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

[MacsRgr8]

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]

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]

Bingo!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

PowerPC owners don't need Rosetta.

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

 

[La Porta]

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]

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]

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!

Don't forget the old iPhone updates (don't delete most current one) that equaled nearly 3 GB on my HD!

Located in: User / library / iTunes / iPhone Software Updates. 2.2 is current... I deleted all others = 2.72 GB

 

[macFanDave]

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]

This sort of an excuse can be extended forever and is exactly what I'm talking about!

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]

A bit too early...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Shouldn't that read "10.6" ?

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

 

[gnasher729]

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]

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.