Mac OS X 10.6 Called 'Snow Leopard', All Cocoa?

[Manic Mouse]

Nope, it's not.

If I had said that YOU used that logic on intel machines (which you didn't), that would be a strawman. But I didn't say that. You're right, it is semantics...but you still shouldn't make accusations using terms you don't really understand.

Listen buddy, no need to be snarky. Firstly, you DID say that it was my logic, here's the direct quote.

To take your philosophy to an extreme, why support any machines beyond the ones currently for sale? After all, the other ones are all "dead", right?

And secondly, as I've already quoted:

To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position

Which is exactly what you did. You said you were "using my philosophy" and then stated an altered, extreme view of it to refute it. And you yourself have just admitted that this would be a strawman. Your quote matches the wiki definition of a strawman exactly...

 

[BenRoethig]

And, if Snow Leopard is just an Intel optimised and cleaned up Leopard, what will it offer PPC users? It seems fairly pointless to me...

Taking the Mac platform forward is pointless? The newest PowerPC machines are three years old. Should we be forever held back my them?

 

[SkyBell]

An OS release focused solely on under-the-hood Intel improvements would be literally pointless on a PPC machine.

OK, call me stupid, but it took that one sentence, the way it was worded, to get me to understand what people are talking about here. I was under the impression that Snow Leopard would be all around security improvements. Somehow didn't get the memo that the only difference would be Intel improvements.

Well, my fault, though I still think that the next "major" OS release should be PPC, at least G5, supported.

 

[SkyBell]

Taking the Mac platform forward is pointless? The newest PowerPC machines are three years old. Should we be forever held back my them?

Actually, the PowerMac G5 was manufactured and sold up until August 2006. So they're around 2.5 years old. And very powerful, with the fastest running at 2.7 GHz. (Still fast, no matter what you say.) They're not "holding you back". There's a little extra code to support them. So what. Where's your evidence that OS X would be significantly faster without that code?

 

[Manic Mouse]

Taking the Mac platform forward is pointless? The newest PowerPC machines are three years old. Should we be forever held back my them?

I meant offering a PPC version of an Intel optimised release would be pointless lol!

OK, call me stupid, but it took that one sentence, the way it was worded, to get me to understand what people are talking about here. I was under the impression that Snow Leopard would be all aroundsecurity improvements. Somehow didn't get the memo that the only difference would be Intel improvements.

I would imagine any security improvements would be rolled into 10.5.x updates, would they not? In fact aren't security updates separate altogether from OS updates? I'm not sure, either way making people pay for security updates would be a bit mean of Apple. Most of the improvements in 10.6 according to these rumours would be Intel only, so a PPC version would be a bit of a rip-off. No new "features" would mean 10.5 would be able to do everything 10.6 will.

 

[iMpathetic]

Actually, the PowerMac G5 was manufactured and sold up until August 2006. So they're around 2.5 years old. And very powerful, with the fastest running at 2.7 GHz. (Still fast, no matter what you say.) They're not "holding you back". There's a little extra code to support them. So what. Where's your evidence that OS X would be significantly faster without that code?

The fastest G5s were dual dual-core 2.5GHz models.

 

[nuckinfutz]

Good GOD Nehalem is FAST

Fck it folks.

I want Nehalem. Sell your PPC this year!!!

 

[iMpathetic]

And, if Snow Leopard is just an Intel optimised and cleaned up Leopard, what will it offer PPC users? It seems fairly pointless to me...

Yeah, I think that it's now almost pointless to be whining about PPC support in 10.6. When the new OS is actually released, the very newest PPC machines will be three years old. Apple isn't going back to PPC, all their machines sold now are Intel, and Intel machines are speedier clock for clock to boot.

For Apple to waste time and money supporting PPC, they'd have to be monstrously stupid.

 

[SkyBell]

The fastest G5s were dual dual-core 2.5GHz models.

My bad, the revision before the last had the single-core 2.7.

For Apple to waste time and money supporting PPC, they'd have to be monstrously stupid.

Or care about their loyal mac users. God forbid them doing that.

 

[dam0dred]

Apple needs to leave PPC behind. If you don't like it, too bad.

One of the biggest hurdles with Vista was trying to make it backwards compatible with years and years of outdated Windows apps. Do we want that to happen with future Apple OS releases? Onward and upward.

 

[milo]

Ouch, someone is getting testy.

Your logic is that Apple shouldn't support PPC because they no longer sell it.

Apple also no longer sells a number of intel configurations. I pointed out that you are applying your logic to PPC but not to intel.

I never said that you applied your logic to intel, in fact I SAID I was the one taking it to the next step.

I'm sorry you're not capable of understanding what a "strawman" is. Maybe you should just play it safe and not use the term?

Taking the Mac platform forward is pointless? The newest PowerPC machines are three years old. Should we be forever held back my them?

See, now THERE's a strawman argument, perfect example. Despite the implication, nobody here has argued that apple should support PPC "forever". We all agree that apple should support hardware for some length of time after they stop selling it. The only debate here is how long that time should be.

To answer the question, at some point the fastest PPC machines will be too slow to run the latest OS well, at which point owners will want to upgrade. I'd argue that's when apple should stop supporting them.

The fastest G5s were dual dual-core 2.5GHz models.

And fast machines they are.

For Apple to waste time and money supporting PPC, they'd have to be monstrously stupid.

Apple supported PPC with 10.5, was that stupid as well? After all, it was supporting a dead platform.

Is it still stupid if dropping that support pisses off customers and loses customer goodwill and trust? And if some users abandon the platform? Or put off purchases as long as possible since they don't feel like they can count on support for very long? Or get the cheapest mac since we've seen that the notion of buying the fastest in order to have it useful as long as possible no longer applies?

Seriously, I can't believe that people totally write off the whole idea of keeping customers happy (and loyal).

 

[milo]

Apple needs to leave PPC behind.

I don't think anyone disputes that. The argument here is WHEN they need to leave PPC behind. Really, they NEED to do it with the next major release, and not the one after that?

 

[iMpathetic]

Or care about their loyal mac users. God forbid them doing that.

Apple isn't Jesus, it's a company that has to make money to continue running.

Do you think Ford is going to continue making parts for the Model T? Hell no.

Did Microsoft release Vista Ultimate Pentium 4 Edition? No.

If you mac users are so loyal to Apple, why are you whining about progress for the company and the products?

EDIT: And, notice my sig. I'm running an iBook G4 with Tiger. That's PPC, y'all. I don't hate PPC or its users, and customers should be happy, but come on, why spend company time and money on support for machines that were sold when 50% of Apple employees probably didn't even work there?

 

[Eric S.]

OK, call me stupid, but it took that one sentence, the way it was worded, to get me to understand what people are talking about here. I was under the impression that Snow Leopard would be all around security improvements. Somehow didn't get the memo that the only difference would be Intel improvements.

Well, my fault, though I still think that the next "major" OS release should be PPC, at least G5, supported.

But see, that's exactly the argument they will use: "10.6 adds nothing for PPC, therefore it's Intel-only." But then when that "next major OS release" come around it will be "we already dropped PPC support back in 10.6." You certainly wouldn't expect them to put it back in once they take it out would you?

Even if there are "all around" improvements, they'll simply put out a 10.5.x that will cover whatever PPC users can't get in 10.6.

 

[dam0dred]

I don't think anyone disputes that. The argument here is WHEN they need to leave PPC behind. Really, they NEED to do it with the next major release, and not the one after that?

Why does it matter so much to you? If you're that set on sticking with a PPC machine then Leopard will be fine for you for the next several years. I'm sure that whatever you need to do on your computer will be quite possible even if you don't have the latest OS or newest versions of apps that require 10.6.

Meanwhile the rest of us want Apple to make their software the best it can possibly be and not waste their time and resources on outdated tech.

 

[madmax_2069]

And I'm guessing you have an original graphics card in the Sawtooth that does not attempt Core Image effects? Original hard drive too? Try adding additional hard drives and see how Leopard reacts. You won't be happy, trust me.

And, I'm sorry, but the "Performance is comparable to Tiger" comment on PowerPC Macs, especially G4s is unbelievably laughable and I own lots of Macs, some Leopard supported, some not but nonetheless with Leopard installed. From my experience, I just find that too hard to believe. Sorry.

Sorry i hate to burst your bubble and i do think there is allot more people out there that will as well, just cause you dont think it can or will dont mean it is. I own a DA G4 (almost all stock) besides the extra 120gb HDD and a little above 768mb ram. the only thing i see running slower in Leopard then in tiger is the DOCK other then that leopard performs about the same for me as tiger does.

this is on a DA G4 533 with a Geforce2 MX AGP videocard. even if a Sawtooth has a old rage video card the faster CPU can make up for allot but not all.

Oh BTW do you even have a old G4 to try Leopard on ?

 

[milo]

Apple isn't Jesus, it's a company that has to make money to continue running.

Of course.

But they make money from customers buying things. And that happens when customers are happy and they like the company.

Continuing support for machines that are still fast enough to be useful may not make much money for Apple in the short term, but if it keeps customers happy, those customers will come back and buy more down the road.

Apple doesn't make money on 10.5.1 or .2 or .3, do they? But despite the fact that they're not Jesus, they still release them, when they could just say screw the customer once they've sold a machine or OSX 10.5 disk.

And really, comparing a quad G5 to a model T? Seriously? If anything, cars are a great example of companies CONTINUING support. They do it because it keeps customers happy and it makes customers comfortable to buy a car when they know they will be able to get parts for a while after the model is discontinued.

If you mac users are so loyal to Apple, why are you whining about progress for the company and the products?

Nobody is opposed to progress. We just don't agree that dumping PPC now is the only way to get progress.

Why does it matter so much to you? If you're that set on sticking with a PPC machine then Leopard will be fine for you for the next several years. I'm sure that whatever you need to do on your computer will be quite possible even if you don't have the latest OS or newest versions of apps that require 10.6.

I've explained myself plenty of times already, but I'll say it again - my biggest concern is that there will be app updates that will require 10.6. And with the apple "pro" apps I use, there's no question that I'll need the latest, the current versions have many issues that are barely tolerable.

 

[SkyBell]

Apple isn't Jesus, it's a company that has to make money to continue running.

Do you think Ford is going to continue making parts for the Model T? Hell no.

Did Microsoft release Vista Ultimate Pentium 4 Edition? No.

If you mac users are so loyal to Apple, why are you whining about progress for the company and the products?

EDIT: And, notice my sig. I'm running an iBook G4 with Tiger. That's PPC, y'all. I don't hate PPC or its users, and customers should be happy, but come on, why spend company time and money on support for machines that were sold when 50% of Apple employees probably didn't even work there?

Good God, you're totally missing the point. Obviously, Apple is going to drop PPC at some point. Apple NEEDS to drop PPC at some point. But the next OS release? That's too soon. You're example of the Model T is ridiculous. They don't make parts for it because it's nearly (or over) 100 years old! Your example of Vista? That was a mistake Microsoft made, Apple does not need to follow other companies mistakes. (In case you didn't know, Vista does run on Pentium 4's, I got it to run on mine.)

But see, that's exactly the argument they will use: "10.6 adds nothing for PPC, therefore it's Intel-only." But then when that "next major OS release" come around it will be "we already dropped PPC support back in 10.6." You certainly wouldn't expect them to put it back in once they take it out would you?

Even if there are "all around" improvements, they'll simply put out a 10.5.x that will cover whatever PPC users can't get in 10.6.

Hmm, excellent point. Back in the game I am.

 

[dam0dred]

I've explained myself plenty of times already, but I'll say it again - my biggest concern is that there will be app updates that will require 10.6. And with the apple "pro" apps I use, there's no question that I'll need the latest, the current versions have many issues that are barely tolerable.

If you're a pro user surely it would maximize your efficiency with your work by having an up to date and fast machine? Combine the money you'll make selling your G5 on eBay with your increased productivity and your new Intel Mac will pay for itself in no time.

You're just being stubborn.

 

[milo]

If you're a pro user surely it would maximize your efficiency with your work by having an up date and fast machine? Combine the money you'll make selling your G5 on eBay with your increased productivity and your new Intel Mac will pay for itself in no time.

Actually, getting an intel wouldn't help my efficiency at all. Even selling a G5, for the work I am doing now, switching to an intel box would just be money down the toilet (and why spring for another expensive machine when Apple support for it may not be all that long? After all, once the box is sold, it's stupid and a waste of money for apple to keep supporting it, right?).

My current machine is more than fast enough. The bottlenecks that are holding me back are purely software limitations. And I still have a few things I need to run that aren't universal yet, so an intel box, even the fastest one available, would be worse in some ways.

 

[SkyBell]

If you're a pro user surely it would maximize your efficiency with your work by having an up to date and fast machine? Combine the money you'll make selling your G5 on eBay with your increased productivity and your new Intel Mac will pay for itself in no time.

You're just being stubborn.

Not necessarily. A lot of PPC machines are as fast, or faster then Intel machines in some areas of performance. And there are quite a few other reasons to choose PPC over Intel.

 

[unwinded]

Then you fail to see the viewpoint that a lot of us have.



I wonder how much time they spend "worrying" about it. This decision, if it comes, will be a marketing decision, not a technical one. The code to support both architectures is already there. It would take them more effort to remove it than to leave it in. I'm sure the code to optimize for multiple cores is also already there.



Which no one is questioning.



Good for her.



This statement is just wrong. Two years?? I still use the Power Mac G4 that I bought eight years ago. With upgrades to the CPU and graphics card, adding USB 2.0 and a SATA drive (obviously this was back when Apple built expandable systems), this machine is still eminently usable. (My method was to buy a Mac every other generation. But after the G5 came the switch to Intel, and since I couldn't run Classic mode that left me out. So I have made the G4 last all these years.) And, for example, a dual-processor G5 desktop was no small expense a couple years ago. To say that that should just be abandoned, and for no technical reason, would be insensitive to loyal Mac customers.



Possibly, but so what?



A stock G4 laptop probably has a bit of a slow disk and somewhat low amount of memory for Leopard. Upgrade those and I expect it would perform just fine.

Well Good for you. I'm glad you find your 8-year-old computer still useful. You probably could have sold it ages ago and got something better for all the money you spent on upgrading. And the problem with a G4 laptop isn't slow disk and low memory, it is a slow processor.

I'm sorry that a select few of you seem highly offended by the thought of Apple "abandoning" loyal Mac customers by producing an Intel-optimized version of Leopard. I'll bet you protested the Intel transition too, right? It's hard to feel bad for you guys after reading your highly defensive and rude responses. Now it is my turn.

Power PC Macs are a thing of the past. If you purchased one at all in the second half of 2005 through 2006 then you would have known full well that Apple was abandoning that platform and therefore it is your own fault. If you purchased them prior to that, well no offense but you have an older computer with a limited upgrade path (hardware-wise).

My lampshade iMac still has Panther on it because Tiger made it slower. (good for me, right?) Maybe it can't run some of the latest apps, but why would I want to run them on it anyways?

"Gee, I'm going to run the Leopard-only version of Handbrake on my dual 1.25 G4 Power Mac. Oh wow look at that, it only takes 10 hours to rip this 90 minute movie.... "

 

[iMpathetic]

Not necessarily. A lot of PPC machines are as fast, or faster then Intel machines in some areas of performance. And there are quite a few other reasons to choose PPC over Intel.

And I'm so glad a dual G5 will beat a MacBook Air.

Other reasons... such as?

Like, seriously, guys, this whole "PPC is faster" stuff is so 1999.

Good God, you're totally missing the point. Obviously, Apple is going to drop PPC at some point. Apple NEEDS to drop PPC at some point. But the next OS release? That's too soon. You're example of the Model T is ridiculous. They don't make parts for it because it's nearly (or over) 100 years old! Your example of Vista? That was a mistake Microsoft made, Apple does not need to follow other companies mistakes. (In case you didn't know, Vista does run on Pentium 4's, I got it to run on mine.)

Why is it too soon? Won't their loyal customers be pissed with 10.7?

Those were not meant to be accurate, they were meant to illustrate a point/concept. I know making parts for the Model T is ridiculous, it's just that's what the whole PPC thing is like. (again, not in terms of years elapsed since sale.)

By the way, I know Vista will run on a Pentium 4. Not well, though. Although, I'm sure that, on some forum in the deep darkness of the Internet, somebody's whining about how slow Aero is on their P4.

Oh, one more thing.... any proof that it's a mistake? Just because XP can run on a Pentium II doesn't mean it's not left behind. Microsoft is just being more... um.... conservative with their requirements.

On the other hand, show me a Quicksilver running Leopard smoothly, and I'll show you me, shaking on the floor, immobilized by mirth.

Yeah, basically, if it's not a G4-equipped AlBook or iBook, it's going to run Leopard crappily.

 

[Block]

Though it'd be kind of harsh to either make 1/3 of your user base upgrade or stay behind in an operating system release, it does make somewhat sense what Apple is doing.

Apple seems to like the notion of users keeping their computers for roughly 3 years (I say this because of AppleCare lasting 3 years). It has been 3 years since the newest PPC machines were released, and so it would be a good time to "upgrade."

Also to note that, PPC users shouldn't be too concerned with this update. As it is only speed increases and stabilities meant to be optimized for Intel, there is no benefit for a PPC user to get it. It appears that it is providing NO new features, so it isn't like PPC users are missing out on anything by not getting it. And there isn't much for Apple to optimize for PPCs anymore, since they've pretty much been optimizing them for a very long time now and nothing has changed (whereas Intel is coming out with new technologies and thus Apple has to optimize for them to accommodate them into their OS).

 

[Riemann Zeta]

Did Microsoft release Vista Ultimate Pentium 4 Edition? No.

Zuh? Vista runs perfectly fine on Pentium 4 machines. It will even run on Pentium 3 machines too--not well, but it will still technically install. The Aero Direct3D 10 drawing layer just needs a GPU that doesn't suck and has a lot of VRAM. And most importantly, it needs GPU drivers that don't suck, which is a real rarity in the computer industry.

Having different, slightly incompatible versions of an OS, developed in parallel for different types of machines is exactly what Apple hoped to avoid with OS X. At least I thought they hoped to avoid it. Remember the lunacy that was System 7.X.Y.Z?

And even if the feature set between the co-existing 10.6.X and 10.5.Y architecture-specific builds is similar, Apple will still confuse a lot of people and piss a lot of people off by not enabling them to use the latest, greatest software. The simple numerical difference will piss people off, even if the two operating systems are virtually identical on the surface. Moreover, it seems people assume that because Leopard has some insofar unresolved bugs that it is irreparably flawed and deserves to be completely rewritten from scratch without a single bit of old code. I think it was just rushed to release.