10.6 for PowerPC?

[FoxyKaye]

They damn well better support PPC in 10.6 and 10.7 at the very least. After all their hype about the wonderful "Universal Binaries" they've created, it would piss off a lot of people who have PPC-based Macs that are perfectly fine machines that can't get an OS upgrade. By then I would expect the G4s and G5s to handle OS X as well as the G3s currently handle it - but there's a lot of people running Tiger on Pismo PowerBooks and doing fine.

 

[MUCKYFINGERS]

Geez I hope the new OS X will support PPC.

 

[MisterMe]

They damn well better support PPC in 10.6 and 10.7 at the very least. After all their hype about the wonderful "Universal Binaries" they've created, ....

Calm down. You point out the silliness of all of this handwringing over whether or not MacOS X 10.6 and MacOS X 10.7 will support PPC-based Macs. Apple is evangelizing heavy for developers to develop Universal Binaries. I know of no effort to get developers to develop Intel-only applications. This is not to say that some developer won't write Intel-only applications on their own. But the point is that Apple's efforts are devoted to Universal Binaries. Universal Binaries only make sense if you are supporting multiple ISA's and intend to continue to do so.

With no inside information to support it, my opinion is that Universal Binaries, one established as the norm, will allow Apple to transition its Macintosh platform to whichever processor meets its needs. In the near term, that is the Intel x86 architecture. In the long term, who knows?

 

[dmw007]

I would most certainly expect Mac OS 10.6 to support PowerPC. Jobs won't leave us out in the cold that fast.

 

[sunfast]

At what stage will OSX be 64-bit only? I guess that would be a long time as the Core Duo is 32 bit.

 

[iPhil]

At what stage will OSX be 64-bit only? I guess that would be a long time as the Core Duo is 32 bit.

OS X is 64bit OS its the chips are still 32bit ... might be 2007 before 64 bit chips are std in computers 😱

 

[steelfist]

i have a good feeling that 10.6 is going to be supported.

apple made it quite easy to make universal binaries for their latest OSes and can easilly take advantage of the three kinds of processers, g4, g5, and intel all at the same time.

10.6 should be based on the previous builds of OSX, so therefore the computers that run OSX (like g4, g5, intel) are likely be supported as well.

combinations of OSes and computers vary. people can run OS9 on their power mac g5, and people can run Tiger on their g3 macs. apple does recognize that they have a huge percentage of people who will not throw away their outdated computers just to use a new OS.

making supported computers limited to force costomers to buy new computers to increase sales is a bad strategy IMO compared to making an OS that can be sold to a very huge variety of people.

 

[RacerX]

The current version of Mac OS X supports systems released in 1999... that is 7 years ago. So assuming that Apple stops shipping any PowerPC systems by the end of 2006, I think it is safe to say that they most likely will drop support for PowerPC systems within about 5+ years after that.

2007... 2008... 2009... 2010... 2011.

Whatever version of the Mac OS is released on or about 2011 will most likely be the last to support PowerPC processors (most likely on systems based on G4 and G5 processors).

As for what version it will be (or even what it'll be called then) is up for debate.

 

[Tilmitt]

......10.8 for PowerPC!!!!!1111

 

[ChrisA]

... my opinion is that Universal Binaries, one established as the norm, will allow Apple to transition its Macintosh platform to whichever processor meets its needs. In the near term, that is the Intel x86 architecture. In the long term, who knows?

I've suspected the same thing. Once you can make a PPC/X86 universal binary it is very easy to make other kinds of universals. Perhaps we will see universal binaries suport differnet types of X86 like say AMD's Opteron. I doubt Apple will move to SPARC or Itanium CPUs any time soon but I could easly picture an ARM chip inside a tablet Macintosh. Apple use the ARM inside the iPod and I'd bet anyone a 6-pack that ARM is what's inside the Airport routers

 

[Benjamin]

Taking a trip back in time to January of 2003, OS 9 died (year macs can't boot). However it has taken nearly 3-4 years for it to be phased out (since intel won't be porting classic as far as i know). PPC is going to be bundled with X86 for a long time in Universal applications.

 

[Tilmitt]

I've suspected the same thing. Once you can make a PPC/X86 universal binary it is very easy to make other kinds of universals. Perhaps we will see universal binaries suport differnet types of X86 like say AMD's Opteron. I doubt Apple will move to SPARC or Itanium CPUs any time soon but I could easly picture an ARM chip inside a tablet Macintosh. Apple use the ARM inside the iPod and I'd bet anyone a 6-pack that ARM is what's inside the Airport routers

You don't need to support "different types" of x86, it's all the same. But yeah wouldn't it be cool if they used MIPS or something...

 

[mkrishnan]

OS X is 64bit OS its the chips are still 32bit ... might be 2007 before 64 bit chips are std in computers 😱

It sounds to me like it's going to be a *lot* later than that.... The Core Duo is either not 64-bit or is mostly not 64-bit. And it, alongside the Pentium-D, are just now *beginning* to be available on a minority of Windows PCs, right? Not to mention that XP-64 is a little sketchy, and MS doesn't really have a plan rolled out and in place to deliver 64-bit app binaries or their own "universal" binaries.

This ramp up is just beginning now, in the Spring of 2006. Taking into account all of that, I would be surprised if there are a significant number of 64-bit processors in 2008 even....

 

[iPhil]

It sounds to me like it's going to be a *lot* later than that.... The Core Duo is either not 64-bit or is mostly not 64-bit. And it, alongside the Pentium-D, are just now *beginning* to be available on a minority of Windows PCs, right? Not to mention that XP-64 is a little sketchy, and MS doesn't really have a plan rolled out and in place to deliver 64-bit app binaries or their own "universal" binaries.

This ramp up is just beginning now, in the Spring of 2006. Taking into account all of that, I would be surprised if there are a significant number of 64-bit processors in 2008 even....

True on the date of 64 bit chips but i said in my second part of my post #31 was "might" i should have bolden that part but: "Oh Well" 😱 🙄

 

[Duff-Man]

Duff-Man says....sorry, but this is just a ridiculous thread filled with total nonsense questions and answers.

There is not even an official date for the release of 10.5 yet - it could be a year away still...10.6 is bound to be at least 18 months after that...there is no point in speculating about something so far down the pipeline as nobody here will have even the slightest reliable idea or clue....only remote guesses...oh yeah!

 

[VanNess]

A G4 is just a G3 with the velocity engine strapped on. So dropping support for the G3 would be...

AppleMatt

IIRC, the 2nd generation G4 design (usually identified by having an on-chip L2 cache) was a fairly significant architecture revision. Went from the original G4's 4 stage pipeline to a 7 stage pipeline, the aforementioned on-chip L2 that runs at full processor speed, and a beefed up altivec instruction set are things I recall off the top of my head. It's no G5 or intel core-whatever, but it's no slouch either. For most things mere mortals do, it's still has some life left.

 

[ewoh24]

10.6 will almost DEFINITELY be supported. Apple will not leave its customers in the cold. They want you to upgrade but WILL NOT force you to. 10.7 is questionable, but 10.6 WILL be supported for both PPC and intel.

EDIT: MY BAD. I thought we were already on 10.5😱 your question took me by surprise. 10.6 is questionable but will still probably be supported. 10.7 (if there is one) is 50-50. All this talk about what people think leopard will be like and if it will be supported (back a while ago) and then you ask about 10.6. Took me off guard.

sorry all.

This brings up a few irritations I've experienced lately concerning Apple. The idea that Apple will not "froce" people to upgrade is not in tune with the reality that already exists at Apple and has grown considerably over the past year or so. The 5th Gen iPods are one example. No FireWire support? Are you kidding me? Apple just started throwing USB 2.0 in Macs about 3 years ago and FireWire was developed and pushed by Apple forever. Then it's just dropped like Jack Abramoff. This really got my goat because my main Mac until two months ago was a Rev. A 12" PB that's barely 3 years old. Don't forget that's a POWERBOOK, not an iBook. This machine was/is in the top tier of Apple's offerings. Any notice also that new iPods come formatted in NTFS? Huh??? Talk about dropping like hot potatoes.

And then my newest gripe is the Universal Apps. I simply find it amazing that Apple plans on charging people for this upgrade. Now before you all start hurtling bombs my way I want to point out that, at least in Logics case, the Universal upgrade is now required to import GarageBand files into Logic. Another HUH???? I don't even own an Intel Mac and won't for years to come. But now my 3 month old version of Logic Express needs to be upgraded to work with GB? Why? Does Apple really think I'm going to drop money just for that option? This is such a minor thing that they have done very little to advertise that it's one of those things that you discover AFTER the fact and feel forced to pay the money to RE-OBTAIN the functionality that was supposedly part of the deal in the first place. That's just not fair. I could maybe understand if there were tons of NEW features in the Universal upgrade but for Apple to PULL functionality and then force you to pay AGAIN to obtain it is just wrong IMO.

So I'm very concerned about the future of PPC support. From the looks of things now it wouldn't shock me one bit if TIGER is the last PPC OS. It just seems to be the mindset now.

 

[jericho53]

It sounds to me like it's going to be a *lot* later than that.... The Core Duo is either not 64-bit or is mostly not 64-bit. And it, alongside the Pentium-D, are just now *beginning* to be available on a minority of Windows PCs, right? Not to mention that XP-64 is a little sketchy, and MS doesn't really have a plan rolled out and in place to deliver 64-bit app binaries or their own "universal" binaries.

This ramp up is just beginning now, in the Spring of 2006. Taking into account all of that, I would be surprised if there are a significant number of 64-bit processors in 2008 even....

Ok...this maybe a stupid question...Isn't the G5 64-bit?

 

[Eidorian]

Ok...this maybe a stupid question...Isn't the G5 64-bit?

The G5 is 64-bit.

 

[dr_lha]

OS X is 64bit OS its the chips are still 32bit ... might be 2007 before 64 bit chips are std in computers 😱

Mac OS X is not a 64 bit OS. There are some libraries that have 64 bit versions under PPC, but the majority of the OS is 32 bit code, e.g. the kernel and the UI are all running in 32bit mode, even on the 64 bit G5.

PPC64 chips give us the ability to run 64 bit applications under this 32 bit OS. I hope the same is true for 64 bit Intel chips when they arrive in Macs.

 

[Eidorian]

Mac OS X is not a 64 bit OS. There are some libraries that have 64 bit versions under PPC, but the majority of the OS is 32 bit code, e.g. the kernel and the UI are all running in 32bit mode, even on the 64 bit G5.

PPC64 chips give us the ability to run 64 bit applications under this 32 bit OS. I hope the same is true for 64 bit Intel chips when they arrive in Macs.

Yeah, OS X 10.4 has libraries for better implementing the large memory amounts that the 64-bit PowerPC 970 (G5) offers. It still runs just fine on that old 32-bit PowerPC 750 (G3).

The only real application for 64-bit processors right now is intensive scientific and media work. Large amounts of data need to be pushed around and stored in memory rather than written to much slower hard disk.

You don't need 64-bits for doing your taxes, surfing the internet, or running Word. Hell you can do that using 16-bits.

 

[dr_lha]

Usefully, one of the major packages (IDL) that I as a scientist use in data analysis is not compiled for 64 bit anyway.

 

[iPhil]

Yeah, OS X 10.4 has libraries for better implementing the large memory amounts that the 64-bit PowerPC 970 (G5) offers. It still runs just fine on that old 32-bit PowerPC 750 (G3).

The only real application for 64-bit processors right now is intensive scientific and media work. Large amounts of data need to be pushed around and stored in memory rather than written to much slower hard disk.

You don't need 64-bits for doing your taxes, surfing the internet, or running Word. Hell you can do that using 16-bits.

Thanks for backup Eidorian (sp?) .. I knew i heard it somewhere that Mac OS X is 64 bit .. ' i think it was in one the keynotes that they annouced Mac OS X is 64 bit OS '<< IIRC is for the quoted part only 😱 😱

 

[Eidorian]

Thanks for backup Eidorian (sp?) .. I knew i heard it somewhere that Mac OS X is 64 bit .. ' i think it was in one the keynotes that they annouced Mac OS X is 64 bit OS '<< IIRC is for the quoted part only 😱 😱

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/64bit/

Yeah, it has some 64-bit feature to take advantage of the hardware but the same install disc will work on 32 and 64-bit machines. The first Power Mac G5's shipped with 10.2.7. You can STILL run 32-bit applications and operating systems on 64-bit systems. You're just going to be limited by how much RAM they can access.

 

[dr_lha]

Thanks for backup Eidorian (sp?) .. I knew i heard it somewhere that Mac OS X is 64 bit .. ' i think it was in one the keynotes that they annouced Mac OS X is 64 bit OS '<< IIRC is for the quoted part only 😱 😱

Errr... I think he was backing me up, not you. Mac OS X is not a 64 bit operating system as I stated above, but it does support running programs in 64 bit mode. This is not the same as having a true 64 bit OS, like for example Digital Tru64 UNIX.