Mac OS X Snow Leopard Does Require Intel Processors

[MagnusVonMagnum]

They aren't dropping PPC support to force people to upgrade, no matter what YOU may think.

So, in other words, I'm talking to another person who doesn't CARE what ANYONE ELSE THINKS. Gee, what a freaking surprise.

They came to a fork in their road and they can clearly see the dead end to one of the paths. Don't blame them for choosing not to walk all the way down that path for no reason.

So those G5 owners that haven't even had their Apple Care expire yet...TOO FREAKING BAD for them, eh? They should have KNOWN that Apple would see them as a 'dead end' when they bought their computer in support of Apple three years ago! Sorry, but the problem is not Apple branching off dead ends. The problem is Apple abandons their users whenever it's convenient for them. They don't give a flying leap about their long term customers. THAT is the problem. They seem to think that if they lose some customers that they'll gain some more from somewhere else, not realizing that loyalty actually has value in the long run. If you continually alienate your customer base, they will eventually go elsewhere even if they have to replace their software library (which Apple banks on to keep the flock around even when they're cheesed off). And while the religious faithful like yourself may think everything Apple does is just fantastic, it does have consequences when a company ignores their prior customers and writes them off as "dead ends". Why would a 'dead end' support Apple again when they just got forked off the wagon? Sorry, but actions have consequences, whether fanatics like them or not. Don't be surprised one day when Apple is reliving 1999 all over again due to 'dead end thinking' on their part and this time Steve isn't around to save them from their dead-end decisions.

If there were a gem at the end that was actually worth the trouble, sure, but there's no gem left with PPC.

I'm sure from where YOU sit that is the case since you clearly do not have or do not care about a PPC machine. But to the 3-year old customer of a Mac Pro G5 Quad that clearly has a more powerful machine than most iMac Intel users, you telling them they have "no gem left" sounds not only non-caring about THEIR problems, but just downright ridiculous when their machine will run circles around half the Intel machines out there.

The problem is not Apple getting rid of support for PPC machines. It's WHEN they get rid of that support. Their cycle used to around 6 years of support for a given machine in software. It's now down to 3. Three years is a very short period of time, even for computers, but especially so these days when clock speeds are just barely creeping up and the promise of parallel processing has yet to truly pan out. Progress is slowing down and replacing machines just to replace them is stupid.

What's my point? My point is exactly what I said, if you want to keep using your computer for what its used for now, you can continue to do so. BUT, if you, for whatever reason, feel like you MUST keep getting new software but NEVER update your hardware, you are out of luck. The reasoning that you can infinitely update software but never update hardware is asinine on your part. Sorry, but it is.

Never update my hardware? Did you miss the paragraph (or my signature...DUH?!) where I stated I bought a MBP, 2 AppleTV units and an iPod Touch from Apple in the past 2 years (the MBP was just 8 months ago). That's not enough recent hardware for you??? How much have you purchased in the past 2 years??? Oh WAIT. You used the word "UPGRADE". Actualy, I upgraded my PowerMac in the past two years as well to 1.8GHz 7448, 1.5GB of ram and TWO 1.5TB hard drives plus 24x DVD-RW. Oh it's upgraded. It'll run circles around the Mac Mini in hard drive (therefore server) speeds. It has more than enough power to do what I need it to do. It is Apple that is trying to force it into retirement. I thought about a Mac Pro, but spending $2500+ to use a machine as a server seemed ridiculous when $800 in upgrading a used PowerMac would do the job just as well and save me $1700. An iMac has no internal expansion and therefore was not a consideration. Yes, I could have bought a PC and/or hacked a PC, but I thought supporting Apple vendors was the better way to go and use a genuine Apple Mac as the centerpiece of the server. All Apple has done is tell me I SHOULD have bought that PC instead of buying hardware from Mac support companies and OS X Leopard from Apple themselves.

And you say "treat the customer badly and he won't come back." Seriously? You have NOT been an Apple customer (as far as hardware is concerned) for at least 3 years, and by the time Leopard is no longer supported it will be around 5 years likely. So you have not been a customer to Apple for a long time anyway. In other words, you no longer matter to them.

Do you even realize how dumb it sounds to tell someone they have not bought hardware in the past three years (and therefore they 'don't matter to Apple' when they bought three computers and an iPod Touch from Apple in the past year and a half??? LOL. It's the very FACT that I *HAVE* bought hardware from Apple in the past 2 years that makes *MY* point. Because I value one of their older products as a server and I think dropping support for an entire architecture 3 years after they sold their last machine (Apple Care is still GOOD for some G5s) then I must be WORTHLESS, eh? Yeah, I don't buy Apple products. Just a Macbook Pro, multple AppleTV units and an iPod Touch. Yeah, Apple shouldn't bother to support me. I don't buy enough from them to bother supporting me. It's not worthwhile to keep people like me around. Maybe they'll dump support for certain Intel models the next go around since they'll be over 3 years old at that point and even though there is no technical reason to do so since it's the same architecture and doesn't cost them anything to keep support for them, by YOUR logic, they should do it anyway since anyone who hasn't REPLACED their Mac in 3 years time is WORTHLESS to Apple.

Yes, who cares about long term return customers. We're selling iPhones to the Russians and soon the Chinese! We don't need no stinking return customers! Yeah, let's see how that pans out in the long term for them. Go Apple!

 

[flopticalcube]

In the last transition (68K to PPC) didn't things happen in reverse order? The top end machines (Mac Pros of their time) were moved over first and the bottom end machines went last. It was about 3 years IIRC, from discontinuation of the last 68K Powerbook to introduction of a PPC-only OS.

 

[Manic Mouse]

What's my point? My point is exactly what I said, if you want to keep using your computer for what its used for now, you can continue to do so. BUT, if you, for whatever reason, feel like you MUST keep getting new software but NEVER update your hardware, you are out of luck. The reasoning that you can infinitely update software but never update hardware is asinine on your part. Sorry, but it is.

And you say "treat the customer badly and he won't come back." Seriously? You have NOT been an Apple customer (as far as hardware is concerned) for at least 3 years, and by the time Leopard is no longer supported it will be around 5 years likely. So you have not been a customer to Apple for a long time anyway. In other words, you no longer matter to them.

+1

@MagnusVonMagnum

You bought a computer that functions just as well as it did when you bought it. Better, in fact, with all the OS upgrades. What are you complaining about? Do people complain that the PS2 can't play PS3 games? No, because most of us realise that eventually technology moves on. In fact, plenty of Intel Macs can't even take full advantage of Snow Leopard as their GPUs aren't Open CL capable. What would be the point of developing a PPC version which would be even less capable of making use of any of the SL improvements?

What exactly would make you happy? Apple supporting your dead-end architecture for the rest of time? Like others have pointed out, by the time Leopard is no longer supported the last PPC machine will be about 5 years old, which is a heck of a lot longer than the lifetime of most machines. It's not like the Intel switch has snuck up on you or anything.

You say everyone else is being selfish, but really isn't that you? Demanding (and throwing tantrums) that Apple support your computer when in reality there really is no benefit in them doing so. Your computer runs just as well as when you bought it, you can continue to run it as long as you like. But demanding that Apple support it indefinitely, at the expense of spending that effort on more productive projects, is pretty selfish. Are you happy to have Apple spend time and effort making things better for the minority, rather than the majority? Isn't that the definition of selfishness?

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

+1

@MagnusVonMagnum

You bought a computer that functions just as well as it did when you bought it. Better, in fact, with all the OS upgrades.

I bought it two years ago as a more reasonable cost alternative to buying Apple's ONLY other tower, the Mac Pro. iMacs are not desktops, IMO and I had no interest in one. I could have (and now looking back SHOULD have) gone Hackintosh instead as for about the same price, I could have a considerably faster Intel machine. Apple offered NO alternatives in the $800-1200 range with internal storage and expansion and fast Sata hard drive support for networking. I have not owned this PowerMac since 2001 if that's what you're thinking.

Yes, I knew about Intel at the time, but what choices did they offer me? What choices do they offer me even NOW that they're trying to force me to buy a new machine to replace this one? I bought a MBP last fall. It's not a server. It's not going to be used as a server. An iMac with spaghetti strewn all over the room to "expand" it with slow standards like USB 2.0 or even FW800 (compared to Sata; Apple REFUSES to support E-Sata which is way faster than FireWire) is not my idea of a clean setup. The new Mac-Mini is almost usable save the lack of E-Sata and the mess it makes, but the hardware is still overpriced (you can get a Quad-Core PC that outrun the Mac Pro for about the same price and does have internal expansion). People want us to support Apple, but maybe the highway runs both directions. I'll gladly buy an Apple if Apple offers something I want to buy. Seeing as my complaints in that department are against the hardware they offer and not the operating system, that leaves me where, exactly? Either go back to Windows or buy new hardware. But I don't LIKE their hardware and I don't like Vista. Is it any wonder I've still got a PowerMac as a server? It's expandable and has internal storage and cost me very little since it's old. It does the job. Why should I be happy about being forced to pick from bad (overpriced hardware that doesn't fit MY needs) and bad (Windows Vista)??? Given my needs (the PowerMac works fine), I shouldn't need to even make that decision at the moment, but Apple wants to force it by causing all the new software to dry up. Fine, Apple. Offer me a good replacement in the $1200 range. No, they want $2500. So I will buy the Hackintosh for $900 instead that does mostly the same things, at least for my needs.

What are you complaining about? Do people complain that the PS2 can't play PS3 games?

That's hardly a valid comparison. I'm not asking for OpenCL or newer games. It's a server, for goodness sake, not a gaming platform.

No, because most of us realise that eventually technology moves on. In

I don't call a little over 3 years since the last G5 was made "eventually", personally. Few of us would complain if they offered a full 5-6 years of support like previous generation Macs. PPC is something they cannot wait to get rid of. But look what it does to their market share numbers. Despite what you seem to think, at least 30-40% of the Mac "market" are still using PPC machines. Clearly, Apple hopes to increase short term sales by forcing an upgrade sooner rather than later. But if those people buy PCs instead, it could backfire on them. I'm sure Microsoft wanted to force Vista sales, but why upgrade if it means you're in worse shape than you started? If Apple wants to force me to upgrade my server, why not offer a mid-range box instead of trying to force me to buy a professional workstation, which is complete overkill? Why is it that the up until last year, the desktop tower was the MOST COMMON computer out there and yet Apple only offers one model at the professional workstation level? Apple thinks people want all-in-ones, but those are available for the PC market too and represent less than 1% of all PC sales. If they're so popular, why is it people buy towers in the PC world? They're only "popular" in the Mac world because Mac users have NO OTHER CHOICE in that price range for a "desktop"!

fact, plenty of Intel Macs can't even take full advantage of Snow Leopard as their GPUs aren't Open CL capable. What would be the point of developing a PPC version which would be even less capable of making use of any of the SL improvements?

So you're telling me Snow Leopard is all about OpenCL? Here I thought it was about retaining support from developers for newer software releases. I couldn't care less about new features. In fact, I'd prefer Apple do a major OS upgrade and put it off another year or two and then I wouldn't have to worry about upgrading right away. For a "minor" upgrade with "mostly bugfixes" type advertising that Apple has been doing, ditching almost half the Mac users in existence is a pretty MAJOR move, IMO.

What exactly would make you happy? Apple supporting your dead-end architecture for the rest of time? Like others have pointed out, by the time

How about 5-6 years like all previous Apple hardware instead of 3-4 years? Some people would like to get their money's worth from their investment, not get forced into upgrading hardware that is still useful because Apple would rather you give them more money. You should also remember who made it dead-end. The PS3 (which you aptly chose to compare this with earlier) *IS* PowerPC, BTW. I find that almost hilarious, really. It's Apple that abandoned PowerPC after telling us for years and years how great it was. They could have gone to Intel straight from the Motorola 68000 series, but chose to keep supporting Motorola CPUs instead even though they were no mainstream and therefore wouldn't get updated as often as the Intel types.

You say everyone else is being selfish, but really isn't that you? Demanding
(and throwing tantrums) that Apple support your computer when in reality

So now I'm throwing a tantrum? What are you in the room with me or something to see it? LOL. Why is any time someone gives an opinion that a FANATIC doesn't like they feel the need to reduce that person to things like "tantrums" instead of discussing something on a logical basis? Is it because it underscores the fact they don't have a rational argument other than admitting they're selfish? Now you're suggesting that I'm being selfish and trying to turn the table that way, but what you don't seem to grasp is that I'm not asking Apple to discontinue support for Intel machines (i.e. YOUR computer). In fact, where does any of MY opinions affect you what-so-ever other than a little hard drive space that gets freed up by Apple ditching PPC? You seem to think Apple will devote more resources to newer features? They've got nearly $30 billion in cash reserves. Believe me, if they wanted to increase support, they've got the cash to do it. I think you'll be bitterly disappointed at the lack of progress Apple makes compared to Windows in the next few years. What have they done to increase 3D performance, for example? Including outdated GPUs as the hardware standard hasn't done much in that area while Microsoft continues to develop DirectX standards. Apple seems to care mostly about developing in the iPhone. They even count iPhones in their "OS X" numbers to try and make it LOOK like more people use OS X and Safari than they actually do in the general computing world. Yet if you ask them to open that system up for more app stores and the ability to program it yourself and they tell you it's a phone, not a computer platform. Well, gee, for how long are they going to get to have their cake and eat it to? I wish all challengers to Apple's virtual monopoly luck in court. Apple is not the poor sap company that has been crushed under foot by Microsoft any more. They're one of the richest tech companies out there today. They can afford to COMPETE with the big boys now. It's about time they did, IMO.

As for your reply in general, what do you care to even reply period? It's not like I'm going to change Apple's mind. You got your wish. You saved your 4-6 GB of space on your hard drive. You'll imagine Apple is now doing more to support your machine. I'll go buy a Dell (Assembled in the USA not Communist China like Apple) and hack the heck out of it and move my copy of OS X Leopard over to it from my PowerMac where I can then upgrade it for $29 and everyone will have their needs met. If Windows7 turns out to be good, I'll reassess running OS X at all at that point in time.

 

[zweigand]

I'm sure from where YOU sit that is the case since you clearly do not have or do not care about a PPC machine.

I own two PPC machines . A PowerMac (file server) and an iBook that is used daily.

 

[Mal]

[snip absurdly long rant about the evil Apple that should've told you that when you bought the discontinued model because it was cheaper that you wouldn't get support for it in three years]

Seriously dude, you bought a PPC after the switch to Intel was complete, and you're complaining now? Apple wasn't even making that model any more, they sold it as a discontinued model at a discounted price, and you're whining because you can't buy the latest version of the operating system three years later? You, sir, are unqualified to speak on the subject due to a significant lack of common sense.

jW

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Seriously dude, you bought a PPC after the switch to Intel was complete, and you're complaining now? Apple wasn't even making that model any more, they sold it as a discontinued model at a discounted price, and you're whining because you can't buy the latest version of the operating system three years later? You, sir, are unqualified to speak on the subject due to a significant lack of common sense.

Apple had NOTHING to do with that sale. I got it used for cheap at a computer show to try a Mac out for the first time in many years because I was sick of Microsoft. After deciding I liked the OS X operating system, I decided to upgrade it for 1/4 the cost of a new Mac tower (i.e. the Mac Pro was the ONLY other tower option out there and STILL is short of a Hackintosh) and use it to drive my whole house audio system as a server with several internal huge hard drives. The ONLY other option NEAR that price range at the time was the previous generation Mac Mini, which quite frankly wasn't any better than an upgraded PPC...worse in many areas. Leopard didn't even exist at the time and there was no reason to believe Apple would dump PPC any time soon since Tiger barely had support for Intel and there was almost no Intel software even at the time (there wasn't even a Universal version of Photoshop for goodness sake! People seem to forget how slow/rough the transition was now that it's largely over). A lot happens in two years.

I now own a new MBP from late last year (last October) and still own a 2 year old PC which I use for gaming and other non-Mac software (the MBP can run that as well with Windows). But I'm not allowed to express my opinion about Apple's latest operating system because YOU said so? Because you think it was a dumb idea to save $1800 over a Mac Pro (the only other tower out there that isn't a Hackintosh)? Geeze, exactly who heck are you and who died and made you God that you get to judge my qualification to speak on something? I honestly believe about 50% of all Mac users lack most logical sense period and are more akin to fanatical religious worshipers than traditional computer users and your post certainly does nothing to dispel that notion. Unlike most Mac users, I don't hate everything that isn't Apple and I don't blindly love everything that IS Apple. I actually think for myself (gasp).

If Apple had a mid-range expandable tower, I might not have had to make that decision in the first place (clearly the 3rd option was to HACK a PC, but fanatics think that's illegal so they don't like to go there). But Apple seems to think that the average Mac user goes from country bumpkin knowledge level to advanced professional with NOTHING in-between. Lately, some question whether they even believe in professionals since the "professional" hardware is pretty much going 2nd rate consumer. I mean replace a handy expansion port on the Macbook Pro with a freaking limited SD card reader? WTF!?? That's one of the most stupid, short-sighted moves I've ever seen Apple make (especially considering all they had to do was include an $8 SD ram card to plug into the existing slow with all machines if they were so worried about SD support while still allowing professional to actually be able to add profesisonal features like E-Sata), but no...as usual Apple decided for MOST Mac users that they ARE pretty much country bumpkin level computer users and they would never use anything beyond SD so screw the few actual hobbyist level consumers and professionals that might want something more useful. Gee I'm glad I got last year's MBP before they ruined the darn thing. Apple was probably worried the typical Mac users was trying to insert cheese sandwiches into that slot or something thinking it was a toaster.... LOL. I honestly wouldn't put that past some people.

But since there is no competition for Apple hardware choices if you want to run OS X (unless you hack it yourself), it's pretty much becoming a "if you don't fit Apple's profile market then go back to Windows" situation. After all, if you need such and such hardware and Apple doesn't want to sell that hardware, you have few other choices. I'm perfectly happy hacking a PC at this point, but others clearly are not. I think more than a few Mac users will be going PC when Windows7 comes out. I take no joy in that. I really like OS X, but not to the point where I'm willing to pay 2-3x as much to get under-performing hardware that can't run the latest games or even play a Blu-Ray movie because Steve would prefer you buy your movies from iTunes. I think it should be the consumer's choice and iTunes should honestly compete for that choice, not try and force you to buy from them because they don't happen to like the competition. But that does seem to be Apple's strategy in everything. If you can't beat them, cheat them.

 

[zweigand]

Dude, from what you have told us, you do NOT need a Mac Pro. An iMac or Mac Mini with a drobo would be a perfect solution. eSATA is faster than FW800, yeah, but wake me up when FW800 chokes on streaming audio.

 

[uberamd]

Seriously dude, you bought a PPC after the switch to Intel was complete, and you're complaining now? Apple wasn't even making that model any more, they sold it as a discontinued model at a discounted price, and you're whining because you can't buy the latest version of the operating system three years later? You, sir, are unqualified to speak on the subject due to a significant lack of common sense.

jW

+1

This guy and his rants are absurd. He complained at me for not reading his huge rants (which are too long for me to bother reading in full), or his signature. Sure, he has new hardware so he is a customer still, but none of that matters since you won't upgrade your desktop.

The PS2 to PS3 upgrade was a PERFECT comparison.

The sense of entitlement some Apple customers show is pathetic. His rants just make me that much more happy PPC is going away.

BTW: I use a PowerMac G5 dual 1.8GHz at work, but I understand why they are going away and my boss is prepared to get new systems to replace them. Maybe you should follow suit.

 

[HappyJack96]

@Magnus... Unless you know what you are doing (perhaps you do) one can't just Hackintosh® any machine. I personally wouldn't give that Dell a red cent. I'd contemplated a H-option also, but after the EU Antitrust Case, I really don't care to give my money to Intel either. Microsoft and Windows aren't even being considered. For people that really want to Think Different, options are mighty slim. We need a "Big Three" in Operating Systems. I'm rooting for Linux & Open Source more than ever!

AMD appears to have some concern for their customers (imagine!) by at least not immediately pushing them off a cliff with architecture changes: e.g. AM3 processors are backward compatible with AM2+ boards. BRAVO! That's the kind of company I WANT to support with my DOLLARS!

Contrary to the PPC cutoff is how Apple is now touting themselves as a GREEN tech company. Excuse me?! With laptop batteries that cannot be [user] replaced?! Machines dropped like a bad habit after a mere 3 years?! Ever heard that reuse is the highest form of recycling? Keeping computers (or any electronics) relevant and usable AS LONG as possible, is AS GREEN as you can get!!! Kudos to YOU MagnusVonMagnum for keeping that Power Mac going!

Someday, many of you telling us PPC users to "just get over it" will be exclaiming about how Apple has dropped support of YOUR machine too soon. But you'll just get over it -- right?

Russell

 

[dukebound85]

Someday, many of you telling us PPC users to "just get over it" will be exclaiming about how Apple has dropped support of YOUR machine too soon. But you'll just get over it -- right?

Russell

um yes, i have been through it. i have had computers that have been deemed unfit for the latest os. know what i did? i got a new computer

lol this isnt the first time this has happened

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Dude, from what you have told us, you do NOT need a Mac Pro. An iMac or Mac Mini with a drobo would be a perfect solution. eSATA is faster than FW800, yeah, but wake me up when FW800 chokes on streaming audio.

What part of I don't want a junky Mac Mini or iMac don't people like you understand? I don't like non-expandable, underpowered computers that pretend to be desktops but use laptop parts. If I wanted to use a laptop, I'd get a laptop. I've already priced together a self-build Quad-Core Hackintosh that will run circles around the Mac Pro for the types of applications I'm apt to use and assembling it myself, it will cost me around $900. I've already got some pretty nice monitors and iMacs don't come in Quad-Cores PERIOD. The ONLY thing Apple has to offer in that price range is the Mac-Mini (pathetic compared to a Quad-Core desktop) and the white Macbook (I already have an MBP and using a laptop for a permanant home system is goofy regardless).

The thing is I was planning on buying that machine to replace my PC, which I was going to move over to use as the basis of a MAME Arcade Cabinet. I did not plan to buy a Quad-Core to replace my PowerMac, which has more than enough power to be a 24/7 whole house audio/video server and 24 hour secure Internet terminal. I'm sure I could throw together a 2nd small Hackintosh, though for around $400 that would capably replace it, though. So for around $1300 (less than half of one Mac Pro and below most iMacs), I can get TWO Hackintosh computers...one Quad-Core and one Dual-Core. Why in the world would I want to buy another computer from Apple then when they have NOTHING to compete with those machines? And yet certain people here like to intimate that I'm the crazy one. Yeah, crazy like a fox.

BTW, streaming audio is only one facet of a server. I encode the movies on other computers through Gigabit and quite frankly, the faster some of these copy operations go when moving multi-gigabyte movies around the better. Besides, FW800 capable external hard drives are EXPENSIVE (I'm sure that means little to some Mac users who are used to paying through the nose for everything they buy). I got two Seagate Barracuda 1.5TB drives that get over 100MB/sec WRITES(!) on my PowerMac for around $120 each. Show me a 1.5TB external FW800 drive for anywhere near that price. A quick scan on Google shows me anywhere from $200-300 for ONE such drive. So I save anywhere from $160-260 just by going internal Sata. IF I bought a Mac-Mini and two FW800 drives, I'd be looking at anywhere from $1200-1400. If I bought a Drobo as you suggest plus the Mac-Mini, I'd be looking at well over $2000. At that point, I might as well look at a used Mac Pro! I could get a $400 PC that will do the job plus move my two Sata drives over and $400 is the final price. $1200-2000 for an Apple solution all because they dumped PPC in Snow Leopard? No thanks.

Of course, IF Apple would update AppleTV so that it can sync to a UnPnP NAS unit, I could throw together a simple two drive NAS with those same Sata drives for a similar price and it would take almost no desk space and I could eliminate one of my computers entirely. Sadly, Apple REFUSES to get with the future and support UnPnP and NAS streaming. Even some of Apple's own employees have bemoaned this fact. I mean let's face it, the ONLY reason I need a computer to do this stuff period is because of that lack of functionality. Sure, I can use XBMC hacked onto AppleTV to do it, but XBMC has its own drawbacks (like not reading meta tags for movies).

+1

This guy and his rants are absurd. He complained at me for not reading his huge rants (which are too long for me to bother reading in full), or his signature. Sure, he has new hardware so he is a customer still, but none of that matters since you won't upgrade your desktop.

I'm sorry you have trouble reading that you cannot read a simple one page reply or bother to look at a 3 line signature. I cannot really be expected to keep repeating things over and over just because you cannot be bothered to actually follow the thread or the conversation.

The PS2 to PS3 upgrade was a PERFECT comparison.

LOL. They don't run the same operating system (thus invalid comparison on that level) and the latter actually uses PPC. And whereas a PS2 could never hope to play a PS3 level game, a PPC Mac can run most Mac application software. The fact that Macs aren't really for gaming just underscores that fact. A perfect comparison? Hardly.

The sense of entitlement some Apple customers show is pathetic. His rants just make me that much more happy PPC is going away.

You mean if I buy a Mac I shouldn't expect more than 3 years of support? Gee, that's some entitlement I'm talking about there.

As for being happy, that just proves the bits I said about most Mac users having no empathy towards fellow Mac users and that they only care about their own self-interests. Sure, most of the world is that way, but many Mac users are more smug than usual. In any case, I'm not broke. I can buy a new machine. It simply won't be from Apple. That's Apple's problem and it's Apple's fault as far as I'm concerned. If they want my business, they need to EARN it. Just because I own two Macs doesn't mean they have me as a customer for life. They should compete for my business like everyone else. That doesn't seem to be something Apple is very good at or used to doing, though. They're used to having a virtual monopoly in their market segment and they're used to fanatics buying everything that they're selling no matter how underpowered or overpriced they might be.

 

[HappyJack96]

He complained at me for not reading his huge rants (which are too long for me to bother reading in full), or his signature.

If one can't be bothered to read a post in full so they can reply in context, much less intelligently, then don't _bother_ to even reply.

His rants just make me that much more happy PPC is going away.

So now PPC users have joined the great unwashed and we can just not let the door hit us on the way out huh?! If not meant, then certainly implied. BOO!

BTW: I use a PowerMac G5 dual 1.8GHz at work, but I understand why they are going away and my boss is prepared to get new systems to replace them. Maybe you should follow suit.

If you have a business that actually makes money WITH a computer, then yes, upgrading at some point does indeed make sense (and dollars). Telling someone they "should follow suit" when there is perhaps no real need to, is pointless. Unless you're buying

um yes, i have been through it. i have had computers that have been deemed unfit for the latest os. know what i did? i got a new computer

Well! You sure showed me, didn't you! I know it "isn't the first time this has happened" -- I've been there before, since 1994.

Russell

 

[zweigand]

What part of I don't want a junky Mac Mini or iMac don't people like you understand?

And you are talking about buying a $400 Dell… You are a riot my man!

 

[vansouza]

Not so fast in dissing PPC owners

You need an Intel chip to run SL that is true but not all of those chips will run it in full and glorious 64bit mode. My iMac 7,1 issued the September before Leopard's October release; currently will not run SL in 64bit mode. How pissed am I?

 

[Eidorian]

You need an Intel chip to run SL that is true but not all of those chips will run it in full and glorious 64bit mode. My iMac 7,1 issued the September before Leopard's October release; currently will not run SL in 64bit mode. How pissed am I?

The hardware available that day at MacWorld for the iMac just weeks after the Core Duo's launch at CES was a quick grab for money. I'll never understand why Apple would decide to jump back from 64-bit on the 970FX and trying to progress in that direction to 32-bit.

Many of us back then wanted Apple to wait for Conroe and its derivatives across the line to do a pure 64-bit switch over all at once. It's amazing how hard they push 64-bit and many other features every time around at WWDC but manage to cripple the hardware. Apple joked about IGP's being terrible only to sell them on Intel for ages. Apple pushed h.264 all the way back in 2005 but they're finally getting acceleration in Snow Leopard and only on the GLORIOUS 9400M.

We still have time to get more support details but it looks grim for anyone not running hardware based on the 9400M or a Mac Pro. Even for a Mac Pro owner it's tough with the GPU support there.

MagnusVonMagnum it has been great reading the details you've poured into your posts.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

How pissed am I?

*shakes magic 8 ball*

"Try again later"


Dammit.

 

[Manic Mouse]

I bought it two years ago as a more reasonable cost alternative to buying Apple's ONLY other tower, the Mac Pro. iMacs are not desktops, IMO and I had no interest in one. I could have (and now looking back SHOULD have) gone Hackintosh instead as for about the same price, I could have a considerably faster Intel machine. Apple offered NO alternatives in the $800-1200 range with internal storage and expansion and fast Sata hard drive support for networking. I have not owned this PowerMac since 2001 if that's what you're thinking.

There are plenty of holes in the Apple product line, specifically a mid-range expandable desktop. But thems the breaks, unfortunately. We have to take what Apple gives us, if their computers don't suit you there really isn't an alternative (aside from maybe a Hackintosh). Not an ideal situation, but c'est la vie.

Given my needs (the PowerMac works fine), I shouldn't need to even make that decision at the moment, but Apple wants to force it by causing all the new software to dry up. Fine, Apple. Offer me a good replacement in the $1200 range. No, they want $2500. So I will buy the Hackintosh for $900 instead that does mostly the same things, at least for my needs.

So wait, your PowerMac works fine? So why not continue to run it. You keep acting like Apple is "forcing" you to upgrade. As if the moment Snow Leopard is released your PowerMac will suddenly stop working. If the PowerMac is doing fine for you then continue to run it. Nobody's stopping you.

That's hardly a valid comparison. I'm not asking for OpenCL or newer games. It's a server, for goodness sake, not a gaming platform.

It's a perfect comparison. Sony release new hardware with a new architecture and thus make their software to take full advantage of that. You don't hear gamers sitting whining that the latest games don't run on old hardware. Likewise in the OS space, why would anyone complain that the latest OS and software doesn't run on 5 year old hardware of a different architecture? My first Mac was a C2D MacBook, and guess what I'm already upgrading to a 13" MBP. I'm luckier than you because the MBP suits my needs perfectly, but I'm not complaining that my old MacBook can't use Open CL.

I don't call a little over 3 years since the last G5 was made "eventually", personally. Few of us would complain if they offered a full 5-6 years of support like previous generation Macs. PPC is something they cannot wait to get rid of. But look what it does to their market share numbers. Despite what you seem to think, at least 30-40% of the Mac "market" are still using PPC machines. Clearly, Apple hopes to increase short term sales by forcing an upgrade sooner rather than later. But if those people buy PCs instead, it could backfire on them.

There's a difference though. Those previous Macs getting 5-6 years of support were all running on the same architecture. Over the past 5-6 years Apple has changed architectures. And their new OS is specifically designed to take advantage of the NEW architecture, not the old one. So I ask you, what do you think you'd gain from SL? You wouldn't really benefit from anything in it, heck half the Intel Macs can't take full advantage (e.g. Open CL).

So you're telling me Snow Leopard is all about OpenCL? Here I thought it was about retaining support from developers for newer software releases. I couldn't care less about new features. In fact, I'd prefer Apple do a major OS upgrade and put it off another year or two and then I wouldn't have to worry about upgrading right away. For a "minor" upgrade with "mostly bugfixes" type advertising that Apple has been doing, ditching almost half the Mac users in existence is a pretty MAJOR move, IMO.

Snow Leopard is about cleaning up the OS and laying the foundation for the future with new technologies like Open CL and Grand Central Dispatch. These technologies are designed to take advantage of the multiple cores and threads that'll be in the processors of the future and the GPUs of the future. All the consumer Macs can only currently handle 2 threads, and most of the Intel Macs don't have Open CL capable GPUs (aside from the current models).

So based off this information, would there be much point in developing PPC versions of these technologies? Nope, it would be a really stupid waste of resources. But that's what you expect Apple to do? Throw money down the toilet so that you can have your OS version read "10.6" rather than "10.5" and keep you happy?

Snow Leopard is so cheap because it's a technology release. There are no big new frameworks. No meaningful new consumer features. By NOT upgrading you are missing NOTHING. If there were a PPC version you wouldn't really be getting very much for your money. Dock exposee and a slightly new wallpaper. Woohoo!

How about 5-6 years like all previous Apple hardware instead of 3-4 years? Some people would like to get their money's worth from their investment, not get forced into upgrading hardware that is still useful because Apple would rather you give them more money.

You can still run your PowerMac. The reasoning that Apple is forcing you to upgrade, or that your PowerMac will suddenly be worthless and stop working once SL is released is wrong.

You should also remember who made it dead-end. The PS3 (which you aptly chose to compare this with earlier) *IS* PowerPC, BTW. I find that almost hilarious, really.

Apple didn't really have much of a choice. PPC failed at providing a good power per watt efficiency that meant it was useless in Laptops.

So now I'm throwing a tantrum? What are you in the room with me or something to see it? LOL. Why is any time someone gives an opinion that a FANATIC doesn't like they feel the need to reduce that person to things like "tantrums" instead of discussing something on a logical basis?

Because there IS NO LOGIC in your arguments. You expect Apple to forgo what is best for them, or the majority of their customers, and spend time and effort to develop an OS that isn't even of any benefit to you. Do you realise how uttery, UTTERLY stupid that is. Read it out. Think about it.

You want Apple to spend time and resources making a PPC version of Snow Leopard. An OS that will be of no benefit to PPC users. Time and resources that could be better spent on making the OS better for people that can actually make use of it. Which is exactly what Apple have done. It's called logic. It's called common sense.

Is it because it underscores the fact they don't have a rational argument other than admitting they're selfish?

See above, you're asking Apple to throw money and resources down the toilet to keep your ego happy while not actually deliver any tangible benefit to you. Pointless. Stupid. Wasteful. And yes, selfish on your part.

but what you don't seem to grasp is that I'm not asking Apple to discontinue support for Intel machines (i.e. YOUR computer).

Apple have finite resources. Throwing those limited resources at pointless dead-end projects is idiocy. This is what you don't seem to grasp. Nobody would really benefit very much from a PPC SL, even PPC users. Do you really want a placebo OS?

In fact, where does any of MY opinions affect you what-so-ever other than a little hard drive space that gets freed up by Apple ditching PPC? You seem to think Apple will devote more resources to newer features? They've got nearly $30 billion in cash reserves. Believe me, if they wanted to increase support, they've got the cash to do it.

And perhaps that 6Gb of space is, in part, due to ripping out all extraneous code (i.e. PPC support)? And, at the end of the day, you can put that $29 towards another HDD and get more than 6Gb for your $29.

Yes, they could spend money on "support" as you put it. It would still be money thrown down the toilet since you would see no benefit from it.

I think you'll be bitterly disappointed at the lack of progress Apple makes compared to Windows in the next few years. What have they done to increase 3D performance, for example? Including outdated GPUs as the hardware standard hasn't done much in that area while Microsoft continues to develop DirectX standards. Apple seems to care mostly about developing in the iPhone. They even count iPhones in their "OS X" numbers to try and make it LOOK like more people use OS X and Safari than they actually do in the general computing world. Yet if you ask them to open that system up for more app stores and the ability to program it yourself and they tell you it's a phone, not a computer platform. Well, gee, for how long are they going to get to have their cake and eat it to? I wish all challengers to Apple's virtual monopoly luck in court. Apple is not the poor sap company that has been crushed under foot by Microsoft any more. They're one of the richest tech companies out there today. They can afford to COMPETE with the big boys now. It's about time they did, IMO.

The iPhone is great, I know I love mine. So are Apple Macs. Yes they don't have the latest and greatest in terms of GPUs, but you can't expect everything. Life doesn't work like that, or didn't you ever learn? Life isn't perfect, neither are Macs. If you can't put up with an inferior GPU, or a higher price tag then they aren't for you. Unfortunately that's just the way it is. It's Apple decision what they do with their products.

As for your reply in general, what do you care to even reply period? It's not like I'm going to change Apple's mind. You got your wish. You saved your 4-6 GB of space on your hard drive. You'll imagine Apple is now doing more to support your machine. I'll go buy a Dell (Assembled in the USA not Communist China like Apple) and hack the heck out of it and move my copy of OS X Leopard over to it from my PowerMac where I can then upgrade it for $29 and everyone will have their needs met. If Windows7 turns out to be good, I'll reassess running OS X at all at that point in time.

I reply because I see illogical, egotistical ranting. Your whole "I hate Intel users" attitude demonstrates you aren't coming from a place of objectivity. Nobody "wishes" that you can't run SL. In a perfect ideal world we would never have to buy new hardware and the OS would be perfect from the start.

But welcome to life, things aren't the way we want them to be. Technology moves on, old technology needs to be left behind or it will hinder advancement. It's just the way things are. You can either accept that or act the way you currently are. We aren't dealing with ideals, we are dealing with reality. Be pragmatic.

I don't hate PPC users. I don't "wish" for you not to be able to run the latest OS. But I realise that, unfortunately, that's the way things have to be. Welcome to life. It's a bitch.

 

[Matek]

So wait, your PowerMac works fine? So why not continue to run it. You keep acting like Apple is "forcing" you to upgrade. As if the moment Snow Leopard is released your PowerMac will suddenly stop working. If the PowerMac is doing fine for you then continue to run it. Nobody's stopping you.

That's a silly argument, as I said many times in this topic. When a new hardware/software version stops supporting the old one, you can always say "Your old stuff still works, stop complaining".

The problem is people will move to the new one and those with the old one will feel the negative effects of that.

It's a perfect comparison. Sony release new hardware with a new architecture and thus make their software to take full advantage of that. You don't hear gamers sitting whining that the latest games don't run on old hardware. Likewise in the OS space, why would anyone complain that the latest OS and software doesn't run on 5 year old hardware of a different architecture? My first Mac was a C2D MacBook, and guess what I'm already upgrading to a 13" MBP. I'm luckier than you because the MBP suits my needs perfectly, but I'm not complaining that my old MacBook can't use Open CL.

I agree with him, it's definitely not a good comparison. The main reason for that is the fact PS2 doesn't run PS3 games because it's utterly incapable of running them, not because Sony decided they will discontinue their support.

If Snow Leopard simply required higher performance that older machines aren't capable of, I wouldn't complain (just like Leopard wasn't supported on some older PPC models).

Apple have finite resources. Throwing those limited resources at pointless dead-end projects is idiocy. This is what you don't seem to grasp. Nobody would really benefit very much from a PPC SL, even PPC users.

Why would they benifit any less than most Intel users who don't have cards that support OpenCL? They could make use of 64-bit features, Grand Central Dispatch and most other new features, so your ranting about "it's all pointless cause it wouldn't help you anyway" is false IMHO.

 

[Manic Mouse]

That's a silly argument, as I said many times in this topic. When a new hardware/software version stops supporting the old one, you can always say "Your old stuff still works, stop complaining".

The problem is people will move to the new one and those with the old one will feel the negative effects of that.

What negative effects? You can't run SL, an OS that would be of no benefit to you were you able to run it. I don't believe that SL has any new frameworks (like Core animation) that would necessitate that software be made exclusively for it, although I may be wrong.

I agree with him, it's definitely not a good comparison. The main reason for that is the fact PS2 doesn't run PS3 games because it's utterly incapable of running them, not because Sony decided they will discontinue their support.

If Snow Leopard simply required higher performance that older machines aren't capable of, I wouldn't complain (just like Leopard wasn't supported on some older PPC models).

Well the comparison is that Sony are putting their resources into making PS3 games, rather than PS2 games. Apple are putting their resources into making Intel software rather than PPC software. PPC is incapable of taking advantage of what Apple are putting into SL, things like Open CL or GCD. The PS2 can still run games fine, but it's been "abandoned" because Sony are spending their time on making software that takes advantage of the latest hardware.

What makes SL better than Leopard are technologies that require modern CPUs and modern GPUs to operate, just as what makes PS3 games better are graphics that require PS3 hardware.

Why would they benifit any less than most Intel users who don't have cards that support OpenCL? They could make use of 64-bit features, Grand Central Dispatch and most other new features, so your ranting about "it's all pointless cause it wouldn't help you anyway" is false IMHO.

You actually hit the nail on the head. Even for most Intel users Snow Leopard isn't a very good upgrade. Why do you think Apple are selling it so cheaply? Because it's designed to be taken advantage of by the latest hardware and future hardware. Only the MacPro will really make much use of GCD (with it having many cores/threads) and only the latest Macs can make use of Open Cl.

Snow Leopard is a release designed to take advantage of future hardware. It doesn't really add anything new to the table, aside from underlying technologies that are only useful to bleeding edge and future hardware. Which is why I can't understand why PPC users are complaining. Were Apple to release a version of SL for PPC what would you expect to gain? Two to four threads is not enough to make good use of GCD. Your GPUs can't use Open Cl. A PPC version may not even give you back the full 6Gb of space. 64-bit is only really useful if you have more than 4Gb of RAM and very specific calculations. And Leopard can run 64-bit programs anyway!

So what would you gain?

 

[MACdaddy859]

Snow Leopard { I currently have Unibody Macbook 2.4 GHz}

Hey my fellow MacRumor Comrades.... I currently own a 2.4 GHz Unibody Macbook Aluminum and am seriously thinking about switching to a 13" Unibody Macbook Pro 2.26GHz 4GB Ram, 320 GB HD. Is it worth the switch and will it run Snow Leopard the same as the 2.4GHz? Hope its not a dumb question....

 

[JonasLondon]

I'm so unsubscribing from this thread now....

Unbelievable how this thread can get so long.

Technology moves on in all areas of life, live with it. Personally, I am happy there IS a company pushing things forward - I would HATE it to be stuck between using a 6-7 year old Windows XP which works "ok and a rubbish Vista/7 that supposedly is "new technology" but still has defragmentation issues, the registry and (un-)installation procedures that make you ill..

 

[JFreak]

Being a proud G5Quad owner, it is a bummer that SL is not going to run on it, but such is life. I suspected this would happen a long time ago and in my eyes the fact Leopard was not yet Intel-only made Apple's promise of supporting my workstation a kept one. Personally, I think that 4 cores of 64 bit PPC processing power would have been plenty for SL's new improvements, but I can surely understand why they chose to draw the line here.

But what I don't understand is only supporting select few GPU's despite a host of other models would (probably) be capable enough. Maybe this will change before the final release, but so far this is a big issue and a whole lot of confusion. Why not clearly state that "GPU's having features X, Y and Z will be supported" and then list the ones that qualify. Just choosing "model A and B" seems rather arbituary.

That said, my SR MBP seems to be supported, but still...

EDIT: supported fot OpenCL, but not for h.264 acceleration, which is a bummer

 

[Matek]

What negative effects? You can't run SL, an OS that would be of no benefit to you were you able to run it. I don't believe that SL has any new frameworks (like Core animation) that would necessitate that software be made exclusively for it, although I may be wrong.

I was aiming at stuff like that, yeah. The developer features usually don't get that much press as they aren't too interesting for the general public, so I can't say anything either.

Mostly, it could also be interesting to see how many developers will still bother to create universal binaries and maintain their code so that it supports PPC now that it's been cut off.

Well the comparison is that Sony are putting their resources into making PS3 games, rather than PS2 games. Apple are putting their resources into making Intel software rather than PPC software. PPC is incapable of taking advantage of what Apple are putting into SL, things like Open CL or GCD. The PS2 can still run games fine, but it's been "abandoned" because Sony are spending their time on making software that takes advantage of the latest hardware.

What makes SL better than Leopard are technologies that require modern CPUs and modern GPUs to operate, just as what makes PS3 games better are graphics that require PS3 hardware.

If Sony took a source code of a game and adapted it so that it didn't use any of the PS3's modern features (stream processors, etc) and then tried to run it on PS2, it would be desperately slow.

Apple, on the other hand, already has Leopard that runs fast on PPC machines. They are releasing SL that is supposed to work even better, which means that if Apple made a PPC version of SL, it would work very well. That's the only thing bothering me here.

Oh, and a sidenote - unlike Apple, Sony and game developers haven't completely abandoned PS2. Although its hardware is weak, games are still being released for it and are even announced for 2010. Sure, the number of these consoles is huge, which is a pretty good motivation, but regardless - it must feel good to own a PS2 and know you will get games almost as long as your console will work (nearly 10 years now).

You actually hit the nail on the head. Even for most Intel users Snow Leopard isn't a very good upgrade. Why do you think Apple are selling it so cheaply? Because it's designed to be taken advantage of by the latest hardware and future hardware. Only the MacPro will really make much use of GCD (with it having many cores/threads) and only the latest Macs can make use of Open Cl.

Snow Leopard is a release designed to take advantage of future hardware. It doesn't really add anything new to the table, aside from underlying technologies that are only useful to bleeding edge and future hardware. Which is why I can't understand why PPC users are complaining. Were Apple to release a version of SL for PPC what would you expect to gain? Two to four threads is not enough to make good use of GCD. Your GPUs can't use Open Cl. A PPC version may not even give you back the full 6Gb of space. 64-bit is only really useful if you have more than 4Gb of RAM and very specific calculations. And Leopard can run 64-bit programs anyway!

So what would you gain?

Why wouldn't having two or four cores help GCD? It gives you 2 or 4 times as much power as a single core, that sounds quite nice to me. Of course I realize you can't always make use of more cores, but if you can only run a fraction of software in parallel, this applies to 8 and 16 core machines too, so no big difference.

The only thing that can't be used is OpenCL, but there's a bunch of Intel macs out there that can't use it as well. And if I get a little bitchy - there are AGP cards that support GPGPU out there. If Apple would work with their creators and wrote drivers, even the PowerMacs could make use of OpenCL.

Anyway - you're basically saying only Mac Pro users can take advantage of Snow Leopard. OK, I know it can't be released only for Mac Pros, but what's the reason behind it being released for 32-bit Core Duo machines then? Not a single one of them has a OpenCL-capable card, they all have two measly cores - according to your arguments, they're practically useless, yet somehow Apple only abandoned PPC. Either something is wrong with them or something is wrong with your arguments.

And another thing - you're overgeneralising things by saying there's nothing to gain. There's a bunch of new features that would be useful to everyone (I'd like to point out Exchange support), plus there is a whole bunch of speedups that doesn't rely on OpenCL or GCD, but simply on rewriting and optimising certain parts of the code. Lookie. Since they are expressed in factors rather than in time units, they will actually be more noticable on older and slower machines!

 

[avkills]

I guess the main thing that irks me about this situation is that Apple basically lied about the promise of full 64bit computing on G5 machines.

That point in itself "could" be enough to bring a class action against them, although I feel it would be a waste of time; but that sort of thing is what happens.

Anyone who does not think that Apple has Snow Leopard running on PPC machines back in the "secret" labs is a fool. IBM is really kicking some serious ass with the Power architecture. The problem is that the price/performance ratio just isn't there; thus one of the main reasons of the switch over to Intel. Lack of speedy laptop chips was the other main reason.

Technically, there is no reason any of the new stuff in Snow Leopard would not work on G5 based machines.

Personally I feel Apple is probably lying about the so-called "optimizations" they have supposedly made in SL. The only thing noteworthy I see is that most or all of the included apps are 64bit; the finder is 64bit; new technologies in OpenCL and Grand Central Station (which is probably just marketing fluff). The space savings is clearly the removal of PPC binaries.

-mark