10.6 Snow Leopard running on PPC

Discussion in 'macOS' started by InkMaster, Jul 3, 2009.

  1. InkMaster macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Location:
    Nagoya, Japan
    #1
    As all of you know, according to Apple, Snow Leopard runs only on Intel chips. Also, as a lot of you know, PPC and Intel versions of OS X report themselves as such, ie PPC 10.5, Intel 10.5 and so on...

    Yesterday, as I was looking over my traffic logs, I found something quite interesting...

    "PPC 10.6"

    I got one visit right after the day of WWDC, and another visit just 2 days ago...

    Someone just spoofing what their machine reports? Or someone running an an early internal build of SL during which time maybe they had multiple versions?

    Think of that what you will...

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #2
    Do we know if there are PowerPC binaries or not? The installer might just not officially support PowerPC machines. I doubt that though.
     
  3. SkyBell macrumors 604

    SkyBell

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    Texas, unfortunately.
    #3
    I believe the early builds did support PPC...but it was phased out fairly quickly.
     
  4. Peace macrumors P6

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #4
    The early builds did not support the PPC chip. What that traffic log shows is a PPC binary browser running under Rosetta on an Intel build of 10.6 or a spoof.
     
  5. InkMaster thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Location:
    Nagoya, Japan
    #5
    Yeah, from what I remember over a year ago, there were some reports that supposedly there was some PPC support, but if I'm not mistaken, none of those early builds ever made it out to the public. And I highly doubt that anyone would would be still using year old builds, given that early versions aren't exactly known for their quality and stability...
     
  6. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #6
    Could easily be someone running something in Rosetta for testing. I haven't checked, but I imagine that would be reported as a PPC machine.
     
  7. InkMaster thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Location:
    Nagoya, Japan
    #7
    Hmm... Could any web dev here verify that? Or even find a browser which would be old enough to be both, PPC only AND able to run on 10.6 :/
     
  8. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #8
    You don't have to be PPC-only to run in Rosetta. There's a checkbox in "get info" on apps to do it.
     
  9. Kat King123 macrumors regular

    Kat King123

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
  10. Saladinos macrumors 68000

    Saladinos

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    #10
    Actually, early versions are almost exactly like the operating system they're built off. For example, I have a build of Windows Longhorn somewhere which is Server 2003 with a different build number.

    Systems are different everywhere, but I believe at Apple, technologies are developed by individual teams, merging in to their own repositories until certain milestones where all the changes made by all the teams are merged in to a central build (reversed integration). Therefore, the core location team would have Leopard + CL, but would not see the changes to Safari or the Finder until a milestone build. The CL team would not be responsible for the time preference panel, even though it uses CL. Teams whose work depends on other teams (e.g. the Finder team) would have their copies synced each night, so they can access that work. The team being referenced would not see the Finder team's work.

    The result of all this is that each build, depending on where it comes from, contains very little. Unless its a milestone build or one of the builds shortly before (where inevitable breakages are fixed). The in-between builds include new features, but these features are rarely exposed in any significant way except if the build is from a key node (e.g. the Finder team)
     
  11. Amdahl macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    #11
    I tested, and Rosetta-on-Intel on would cause a PPC machine to be reported. That is the most likely cause of this reading. Somebody probably forgot to turn it off, or it is on for testing purposes.

    Notwithstanding that, early builds of SL were full Universal Binaries (and might be still?), including the kernel. The only problem is that the PPC-side of the kernel would crash on my machine. So I can't say I've seen it run beyond initial bootstrap. But considering OSX is and continues to be multi-platform and already runs on PPC, I'm sure Apple has it running on PPCs in Cupertino, and there is a slim chance this web string is real. All you've got to do is "check one box, and you're done." Excepting the VERY limited parts of the kernel that are done in assembly, which again, are already written for PPC.
     
  12. macintoshtoffy macrumors 6502a

    macintoshtoffy

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #12
    There are only a some frameworks and libraries are are powerpc/x86 universal for backwards compatibility, the rest are x86. Finder.app for example has no powerpc support in 10.6.
     
  13. Amdahl macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    #13
    Are you talking about today, or a year ago? A year ago, they all appeared to be universal. I doubt you're suggesting Finder, as either a Carbon or Cocoa app, can't be run on PPC, except for Apple deciding not to "check the box."
     
  14. techfreak85 macrumors 68040

    techfreak85

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Location:
    Places
    #14
    is it possible that someone did an about:config or such in their browser and set it to say the os used was 10.6 PPC as a Joke?

    EDIT: looking around firefox's about:config, i dont see anything about os, just Version number/user agent etc.
     
  15. Shake 'n' Bake macrumors 68020

    Shake 'n' Bake

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    Albany
    #15
    IIRC, all versions of OS X are able to run on Intel and a building in Cupertino had OS X running on Intel for quite some time before the transition "just in case." Even Steve's demo machine for the keynotes was Intel (when he revealed it, it was a 3.6 GHz P4).

    Maybe this is another "just in case?"
     
  16. pjmburg macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    #16
    I was thinking that too. I mean, if safari can pretend to be IE to spoof websites, why can't it say it's on 10.6 PPC if it wants to?
     
  17. Amdahl macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    #17
    Yeah, it was just in case they decided not to screw the PPC owners. I know, I know, when would something like that ever happen?
     
  18. kolax macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    #18
    No chance - they wouldn't do that. They are done with the PPC chip and it is all Intel now. Or if there is a PPC version of 10.6, it'll be internal and will probably never see light.
     
  19. SkyBell macrumors 604

    SkyBell

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    Texas, unfortunately.
    #19
    I'd bet my life that they have 10.6 on PPC somewhere. I think they've learned to keep their options open after two processor transistions, even if that means going back at some point. (It's not likely, but again, options.)
     
  20. Amdahl macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    #20
    Plus, they are still on ARM (for iPhone OSX) and they bought that company that made PPC chips. PPC continues to be a high volume platform, serving as the CPU in Wii, Xbox 360, and PS3 and all kinds of embedded systems. You can be sure that OS X continues to be built on PPC.

    The Intel transition wasn't made because PPC was an obsolete architecture; it was made because Apple wanted Windows compatibility, faster(yet still cool) portable chips, and to stop competing directly against Intel+Dell. Now, Apple benefits from Windows, Intel, and the economy of scale in system components.
     
  21. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #21
    Obsolete implementation, rather than ISA, I suppose.
     
  22. smartalic34 macrumors 6502a

    smartalic34

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    USA
    #22
    I agree... I am sure that Apple has 10.6 running on PPC to hedge against future changes in technology. However, for the OP's situation, I bet it is just Rosetta browsers... unless someone in Apple's OS development group has bookmarked the OP's site:p
     
  23. Amdahl macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    #23
    A valid position.

    In the long run, I do wonder: Will x86 or AMD64 survive?

    The Atom CPU has dropped out-of-order execution(in favor of hyper-threading), and the CISC nature of x86 requires a complex decoder. People say that CISC inefficiency is irrelevant in regard to speed with the use of micro-ops (or trace cache in P4). But it is NOT irrelevant in regard to heat and power. And as CPUs go increasingly multicore, the CISC decoder has to be duplicated in each core.

    At some point, will x86 be insustainable, and PPC, ARM, or SPARC (or even Itanium?) crush x86? MMX/SSE was a first step. Using GPUs as CPU is another huge step. At some point, does x86 get the axe entirely?

    ARM is mighty in the super-low power realm (iPhone), while PPC is mighty in servers and high-end embedded (IBM servers and Xbox360/PS3/Wii). SPARC has 8 cores on one chip, and each one of those cores can run 8 threads at a time. So that's 64 threads with only 95W power consumption(123 peak).

    Prediction: x86 dies as Windows becomes less important in your day-to-day use and the Web replaces it.
     
  24. Captain Awesome macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Location:
    Vancouver/Tsawassen, Canada
    #24
    MacRumors G3 - That is so cool :D

    I think that it must be Rosetta reporting itself as PPC.
     

Share This Page