Apple made PPC apps work on Intel Macs but why can't they reverse it?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by togermano, Aug 30, 2007.

  1. togermano macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    #1
    Its possible so why don't they do it so intel apps can load on the gs?
     
  2. adrianblaine macrumors 65816

    adrianblaine

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Location:
    Pasadena, CA
    #2
    They do don't they? I thought most programs were being made "Universal" so that both could use them. Any specific apps you are referring too?

    http://www.apple.com/universal/
     
  3. Scarlet Fever macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Location:
    Bookshop!
    #3
    Because PPC is old technology now. They have no need to make new apps backwards compatible. Stuff runs faster on the Intel chips than it did on the PPC chips, sometimes even through Rosetta. Mac OS X will support PPC for a while, but it won't stick around for long.
     
  4. Steve Jobs=God macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2007
    #4
    tbh thats like asking why the Xbox 360 games don't work on the original Xbox
     
  5. adrianblaine macrumors 65816

    adrianblaine

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Location:
    Pasadena, CA
    #5
    There are still quite a few people out there with quad G5's. I'm sure they will be around for more than just a short while.
     
  6. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #6
    Some companies decided to only create Intel-based applications, unfortunately. Others, like Adobe, have a lot of Universal applications with a few being Intel-based only.

    Still, it's been over a year since Apple's transition. Why would those various companies want to make money on the largest part (PowerPC) of the installed base?
     
  7. Imidazole macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    #7
    Best answer yet.
     
  8. paddy macrumors 6502a

    paddy

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Location:
    TN
    #8
    ^^ Not really. They're both worlds apart in terms of techonology as the original Xbox is incapable of running 360 games whereas some PPC (the latest) should be able to run intel software comfortably...
     
  9. The Stig macrumors 6502a

    The Stig

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Location:
    On the track
    #9
    Don't blame Apple, they make all their stuff their stuff Universal (assuming it could be used with PPC). Blame the third party companies who aren't making Universal apps!

    The Stig
     
  10. shakastange macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2007
    #10
    Well Intel is the future for now so it would make sense to expend little effort on the old stuff. Who knows, Apple may decide to support PPC in the future, again. After all, they were developing and Intel version of OSX all along. A mve back to PPC is not unfathomable. Nobody knows what the future holds with the exception of Steve Jobs.
     
  11. gnasher729 macrumors P6

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #11
    They could. The question is: How many new Macs would Apple sell more because of that? I think the answer is about zero.
     
  12. jimsoff macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    #12
    I really, really doubt that. I see no reason for apple to go back to PPC processors.

    As for why stuff isn't universal, I have no idea. It's probably quicker, and cheaper to program for just intel.
     
  13. szark macrumors 68030

    szark

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Location:
    Arid-Zone-A
    #13
    If there was enough demand for it, I'm sure somebody could get a hacked copy of OS X (Intel) running under an old version of Virtual PC... :p
     
  14. spencecb macrumors 6502a

    spencecb

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    #14
    This is certainly not true. When Steve first annonced the switch to Intel, he made mention of how easy it is to code for both PPC and Intel (Universal apps). All need be done is check a box, and the PPC code is generated as the Intel code is being written.
     
  15. dontwalkhand macrumors 601

    dontwalkhand

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #15
    Its the stupidity of the developers is what it is.
     
  16. Nall macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    #16
    Plus some of the popular Intel-only apps, like VMWare or Parallels, wouldn't even run on reverse-Rosetta.
     
  17. GPSJane macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    #17
    First of all, Apple should have included an emulator like Rosetta for those people with PowerPCs. It is possible to own a PowerPC that is only a few years old and not supporting a product that you have just sold is just plain wrong.

    BUT, the application developers and third party distributors should really make their software Universal. As already mentioned here - it's is incredibly easy to compile for both. Apple has made Universal available so why don't people use it?!

    I am sick and tired of downloading applications that won't run on my computer just because I have a PowerPc!
     
  18. Thermonuclear macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    #18
    Actually, many new applications from Apple do not run on PowerPC Macintoshes. For example, any product that is OS/X 10.6 only is Intel only. Sadly, this includes the latest Xcode SDK.

    You can be sure that Apple wants to kill off the PPC as soon as possible and you can expect the original 32 bit only Intel Core CPUs to also get the boot. As I understand California state law, products like computers made by California corporations (like Apple) must be supported for seven years. Well, the last PPC Mac came out in 2005, so there's not too much time left on the clock. It's like the 680x0 to PPC transition and will be done at the same speed - as fast as possible.

    Apple will save lots of cash by focusing on a single desktop/notebook architecture (64 bit Intel/AMD) and a single handheld CPU (Apple's A4).
     
  19. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #19
    Because it would be slow as hell. That is what universal binaries are for.
     
  20. GyroFX macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles and NorCal
    #20
    OP posted in 2007...it's 2010. time to move on
     
  21. The Russian macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #21
    I already owned 3 different intel Macs.

    MacBook intel coreDuo 2 Ghz 2Gb ram
    Mac Mini intel core2Duo 1,83 Ghz 1Gb ram
    Mac Mini intel core2Duo 2,26 Ghz 4Gb ram

    Recently I got myself a Power Mac G5 Dual 2GHz 2Gb ( late 2005 model )

    I have to say that it's weird that a 6 year old machine kicks ass of all above intel models. ( And I am planning to upgrade the ram and the video card for even more power ).

    So I hope that developers will realize that still a lot of people getting a G5 machine and just put a little more effort to make universal programs.
     
  22. Aldaris macrumors 65816

    Aldaris

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Location:
    Salt Lake
    #22
    Your argument is flawed by comparing Apple's Workstation class machine to it's low end offerings.

    Yes your G5 will run lots better than those machines mainly based on how they are built. Seriously though, the PPC is dead, if you can still use it great, but the only updates coming from Apple will be security and itunes updates.
     
  23. rkaufmann87 macrumors 68000

    rkaufmann87

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Location:
    Folsom, CA
    #23

    Great idea, why not make 3D games that run on DOS. :D
     
  24. MacHamster68 macrumors 68040

    MacHamster68

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #24
    just for one reason you have to buy new Mac's every year to run the latest apps efficient , only if you are ignorant enough like me you will keep old hardware longer and use apps that have been already abandoned

    welcome in Mac world
     
  25. DD4 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    #25
    It would extend the transition time to intel, selling less new macs.
     

Share This Page