0 and why 10.6 nothing more then what 10.1 was at the time.

If 10.6 has a 64-bit kernel, then that's another substantial "reboot" of the platform, which might not be good for stability.

Plus, a 64-bit kernel will require all new 64-bit drivers - and we all know what that can do.

So Apple will have to support 2 kernels and 2 sets of drivers - if they support the few remaining Core Duo 32-bit machines. If thed add support for the older PPC machines, that's 4 kernels and 4 sets of drivers to develop and maintain.

That's quite a development and maintenance load - compared to supporting x64 only and having only 1 kernel and 1 set of drivers.

And to make it really messy, think about the ARM build of OSX.

kwajo.com

Dec 10, 2008, 11:08 AM

Get ready for a zillion inane "the update is XXX MB on my system" posts.

Again. Seriously, haven't we been through all the arguments two or three times in the past six months?

I expect Apple will behave as it has in the past: once the new version is released, we will get only "security updates" for the old OS.

Let me guess, you don't own any PPC Macs, right? :) It's always OK when someone else's technology is abandoned. But as many owners of Firewire devices recently discovered, next time Apple may come after your technology. Most of the arguments advanced as to why PPC systems won't benefit from 10.6 apply equally well to early Intel machines too.

Personally I don't care (much) about Apple dropping PPC support in 10.6. What does bother me is Apple's increasing indifference to the wishes of its installed base of computer users, and the relegation of its computer products to a status secondary to its consumer electronics business.

Really? :eek: Of all the Macs I've owned over the years, the iBook G3 was the only one that went belly-up to the extent that it was not even worth it to repair - and that was after I had shipped it off once already for a new logic board.

I agree with the original poster, my old iBook G3 (key lime) is rock solid in every way. It has cracks all over the case from drops and abuse, the hinge on the screen is broken from getting run over by a car (inside a bookbag) and yet it still runs Tiger surprisingly well. I can use it with iTunes as an mp3/aac jukebox, run Word 2004, check Mail, surf with Safari, all with a machine that by most accounts is not only obsolete but should have stopped working years ago. Heck even the original battery still gives me 2-3 hours of typing (with Airport turned off), and here's the kicker: IT HAS FIREWIRE.

I'd like to see a new Macbook do that ;)

Eric S.

Dec 10, 2008, 11:52 AM

If SL is one major stability overhaul, I'm all over it. Problem is, they should really enhance the stability in 10.5 as well, and that includes PPC machines.

Maybe I should put it another way: Leopard is the weakest OS X I personally used since 10.0.0. And yes, I really think the very limited 10.1 build with little features was MORE STABLE than Leopard, at least in my personal experience.

It seems to me that because Snow Leopard's changes are (reportedly) below the user interface level, people have the idea that somehow it is a maintenance or "stability" release. I don't get that; I see Apple adding a slew of OS technologies (which will mostly benefit future hardware platforms rather than current ones). To me that means a whole lot of instability, at least until the major kinks are worked out.

In my experience, Leopard has been the most stable MacOS version I have used. It may have had problems on its initial release, but I installed it on my G4 system at 10.5.1 and it has been my primary OS there since 10.5.2. Problems have been minimal - fewer than Tiger, and far fewer than earlier versions of OS X. YMMV, but I certainly don't expect Snow Leopard to offer more stability than Leopard, at least initially - the other way around in fact.

PurrBall

Dec 10, 2008, 11:58 AM

Leopard has been the quirkiest OS Ive used since ME, I hope SL brings it up to the speed and stability of Tiger.

Eric S.

Dec 10, 2008, 12:12 PM

I agree with the original poster, my old iBook G3 (key lime) is rock solid in every way. It has cracks all over the case from drops and abuse, the hinge on the screen is broken from getting run over by a car (inside a bookbag) and yet it still runs Tiger surprisingly well.

Well your experience is atypical. According to a Macintouch special report (http://www.macintouch.com/reliability/laptops.html) of Jan. 3, 2006, the iBook G3 was the least reliable Apple laptop ever produced, with the most repairs, especially motherboard replacements. According to them:

By affected percentage of models, the G3 iBooks were the worst by far, with more than half requiring logic board replacements. Apple created a warranty extension program for some versions, but not all. (MacInTouch readers are still reporting newly failed iBook G3s, and the warranty extension program has ended.)

The white 12" iBook G3 series became much less reliable through its first five revisions, reaching a 73% failure percentage! The last revision dropped to a 49% failure percentage — much improved over the previous model, but still unconscionably high. The problems appear to have been solved, for the most part, in the newer iBook G4 series.
...
The iBook G3, which sold quite well, had the most failures of any Apple laptop we surveyed and the failures were critical (the motherboard). Some other Mac models have had quite a few failures as well, but they generally were due to specific component problems. The iBook G3 simply appears to have been a flawed design, but it took a long time for Apple engineers to get a handle on the problem and fix it.

kingtj

Dec 10, 2008, 12:12 PM

I agree with the facts you're stating, but not with your conclusions.

Microsoft just "follows the money". If they realize enough people are still out there who will buy licenses for OLD software of theirs, they'll keep on selling those licenses.

This isn't, however, because they want to promote "more consistency".

On the contrary, supporting such things as versions of Exchange Server that are 3 or 4 versions old is a *poor* idea. Anyone with the money (and a need) for a corporate mail and scheduling server of their own, the size and cost of Exchange, is FOOLISH to try sticking with a version as old as 5.5! (And yes, that was STILL foolish 2 years ago.) That product was developed long before people invented all the email spamming attack strategies they employ today, for starters. It simply won't give an administrator some of the tools he/she needs to combat those issues, meaning they become headaches for the users or OTHER mail server admins to deal with.

Also, Microsoft's definition of "support" for products varies. Windows XP will only get support through 2014 in "extended support" status. That means very little, really. XP users are going to miss out on ALL the new and improved technologies that get rolled into more current versions of the OS from now through 2014 -- and in many cases, software compatibility issues that arise will be "solved" by Microsoft support by telling you that "you HAVE to upgrade to a newer version of Windows to make that work". So much for real "support" there.

Sorry, but in Windows-Land we're used to more consistency than we get in OS X-land. For example, Windows XP was released in 2001 and Microsoft will support it until 2014.

I know of a company where two years ago NEW installations of Windows NT Server & Exchange 5.5 were rolled out - yes, that was ten years after the original release of NT 4, and they could still get new licenses for that platform. And yes, it makes perfect sense to do something like that when you don't want to be forced to upgrade an entire corporate environment to a new software release.

Dell also offers optional five years of warranty for all their products.

So in Windows-Land, you can expect real long term support for your purchased products.

Now it's 2008 and Apple neither supports Cheetah, Puma or Jaguar anymore. I'm not even sure if they are still providing security updates for Panther. They sold their last high-end, professional PowerPC G5 workstations in 2006 and now already drop the software support for those machines in 2009.

In Windows-Land, business customers would quickly migrate to another platform if they didn't have at least five years of support. Or to be more to the point, they wouldn't have bought from such a vendor in the first place.

By the way, in many countries those five years are the time frame over which you can deduct/write off hard- and software investments from your taxes (or whatever the English term for this is - I'm German and we call this "von der Steuer abschreiben").

AidenShaw

Dec 10, 2008, 04:21 PM

Also, Microsoft's definition of "support" for products varies. Windows XP will only get support through 2014 in "extended support" status. That means very little, really. XP users are going to miss out on ALL the new and improved technologies that get rolled into more current versions of the OS from now through 2014 -- and in many cases, software compatibility issues that arise will be "solved" by Microsoft support by telling you that "you HAVE to upgrade to a newer version of Windows to make that work". So much for real "support" there.

The real purpose of extended support is so that an established application (usually server) can live out its life without having to be upgraded/moved to a new OS. Primarily, this means that security and other important patches are still delivered.

It's not to provide new drivers and other hardware support for newly released servers, nor is it to keep the old OS "feature equivalent" to the new one.

For the most part, any organization will use the latest OS for new deployments.

swagi

Dec 10, 2008, 06:35 PM

It seems to me that because Snow Leopard's changes are (reportedly) below the user interface level, people have the idea that somehow it is a maintenance or "stability" release. I don't get that; I see Apple adding a slew of OS technologies (which will mostly benefit future hardware platforms rather than current ones). To me that means a whole lot of instability, at least until the major kinks are worked out.

In my experience, Leopard has been the most stable MacOS version I have used. It may have had problems on its initial release, but I installed it on my G4 system at 10.5.1 and it has been my primary OS there since 10.5.2. Problems have been minimal - fewer than Tiger, and far fewer than earlier versions of OS X. YMMV, but I certainly don't expect Snow Leopard to offer more stability than Leopard, at least initially - the other way around in fact.

Honestly I couldn't agree more. But based on the fact, that in spite of reading MR daily I have absolutely no clue what to expect from Apple in the next year, I may just settle for some butt-ugly Sony.

My usual plan was to wait for a Nehalem MBP, now I'm torn to wait for a Nehalem MBP with SL preinstalled. That's why I start thinking: "Why not just buy a loaded Windows machine and make the best of it?"

So, on a side note, do you have the same freaking issue that your computer unloads the tray even when there is no disk inside, when waking from sleep? Just one minor Leopard annoyance introduced on my Powerbook :cool: At least that's what I think the drive does, when it's sounding wonky on wakeup.

kingtj

Dec 10, 2008, 07:30 PM

I still maintain that "extended support" is just a Microsoft tool to maximize their profits, vs. serving a legitimate purpose of "concern for the customer".

Otherwise, how do you explain the huge public outcry that happened when Microsoft announced an end to full support for products like Windows '98 (arguably their most successful and liked OS), or even Windows XP? In both cases, it was clear they looked at the pros and cons from a purely profit-generating standpoint, and decided they stood to gain more than they lost by pushing people to upgrade sooner than they wanted to.

They were forced to back-pedal in both cases, although people are *still* trying to buy new machines with Windows XP instead of Vista, and finding it an increasingly difficult and frustrating task.

Realistically, at some point, your OS becomes "secure via obsolescence", without ANY support from the vendor anyway. I could install Windows 3.1 or Windows '95 on some PC today, and I highly doubt almost any of the current virus attacks would affect it, because they assume newer versions of everything!

All my point is, really, is that Apple is just a little more official about dropping support for older products. Microsoft "beats around the bush" to create the illusion that you get more "product life" from their software products. But ultimately? If you go with Apple, you generally get support for the last 2 operating system versions and you're on your own if you skip 2 upgrade cycles. With Microsoft? Same difference, except they'll take your money for a lot longer to "pretend" it's "ok" to keep using outdated versions.

The real purpose of extended support is so that an established application (usually server) can live out its life without having to be upgraded/moved to a new OS. Primarily, this means that security and other important patches are still delivered.

It's not to provide new drivers and other hardware support for newly released servers, nor is it to keep the old OS "feature equivalent" to the new one.

For the most part, any organization will use the latest OS for new deployments.

Eric S.

Dec 10, 2008, 08:53 PM

So, on a side note, do you have the same freaking issue that your computer unloads the tray even when there is no disk inside, when waking from sleep? Just one minor Leopard annoyance introduced on my Powerbook :cool: At least that's what I think the drive does, when it's sounding wonky on wakeup.

You mean that it makes some reset noise, not that there's a physical tray that ejects, right? Are you sure it isn't just the drive resetting? My new Macbook makes a noise like that. The cdrom on my Power Mac G4 (which has a physical tray) doesn't do anything on wakeup.

3.1416

Dec 10, 2008, 09:28 PM

Ya know, reading this thread just makes me miss the 68k days... things just worked.Extension conflicts, manually allocating memory to applications, the entire UI pausing when you hold down a menu, a bug in any app able to crash the system...can't say I miss it.

but why cut off full OS updates for the people that are on Macs that are 2 years old?Because it takes significant resources to do testing and QA for the steadily decreasing minority of PPC Macs, resources that could be much better spent improving OS X for modern Macs.

PPC isn't that far behind us and they still make great productive machines... as many people here know first hand.Indeed. And they will still be so after Snow Leopard comes out.

The really unfortunate part about this is simply this: the people on the PPC machines are the classic Mac users in a lot of cases.Then like me, they've gone through the 68k->PPC and OS 9->OS X transitions, so this is nothing new.

Have a heart Apple.Apple is not a charity. And if they were, it would be better for both them and us to subsidize new Macbooks or minis, rather than spending limited development resources on obsolete hardware.

sporadicMotion

Dec 10, 2008, 10:40 PM

Extension conflicts, manually allocating memory to applications, the entire UI pausing when you hold down a menu, a bug in any app able to crash the system...can't say I miss it.

I still miss it. :p All OSes have their issues... but it still worked so wonderfully. Especially in comparison to the other options of the time... I have to admit I forgot about extension conflicts.

Because it takes significant resources to do testing and QA for the steadily decreasing minority of PPC Macs, resources that could be much better spent improving OS X for modern Macs.

I agree to an extent... PPC may be on the decrease, but not on a scale that makes it pointless to update. I just think one more update would be fair to the people who spent good money on those machines, and besides, the resources would be earned back in OS sales... yes though, they can't be supported forever.

Indeed. And they will still be so after Snow Leopard comes out.

I can't argue that, they will still have access to some great operating systems

Then like me, they've gone through the 68k->PPC and OS 9->OS X transitions, so this is nothing new.

I went through the same transitions and Apple has given a much nicer window in the past for people to buy new machines. The last 68k mac came out around '95 and yet the first ppc only os didn't come out until '99... that's 4 years. Same with OS9 to OS X, classic support was only dropped in Leopard... once again, a much longer transition.

Apple is not a charity. And if they were, it would be better for both them and us to subsidize new Macbooks or minis, rather than spending limited development resources on obsolete hardware.

I wouldn't consider machines such as a PowerMac G5 or G5 iMac to be obsolete... however, yes, they are not a charity. They are a business out to make money. I don't think it would be a waste of resourses in any way though. The nice thing about Mac users is, in a good majority of cases, they're more willing to hand over money for an OS as opposed to downloading it...

MagnusVonMagnum

Dec 11, 2008, 12:43 AM

What is wrong with 10.5.5? it is very stable for me in my iMac

There's not much wrong with Tiger either. The question is of software compatibility. Mac developers have a way of ditching prior OS support rather quickly, IMO. I've got a PPC Mac and an Intel MBP. I'm still using Tiger on the PPC one because Leopard is noticeably slower and dropped Classic support.

swagi

Dec 11, 2008, 02:40 AM

You mean that it makes some reset noise, not that there's a physical tray that ejects, right? Are you sure it isn't just the drive resetting? My new Macbook makes a noise like that. The cdrom on my Power Mac G4 (which has a physical tray) doesn't do anything on wakeup.

Yes, you're right, Eric. There's no physical tray. I don't know, what the drive is doing, but I guess it's trying to eject a disk. At least I experienced my Powerbook ejecting the disk when waking up from sleep some time.

Exactly that noise/drive behaviour was introduced in Leopard. Sorry, that you can't install Tiger on your Macbook to see, if your 'drive sound' also vanishes. :D

smartalic34

Dec 11, 2008, 11:49 AM

Yes, you're right, Eric. There's no physical tray. I don't know, what the drive is doing, but I guess it's trying to eject a disk. At least I experienced my Powerbook ejecting the disk when waking up from sleep some time.

Exactly that noise/drive behaviour was introduced in Leopard. Sorry, that you can't install Tiger on your Macbook to see, if your 'drive sound' also vanishes. :D

all macbook pros' drives make a noise upon waking from sleep. even the tiger ones. I'm not sure of its purpose, but apple probably used leopard to update the powerbooks to behave as the MBPs had been for awhile now...

jimdkc

Dec 12, 2008, 12:04 PM

I, too, am disappointed that Apple is making Rosetta an optional install in Snow Leopard...

I think they should dump it altogether! Less legacy crap is a good thing.

Jim

smartalic34

Dec 12, 2008, 12:30 PM

I, too, am disappointed that Apple is making Rosetta an optional install in Snow Leopard...

I think they should dump it altogether! Less legacy crap is a good thing.

Jim
not that I'm one of them, but that would really screw people over who have office 2004 and dont want to upgrade...

MagnusVonMagnum

Dec 13, 2008, 12:09 AM

I, too, am disappointed that Apple is making Rosetta an optional install in Snow Leopard...

I think they should dump it altogether! Less legacy crap is a good thing.

Jim

Yeah, vastly less software to use on an already small platform is always a good thing. :rolleyes:

Bytesmiths

Jun 15, 2009, 12:48 PM

i bought a ppc mac in nov 2005.

I'm pretty sure my quad G5 was purchased in April, 2006.

I don't want to stand in the way of "progress." I don't want to bitch and moan. Still, I tend to run machines a long time, and I'm disappointed. We were told the PPC was the world's first "true 64-bit processor," and now one of the reasons touted for dropping it is so we can have a "true 64-bit OS."

Q: How can you tell an Apple marketing person is lying?

A: Their lips are moving.

Peace

Jun 15, 2009, 12:51 PM

not that I'm one of them, but that would really screw people over who have office 2004 and dont want to upgrade...

Yeah, vastly less software to use on an already small platform is always a good thing. :rolleyes:

Rosetta must be there as an optional install. Office 2004 and the upcoming Quicken Financial Life apps require it.

Quicken Financial Life will be a native Intel app but in order to import data from Quicken for the Mac ( PPC app ) you will need Rosetta to transcode the data to use in the Intel only app.

Sambo110

Jun 15, 2009, 12:52 PM

You guys realise this is from December of last year?

Peace

Jun 15, 2009, 12:55 PM

You guys realise this is from December of last year?

It is from last year but the topic covers 10.5.6 AND Snow Leopard.

corinhorn

Jun 15, 2009, 05:20 PM

Rosetta must be there as an optional install. Office 2004 and the upcoming Quicken Financial Life apps require it.Apparently, Office 2008 requires it as well. I just tried to install 2008 on SL. Since Rosetta was not installed, Office 2008 was prevented from being installed. Lame. Looks like I'll finally be ditching Office in favor of iWork or OpenOffice.org.

176155

NJL6705

May 23, 2010, 08:52 PM

1st: Did 10.5.6 make Rosetta an optional install? I'm still using 10.4 and I have not heard anything further.

2nd: What is Rosetta? I've heard it called a translator and an emulator. Apple said it was not an emulator, though. I always thought they were the same thing. Whats the difference?

AidenShaw

May 23, 2010, 09:34 PM

2nd: What is Rosetta? I've heard it called a translator and an emulator. Apple said it was not an emulator, though. I always thought they were the same thing. Whats the difference?

The difference is only in semantics.

In English, an "emulator" is something that acts like it is something else.

Since Rosetta (actually it's a OEM deal with Transitive, not an Apple innovation) makes a PowerPC application think that it's running on a PPC CPU even though it's an Intel system, it meets the common English definition of "emulator" - Rosetta is emulating a PPC CPU.

Transitive, however, is smarter than simply emulating individual PPC instructions on an Intel platform. It looks at the PPC code stream, and dynamically "recompiles" (or "translates") it to an equivalent Intel code stream. This can be a big advantage for loops and subroutines - where the same code is repeatedly executed. With a simple ISA emulator, the PPC instructions in the loop would be emulated each cycle. With a translator, once the loop is converted to native code the loop runs at native speed.

In Apple-land, the word "emulator" is tied to the original Virtual PC product that did instruction emulation to run Intel operating systems on PowerPC systems. The performance wasn't great, so now Apple fans are quick to say "Rosetta is not an emulator" to avoid association with the poor performance of the Intel on PPC emulator.