Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Just reporting what I experienced, I saw a 60Mb drop in footprint in that one application alone (tell me that doesn't do good things for RAM performance) and faster load times for applications.

All of that extra stuff (localizations, etc.) is not loaded unless needed and again that drop is mostly a result of stripping localizations which is unrelated to dropping PowerPC support from a universal binary.

Additionally Mac OS X is a demand paging system with a working set cache... so it even loads a subset of the application binary/files that it opens until such time it is needed.
 
Honestly, it could go either way, and since this is speculation, I wouldn't pay any attention to it. It all depends on the ratio of Intel users to PPC users nearer the time and whether there are enough PPC users to warrant supporting them. Nobody can know that yet - not even apple.
 
no big deal

That sucks. There's a lot of life left in the PPC Macs.

If anyone is still using a PPC Mac in 2009 and consider them self such a tech leader needing the newest OS from Apple.... they probably need to move out of mom's basement and get an apartment.... owning 10.6 will not get them a date with PPC hardware! Fork out the $3k and go Intel and quit whining.

Happy monday!
 
Apple stated when they announced the switch to Intel that they will drop PPC support in 4 years. That was in what, 2004 or 2005? So by 2009, no PPC Macs will be supported.

But I'm saying that they can still develop for it just like they did secretly with the Intel builds. They aren't stupid. Just because they won't sell it doesn't mean they won't have it.
 
Obviously this balloon is being floated now with the intent to give the market the heads up that it will need to make some decisions about how & when it wants to go about transitioning to the intel platform.

I agree that this is a trial balloon, and while its probably aimed at developers, it is strategically a bad idea right now in the context of the current consumer market.

Specifically, there's a ton of consumer market share sitting on the fence, asking themselves the old "will I get screwed if I change from Windows to Mac?", so for Apple to even tolerate any suggesting of dropping of legacy support at this time is strategically damaging.


Apple will need to move on to be able to focus on the current technology it will be dealing with. The updates that would be forthcoming in 10.6 would have no benefit to the PPC platform.

True, which means that the real question here is what is the specific and tangible benefit (and to who!) for the dropping of legacy support. People will understand & be more willing to accept change if they can see how they'll benefit from it (if not immediately, but in the future). To this end, a vague hand-waving of "no benefit to PPC" isn't a good enough justification: Apple will need to be very concise in providing real-world examples of what insanely great things the OS could do, if it were not being 'held back' by legacy PPC support.

Personally, I'm not aware of any specific examples of these great new features waiting in the wings (nor, admittedly, have I been looking for any), so perhaps somone could provide some examples of very tangible benefits?


They are not announcing that 10.5 will cease to run on the PPC platform, those machines will continue to operate just fine & dandy.

True, but consumers are emotional beasts. For example:

{Different Poster(s)} By late 2009, it would have been 4 years since the last new PPC mac was sold.

We've seen this sentiment expressed several times already in this thread, and while it isn't true...

Not so; new PPC Macs were still being sold at least as late as August 2006, when the Mac Pro was introduced. Plenty of 17" and 12" PowerBooks and iBooks were also sold in '06, too...

...this also drives to the core of another issue:

Some consumers may choose to buy a Mac in part because they remain better machines for longer. This is a classical lifecycle cost management statement...ie, pay more upfront but save money in the long run.

As such, while many of the consumers here may be of the personal opinion that 4 years is an acceptably long lifecycle, they do not speak for the entire marketplace.

(Personally, my newest tech Mac is 4 years old right now, and I expect that while it may be superceded by a better machine next year, it won't be retired out the door - - I expect it will remain on my network until it is at least 7 years old, just like its predecessor did).

To this end, if we look at a typical marketshare tracking website, we see that those (cough) "PPC's that haven't been sold in years" still remain a huge portion of the total share of OS X Mac's in use: they're still more than half (54%)

And while there's sure to be upgrades over the next two years so it will become a smaller portion of the whole, the underlying question is how small of a portion of the total does it need to become before its worth 'abandoning' the retail sales potential for that segment?

For example, my rough SWAG is that PPC is washing out at around 20% per year, which means that in 2-3 years, there will still be 1 PPC consumer for every 3 or 4 MacIntel consumers. As such, an OS update that doesn't support PPC means that roughly ~25% of the consumer base can't buy it.

It ought to be pointed out here that a large amount of software available to buy today runs on 10.3.9, and Apple are still supporting that with security updates.

So even if they do cut PPC support in 10.6, they'll probably continue supporting 10.5 for a further two years. If I haven't replaced my last-gen iMac G5 by 2011 I'll be extremely surprised.

Sure, but there's reality of support and then there's the consumer perceptions as to what "support" means...to them. Again, this is an opportunity for the nay-sayers to sharpshoot, so from a politically strategic position, it needs to be countered in easy-for-the-consumer-to-not-get-confused language.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Apple dropped all PPC support in 10.6. They've always been about drawing a firm line against over-supporting legacy hardware and software.

Given how this is frequently an emotionally-loaded topic, I think a clear corporate policy would be very beneficial. My personal suggestion would be to strive for 10 years of support, with a promise of a minimum of 7 for things such as hardware spare parts, OS currency, etc. IMO, Apple has done pretty well historically in this regards and can lay it out in a marketing campaign to break into the conventional Corporate marketplace.

It doesn't make much sense to me to drop G4 support, but go through the effort of compiling and bundling PPC code just for the G5s.

Agreed.

By 2009 or whatever, the installed base of Intel Macs will completely overshadow all the old PPC Macs.

I imagine plenty of G5-class machines will still be doing productive things in Leopard long after 10.6 is out the door.

And therein lies the dilemma...the share of MacIntel will hopefully be quite good, but there will still be the higher grade G5's that are plugging along just fine that represent a core that haven't been replaced.

I agree. 4 years of support is not bad at all, especially when it's an entirely different architecture.

What's missing from this question is what percentage of Macs are still in service after 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... 10 years.

Not necessarily still in their original role, but merely in some useful capacity, as hand-me-downs and repurposing is common: there's that 8-year old G4 Sawtooth that's been running as a file/music server down in your closet, for example, or that 4-year old G4 iMac that your high schooler is using to do their homework assignments on (and that it is a poor game platform is, if you think about it, actually a feature).


-hh
 
Even...

...if they do drop PPC support with 10.6, it's not going to render those machines obsolete in any sense, let alone overnight. There will still be easy networking and file sharing across 10.4.*, 10.5.*, and 10.6.* machines. There will have to be.

There's still plenty of folk out there getting good usage, and often in very innovative ways, out of Macs running OS8 and OS9.

And, hey, it's not as if we've been thinking it was never going to happen.

There will be a thriving PPC Mac community for a long time after Apple pulls official support.
 
Should I buy now or wait for 10.6?

sarcasmdet.jpg


Nicely done:)
 
Well, it staarted already,
Leopard is not supporting G3 based on what I heard,
iMovie does not support G3 or G4
So 10.6 is not likely to support G3, G4, or G5, makes sense and the systems will be fairly old and very slow compared to the systems released in 2007, 2008, and 2009.
 
Given that this will free up developer resources which will result in greater innovation, quality or speed of other Apple software, I support the decision. 10.6 won't come until 2009 or 2010... can PPC users still reasonably expect to have updates at that point? Let's be honest, there was a great deal of apprehension about buying Mac computers in 2005/2006 because of the purported switch. That means that most of the computers in question will be 5 years old at that point. That makes it time to upgrade!

And, with all due respect to those who chose not to, you still get Mac OS 10.5. There are certain costs that come with not upgrading your computer on a fairly regular basis, but having to "settle" for Mac OS 10.5 isn't exactly egregious.
 
I would say that's just another wild guess by AppleInsider. I still remember the time when they announced the death of Mac mini.

This is at most a Page 2 rumor.
 
Would make sense. PowerPC is getting a little long in the tooth. Plus, this will help programming since you wouldn't have to program for 2 different architectures. While the iPod/iPhone will still be here, Apple will still have less architectures to support.

The only down side w/ going Intel only that I can see is there are a lot of really great classic only apps out there that never made the jump to Mac OS X. Kinda sad to see them go.

Just to make sure we get the time lines right, I bought mY G5 Quad in Dec of 2005, and they were still top of the line for 6 months or more after that; so lets assume that Summer of 2006 was the last "new" G5 not on clearance sale. Obsoleting them in 2009 would , imho, but a bit early.

But, as others have said, 10.5 is not even on the streets yet.

Eddie O
 
10.5 should drop PPC entirely and be Intel-only. this is what is truly holding back technological progress in this country---the constant need for backward compatibility. it's why windows is such a mess.

besides, leopard will have all of the boot camp goodies, which don't even run on ppc. so it will be crippled on ppc to begin with. its not the rest of the worlds fault people have old computers.
 
I agree that this is a trial balloon, and while its probably aimed at developers, it is strategically a bad idea right now in the context of the current consumer market.

Specifically, there's a ton of consumer market share sitting on the fence, asking themselves the old "will I get screwed if I change from Windows to Mac?", so for Apple to even tolerate any suggesting of dropping of legacy support at this time is strategically damaging.




True, which means that the real question here is what is the specific and tangible benefit (and to who!) for the dropping of legacy support. People will understand & be more willing to accept change if they can see how they'll benefit from it (if not immediately, but in the future). To this end, a vague hand-waving of "no benefit to PPC" isn't a good enough justification: Apple will need to be very concise in providing real-world examples of what insanely great things the OS could do, if it were not being 'held back' by legacy PPC support.

Personally, I'm not aware of any specific examples of these great new features waiting in the wings (nor, admittedly, have I been looking for any), so perhaps somone could provide some examples of very tangible benefits?




True, but consumers are emotional beasts. For example:



We've seen this sentiment expressed several times already in this thread, and while it isn't true...



...this also drives to the core of another issue:

Some consumers may choose to buy a Mac in part because they remain better machines for longer. This is a classical lifecycle cost management statement...ie, pay more upfront but save money in the long run.

As such, while many of the consumers here may be of the personal opinion that 4 years is an acceptably long lifecycle, they do not speak for the entire marketplace.

(Personally, my newest tech Mac is 4 years old right now, and I expect that while it may be superceded by a better machine next year, it won't be retired out the door - - I expect it will remain on my network until it is at least 7 years old, just like its predecessor did).

To this end, if we look at a typical marketshare tracking website, we see that those (cough) "PPC's that haven't been sold in years" still remain a huge portion of the total share of OS X Mac's in use: they're still more than half (54%)

And while there's sure to be upgrades over the next two years so it will become a smaller portion of the whole, the underlying question is how small of a portion of the total does it need to become before its worth 'abandoning' the retail sales potential for that segment?

For example, my rough SWAG is that PPC is washing out at around 20% per year, which means that in 2-3 years, there will still be 1 PPC consumer for every 3 or 4 MacIntel consumers. As such, an OS update that doesn't support PPC means that roughly ~25% of the consumer base can't buy it.



Sure, but there's reality of support and then there's the consumer perceptions as to what "support" means...to them. Again, this is an opportunity for the nay-sayers to sharpshoot, so from a politically strategic position, it needs to be countered in easy-for-the-consumer-to-not-get-confused language.



Given how this is frequently an emotionally-loaded topic, I think a clear corporate policy would be very beneficial. My personal suggestion would be to strive for 10 years of support, with a promise of a minimum of 7 for things such as hardware spare parts, OS currency, etc. IMO, Apple has done pretty well historically in this regards and can lay it out in a marketing campaign to break into the conventional Corporate marketplace.



Agreed.



And therein lies the dilemma...the share of MacIntel will hopefully be quite good, but there will still be the higher grade G5's that are plugging along just fine that represent a core that haven't been replaced.



What's missing from this question is what percentage of Macs are still in service after 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... 10 years.

Not necessarily still in their original role, but merely in some useful capacity, as hand-me-downs and repurposing is common: there's that 8-year old G4 Sawtooth that's been running as a file/music server down in your closet, for example, or that 4-year old G4 iMac that your high schooler is using to do their homework assignments on (and that it is a poor game platform is, if you think about it, actually a feature).


-hh

-- applauds --

You don't find well thought statements like this on Mac Rumors too often. Keep them coming.
:D:D
 
Unlikely

Given the past desupporting of systems in Mac OS X 10.x releases I do not see this as very likely. I would speculate that Mac OS X 10.7 will be the release that abandons support for the PPC architecture. This gives a more reasonable time period and would likely not have a massive user backlash. It would be more likely for Mac OS X 10.6 to drop support for 32 bit PPC chips. Even then this is probably unlikely too.
 
10.6? I'm thinking that Leopard is the last cat and the next version of Apple's OS will be something completely new.... i.e. a predominantly Multi-Touch influenced interface
 
Would make sense. PowerPC is getting a little long in the tooth. Plus, this will help programming since you wouldn't have to program for 2 different architectures. While the iPod/iPhone will still be here, Apple will still have less architectures to support.

The only down side w/ going Intel only that I can see is there are a lot of really great classic only apps out there that never made the jump to Mac OS X. Kinda sad to see them go.

Whics apps you mean?
 
Suppose the next system, 10.6, is named for the biggest of the big cats: Garfield.

Apple is going to pivot on names for the next go. It shoulda-coulda-woulda been a lion, I guess, after Leopard. But at least in English that's such a tepid name for the King of Beasts.

So it will be Leo, also conveniently a constellation, and a beauty at that. It will look great in the promos! Picking the name of a constellation opens the door for all those other great celestial monikers to tag future OS releases. Orion! Aries! Libra!

I am definitely making this up, btw.
 
I Doubt This Will Happen. But If It Does No Biggie. Leopard Will Be Fine For PPC Macs

Given that Intel Macs started in Tiger, I doubt Leopard will be the last PPC supported system, The base of G4 & G5 PowerMacs is HUGE and will continue to dominate the overall population of Macs by 2009. Quad G5 is not going to be dead by then unless they all start leaking bloody murder. It is only a little slower than the Quad 2.66 Mac Pro.

All the dual G5s have legs if you don't try to multi-task too much. I'm keeping a dual core 2GHz G5 just to do EyeTV recordings for example. I can pop out the B SATA 750 when it gets full and pop in another empty one while I put the full one in the Mac Pro for editing and transcoding.

But even if Leopard is the end for PPC, things will run great in Leopard for decades to come as long as the hardware can stay alive. Some PPC Mac repairs can be so expensive after AppleCare expires that buying a new Mac could be less expensive or at least a wiser investment even if it costs only a few hundred dollars more.
 
Coming from someone who has joined this year, I don't expect an understanding of apple history, but consider this. My g3 iMac came w/ Os 9. It capably runs up to 10.3, argueably 10.4 depending who you ask. I would expect the same from G4/g5 machines.

Makes sense to me as well! Intel is the newest and greatest, Power PC is in the past. So sorry if you can't upgrade. What's 10.6 going to be called? Lion? :D :apple:
 
I agree that this is a trial balloon, and while its probably aimed at developers, it is strategically a bad idea right now in the context of the current consumer market.

Specifically, there's a ton of consumer market share sitting on the fence, asking themselves the old "will I get screwed if I change from Windows to Mac?", so for Apple to even tolerate any suggesting of dropping of legacy support at this time is strategically damaging.




True, which means that the real question here is what is the specific and tangible benefit (and to who!) for the dropping of legacy support. People will understand & be more willing to accept change if they can see how they'll benefit from it (if not immediately, but in the future). To this end, a vague hand-waving of "no benefit to PPC" isn't a good enough justification: Apple will need to be very concise in providing real-world examples of what insanely great things the OS could do, if it were not being 'held back' by legacy PPC support.

Personally, I'm not aware of any specific examples of these great new features waiting in the wings (nor, admittedly, have I been looking for any), so perhaps somone could provide some examples of very tangible benefits?




True, but consumers are emotional beasts. For example:



We've seen this sentiment expressed several times already in this thread, and while it isn't true...



...this also drives to the core of another issue:

Some consumers may choose to buy a Mac in part because they remain better machines for longer. This is a classical lifecycle cost management statement...ie, pay more upfront but save money in the long run.

As such, while many of the consumers here may be of the personal opinion that 4 years is an acceptably long lifecycle, they do not speak for the entire marketplace.

(Personally, my newest tech Mac is 4 years old right now, and I expect that while it may be superceded by a better machine next year, it won't be retired out the door - - I expect it will remain on my network until it is at least 7 years old, just like its predecessor did).

To this end, if we look at a typical marketshare tracking website, we see that those (cough) "PPC's that haven't been sold in years" still remain a huge portion of the total share of OS X Mac's in use: they're still more than half (54%)

And while there's sure to be upgrades over the next two years so it will become a smaller portion of the whole, the underlying question is how small of a portion of the total does it need to become before its worth 'abandoning' the retail sales potential for that segment?

For example, my rough SWAG is that PPC is washing out at around 20% per year, which means that in 2-3 years, there will still be 1 PPC consumer for every 3 or 4 MacIntel consumers. As such, an OS update that doesn't support PPC means that roughly ~25% of the consumer base can't buy it.



Sure, but there's reality of support and then there's the consumer perceptions as to what "support" means...to them. Again, this is an opportunity for the nay-sayers to sharpshoot, so from a politically strategic position, it needs to be countered in easy-for-the-consumer-to-not-get-confused language.



Given how this is frequently an emotionally-loaded topic, I think a clear corporate policy would be very beneficial. My personal suggestion would be to strive for 10 years of support, with a promise of a minimum of 7 for things such as hardware spare parts, OS currency, etc. IMO, Apple has done pretty well historically in this regards and can lay it out in a marketing campaign to break into the conventional Corporate marketplace.



Agreed.



And therein lies the dilemma...the share of MacIntel will hopefully be quite good, but there will still be the higher grade G5's that are plugging along just fine that represent a core that haven't been replaced.



What's missing from this question is what percentage of Macs are still in service after 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... 10 years.

Not necessarily still in their original role, but merely in some useful capacity, as hand-me-downs and repurposing is common: there's that 8-year old G4 Sawtooth that's been running as a file/music server down in your closet, for example, or that 4-year old G4 iMac that your high schooler is using to do their homework assignments on (and that it is a poor game platform is, if you think about it, actually a feature).


-hh


Nice post!
 
I can't believe how many people are saying that it would "make sense".

...some stuff deleted...
It costs Apple almost nothing to maintain the PPC port of this software (which, you should recall, ran on 040, SPARC, and HP PA-RISC, and now runs on PPC, x86, and ARM and who knows what else in the lab) and they're not going to anger anybody with even a dual G4 tower for a long, long time.

I'd put money on it.

It costs a LOT to maintain each version. Development might be easy with cross compilers etc., but each version must be tested on each Apple supported variant: buss speeds, CD/DVD drives, disk sizes and controller, Airport controllers, etc. That's a LOT of testing and it is costly in time and money.

Eddie O.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.