Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I can't believe how many people are saying that it would "make sense".

Common sense is not that common, they say. We are just having a good example, quite possibly... ;^>

I think that modern G4s (not to say G5s) are quite overpowered for a vast majority of users who are using them for mereley typing in their documents, surfing the web and the like, provided they are not using M$ word and stuff (for some strange reason), which is absolutely bloated and work as a dog, and gets only slower each time...

The OS kernel would most probably not have much greater requirements than the current one, the interface, on the other hand, can and probably will be more and more resource hungry. But there is a solution to that one: the vast majority of games lets you select detaliazation level and graphics quality. Leopard will offer such feature AFAIK, so I can't see any problem here.

Multiplatform support in a UNIX environment is not a big deal too if everything is written well and let's hope it is. :) Platform specific parts are typically those kernel parts written in the assembly language but they tend to be small and almost never change for a well established architecture (read: they exist for G4/G5). The rest is probably plain C/C++ or whatever that ports or should port flawlessly, it's gcc in the end of the day...

Personally, I think that dropping PPC support would suck big time and be far too M$oftish... ;(
 
For what it's worth though....

Removal of G3 processor support isn't really equivalent to dumping PPC support.

Many of the G3-based Macs still in use out there can easily (and not all that expensively) be upgraded to faster G4 processors. I ran a Beige G3 tower for a long time with a G4 upgrade in it, for example. Any of the blue & white G3 towers can be upgraded too.

There's no way you're going to be able to swap out a G5 with an Intel CPU though on ANY Mac.


10.5 supposedly already removes support for the G3.
 
Older versions of Mac OS Just don't die when a new version is released. Normally when you get new versions of the OS by the time you get the 3rd or fourth version, it really starts slowing down your system and you are better off with older versions. on My old Power Book Spotlight and Dashboard really killed performance on my system. If Apple keeps backwards comparability for too long they won't be able to add new features to the OS which makes people buy it, and keep OS X ahead of what Microsoft has to offer. Keeping PowerPC and Intel Version of their applications takes a lot of extra space and you can get different problems. Apple has done a stellar job of hiding this from the users but I bet it is killing them. We had Intel Hardware for over a year now by 2009 (or 10) the Intel System would be 3 years old now. And the PowerPC will be over 4. Most of the people who got the G5 for there power would most likely be ready for an upgrade because they normally need top performance. and by then a Mac Mini will outperform a old G5 Power Mac.

Apple engineers don't have a clue how to code a button to turn off certain features and optimize performance.
Seriously, consider a Mac by the aestetic of machine rather the OS: mac os x foundations are the hard work of many people during the 80's and 90's; today the work at apple is to turn that OS more eye caching with super apis.

so my 800 titanium powerbook wont run leopard, why? My processor cicles are wasted on beautifull icon stacks, with transparency, big shadows, animations.. lalala
 
One thing is certain: a lot of people can't afford a new computer every X years.

Let's assume that Leopard will cost the same as Tiger (USD $129), add to that the cost of iLife '08 (USD $79) and you're already at USD $208, which is more than a third of the price of the Mac mini (USD $599). If you look at it another way, if you wait for Leopard you'll be able to buy a Mac mini for only USD $391 more.

With Leopard around the corner, I'm betting most Mac mini owners (or future owners) are waiting for it to become available to buy their new machine.

As a Mac mini G4 owner, I know I'm buying a Mac mini Core 2 Duo as soon as Leopard launches. :cool:
 
I don't really get the people saying this is not fair. Just because a newer OS is released doesn't mean your computer is worthless. It still does everything it did before. Those people who purchased PPC's and wanted to use them for more than 4 years probably don't care too much about installing the latest OS on them. If they do, then they really ought to face the reality that computer advancements move faster than that. Apple is not about legacy support. It's about creating GREAT software and then releasing it on hardware that can let the user truly experience the software.

Why would you want to install a new OS on a computer that couldn't run its features well? Or on the other hand, why would you want to hold an OS back from doing all it could just because of old hardware?
 
My predictions

There will be no 10.6, it will be Mac OS 11, perhaps dubbed "Xi" (i for intel). (does Xi mean anything in Chinese?)

Intel-Only

Announced WWCD '09, released MWSF '10 or shortly there after.

They'll use intel's complier instead of GCC to get some super sweet speed and, reduce bloat. (maybe GPL 3 avoidance too)

New kernel to include intel-only optimizations and deep multiprocessing or multi-threading capabilities.

With the new visualization abilities in the new processors these days, it will run OS X code in a virtual environment.
 
There's nothing logical about it whatsoever - it's just Apple getting in to the planned obsolescence game. A four year-old computer is perfectly functional depending on the use, but the real problem will come when developers stop using PPC compatible binaries because they're "no longer necessary."

The switch to Intel-based Macs is only two years old - what about all that BS about Universal Binaries and not leaving PPC Macs behind that Steve spouted when they went Intel?

good point!

Plus, somebody with a G5 will probably still be able to do what he did when he bought it... Although, I don't think that people who bought a Quad were thinking: "Well, that expensive machine can do just what I need right now, so who cares if I can't do anything more in the future..."

It's Ok to run and outdated OS (as long as it suit your need) but what about that new iTunes-iPhoto-QT pluggin that you *must* have in order to properly use your band new Apple-iPhone-iPod-iTV-iDo gizmo in 2009? ;)

[rant]
I know!... You simply need to buy a new Mac-Super-Pro Desktop Tower!
[/rant]
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/1C28 Safari/419.3)

Sorry, I have not read all the comments, but if I remember correctly, Steve-O said that leopard was it for OS X, and that the next thing we see will be OS 11, so all of this is irrelevant.
 
Sorry, I have not read all the comments, but if I remember correctly, Steve-O said that leopard was it for OS X, and that the next thing we see will be OS 11, so all of this is irrelevant.

That didn't happen...
 
Only a moron would expect a five year old computer to run a cutting edge OS in an acceptable manner. You're 1GHz G4s are going to be pokey slow with Leopard, barely acceptable. And three years from now? I doubt the graphics subsystems in these old Macs will be able to do what a next gen OS will require. If you can't aford a new Mac by 2010 quit bitching and be happy with Tiger.

I won't throw out the word "moron", but I do know several dozen 6 year olds who know at least one thing you don't...

I built a computer lab for 1st and 2nd graders out of a dozen donated iMac G3s last year (and another dozen who ended up "parts donors"). I took the Dashboard icon out of the dock, Exposé runs pretty choppy, and few CPU-intensive OSX applications would likely run gangbusters, but the OS itself runs smoothly, perfectly "acceptable", in fact, with nary a complaint or whimper. On machines older than most of the children using them.
 
You're being a little disingenuous, or skimming. Who says? Plenty of kids on the first few pages were implying that all Intel Macs were much faster than all those crusty old PPC dinosaurs. Take another look...

Plus, "fast" doesn't get "slow" as fast as it used to. Look at CPU clock speeds from 2001-2004, and from 2004 to 2007. Draw your own conclusions about what 2007-2010 may look like.

While I agree that some of the first generation of Intel Macs will be just as 'slow' with 10.6 as the PPC models before, the CPU clock speed difference you mentioned isn't really that true. The P4 had artificially high clock speeds first of all, secondly the later P4s were *wayyyy* faster clock-for-clock than the first P4s to hit the market.

The Core Duo was significantly faster clock-for-clock than the P4 and so it continues. The trend in the 2001-1004 period was to get the biggest number of hertz. Then the megahertz myth bubble burst and the trend in the 2004 to 2007 period has been to get more performance per hertz (a far better way of doing things imo).

In terms of speed, the processors scaled the same in the 2001 to 2004 timeframe as the 2004 to 2007 period, pretty much obeying Moore's Law.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/1C28 Safari/419.3)

Uh, ya, at the WWDC when we brought out leopard.
 
If so many people want to keep the PowerPC, why doesn't Apple bring back support for the 68000 processor? That was a great processor! </sarcasm>

If you don't know what a 68000 processor is, you're not a true Mac fan and should be dragged out into the street and shot.
 
Load of Arse

It seems like a logical step to me. If Apple releases 10.6 in 2 years then the last Power PC computers will be 4 years old.

So what? Someone who bought a fully souped-up G5 quad in 2005, which wouldn't have been cheap, has every right to expect that their machine will be supported for a damn sight longer than 4 years.
 
I feel the most sorry for...

manufacturers of processor upgrades. There are still a few out there, cranking out PPC G3 and G4s. They might eventuallly get some G5s, but that's doubtful.

If PPC support is dumped, and I don't doubt that it will be, it's just a question of when, they're going to lose a major part of their business. It's time to diversify!:eek:
 
Actually this is completey FALSE.

I purchased a BRAND NEW 1.5ghz 12" Powerbook in August of 2006. It would be four years in 2010.

I purchased a BRAND NEW 1.5ghz Mac Mini G4 in
SEPTEMBER of 2006.

I expect at least seven years of updates as needed on my computer purchases. I expect Apple to support my PPCs until 2013, sorry.

I used my 145b Powerbook (PURCHASED NEW in July 1994) until August 2001 and the Powerbook was still great -- it was the Kingston memory upgrade chip that failed and I had lost the original four mb chip. That was seven great years.

I don't appreciate forced obsolescence from Apple if we cannot run the latest OS on our beloved machines. I am STILL currently buying a last generation PPC iBook 12" because they are GREAT machines.

Okay, THAT's GREAT! Did you buy these BRAND NEW systems at an Apple Store or APPLE.com? According to ARCHIVE.ORG of August 11, 2006 Apple was selling Intel MAC Mini's and MACbook Pro's. So that MEANS Apple DOESN'T care about YOU. I CAPITALIZE certain WORDS because it makes me FEEL, SPECIAL!

Tootles.
 
manufacturers of processor upgrades. There are still a few out there, cranking out PPC G3 and G4s. They might eventuallly get some G5s, but that's doubtful.

If PPC support is dumped, and I don't doubt that it will be, it's just a question of when, they're going to lose a major part of their business. It's time to diversify!:eek:

Once this news gets out, expect lower prices on eBay for PPC macs :)
 
While I agree that some of the first generation of Intel Macs will be just as 'slow' with 10.6 as the PPC models before, the CPU clock speed difference you mentioned isn't really that true. The P4 had artificially high clock speeds first of all, secondly the later P4s were *wayyyy* faster clock-for-clock than the first P4s to hit the market.

The Core Duo was significantly faster clock-for-clock than the P4 and so it continues. The trend in the 2001-1004 period was to get the biggest number of hertz. Then the megahertz myth bubble burst and the trend in the 2004 to 2007 period has been to get more performance per hertz (a far better way of doing things imo).

In terms of speed, the processors scaled the same in the 2001 to 2004 timeframe as the 2004 to 2007 period, pretty much obeying Moore's Law.

Point taken about the MHz myth (who's being ingenuous now? - don't worry, I just slapped my own hand). I still don't see raw performance increases year over year being the same as the good old days, when Moore's Law was struggling to keep up with Intel!

(and I'm not likely to sift through Bare Feats archives to find out for sure, so I guess that makes me a juicy target for anybody who does)
 
I won't throw out the word "moron", but I do know several dozen 6 year olds who know at least one thing you don't...

I built a computer lab for 1st and 2nd graders out of a dozen donated iMac G3s last year (and another dozen who ended up "parts donors"). I took the Dashboard icon out of the dock, Exposé runs pretty choppy, and few CPU-intensive OSX applications would likely run gangbusters, but the OS itself runs smoothly, perfectly "acceptable", in fact, with nary a complaint or whimper. On machines older than most of the children using them.

I agree, and I will use the word moron. Some people around here may have more money than sense (which still wouldn't make them rich men), but some survive on budgets. More than that though, I remember buying my 1 gig G4 iMac with 10.2 pre-installed. When I upgraded to 10.3 the performance of my iMac actually improved quite noticably. 10.4.10 is what I'm running on that same iMac now and it is still a pretty decent machine.

Further to my previous post, I remember pricing up a G5 quad a few years ago for business purposes, and with a stack of storage, a stack of RAM and a decent graphics card, the lot came to 6 or 7 thousand pounds. If I'd bought that, then discovered that I wouldn't be able to upgrade beyond 10.5, I'd be pretty pissed off.
 
Hmm. I smell class action lawsuit when 10.6 is released. This happened with Jaguar, or Panther, when Apple didn't support the G3 initially. Someone was unhappy about it and Apple continued to support the G3 for X updates.

If 10.6 doesn't support PowerPC, I may just upgrade my PC and jump into Vista, unless an AMD Apple PC is out and for sale.
 
It's a bit concerning to see how many people just say that it's ok, not surprising. Late G5 Mac Pros, later iMacs, and even Powerbooks shouldn't be left in the dust. I mean they are just running an OS.

Weren't we laughing at Windows users because they had to upgrade for Vista, yet we are all ok with Apple dropping support for what they called the fastest computers around at the time?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.