Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac OS X Snow Leopard Does Require Intel Processors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Do you think current PPC boxes in Leopard use an x86 emulator or do the Intel boxes run Safari, Finder, etc. in Rosetta?
I'm pretty sure all binaries in Leopard need to support all 4 different architectures.Since PPC support is discontinued, there will only be two remaining versions to support, hence less space will be taken.
Do you think current PPC boxes in Leopard use an x86 emulator or do the Intel boxes run Safari, Finder, etc. in Rosetta?
Since PPC support is discontinued, there will only be two remaining versions to support, hence less space will be taken.
OSX must support 32-bit Intel software - even if 10.6 dropped support for the 32-bit Core Duo/Core Solo, there's still a lot of 32-bit x86 code out there.
Given that 32-bit is supported, there are many applications and tools which have no need for 64-bit code. These apps would have no need for large address spaces, and they would not be performance sensitive (no need for the small performance boost from x64 code).
Having fat binaries (x86+x64) for these applications has no use, and just adds bloat.
As an example, VMware Workstation on Windows has one kit for both x86 and x64 Windows. The GUI and many of the tools are x86-only. The kit contains both x86 and x64 versions of the VMM and drivers, and installs the appropriate one. Some extra bloat in the kit, but not on the system.
(ps: Windows Vista x86 *still* supports 16-bit DOS and Windows3.1 applications with the NTVDM (NT Virtual DOS Machine) subsystem. x64 Windows doesn't support 16-bit however - the "NTVDM" subsystem has been usurped by the x86 subsystem.
Since x64 Windows hit mainstream with Vista x64 in 2007, that meant that 16-bit support was on all mainstream clients for 15 years. After 17 years, it's still supported on x86 clients.)
You can buy a NEW Dell notebook with THREE years of business support for that money. (I just bought three 15" Dell Vostros with Vista Business Edition and Pro support for EUR 679 each.) I really don't see a rationale for buying obsolete, out-dated Apple hardware here.
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but I'm sure that Apple will probably keep a copy of the operating system working on some kind of PPC as a "just in case" safe-guard just like the pre Intel days. It won't be the full OS, but it'll be available to them if Intel screws up. It makes sense to me.
I'd bet money they also have an AMD version as well.
@morepower: Of course I'm fairly biased, but if you really want a PowerBook, get it. Buying one means you're not concerned with the latest and greatest, which makes pretty much any reason not to get one irrelevant.
But, if you want to get the latest versions of software in the future, a MacBook would be a better choice. You can find used Rev. A Whitebooks on eBay for around $600.
Apple probably is keeping a full OSX running on Alpha, SPARC, PPC and ARM in the labs - it's the cheapest way to insure that no "Intel-only" things creep into the code base. It's really common practice in software shops....
There's no "AMD version" to speak of. If AMD weren't almost completely compatible with Intel, AMD would be dead.
Any "x64" code runs on Intel 64-bit and AMD 64-bit, any "x86" code runs on Intel 32-bit and AMD 32-bit.
Except for some BIOS level and deep memory management and virtualization code - there is no difference between Intel CPUs and AMD CPUs. (Except for none-ISA issues like chipset and motherboard compatibility issues.)
Did you know that Microsoft uses "x64" in marketing and product branding to refer to 64-bit Intel and AMD systems, but the codebase uses the string "AMD64" to refer to 64-bit Intel and AMD systems?
Seeing that Apple was very close to going with PA Semi, but went with Intel (then told IBM just before the announcement), i'd imagine there ARM version has been kept active and current for a while.
ARM is "Maine Coon", not a "Leopard"
Any ARM processor would be ridiculous for a laptop or desktop system. I doubt that ARM was ever a serious consideration for MacBooks/Imacs.
ARM is great for power-sensitive handheld/MID/microTablet applications.
So I'm sure that you are right in that Apple is running OSX/ARM in their labs. I just don't think that it was ever a choice of "ARM or x64"....
Any ARM processor would be ridiculous for a laptop or desktop system. I doubt that ARM was ever a serious consideration for MacBooks/Imacs.
ARM is great for power-sensitive handheld/MID/microTablet applications.
So I'm sure that you are right in that Apple is running OSX/ARM in their labs. I just don't think that it was ever a choice of "ARM or x64"....
Well, i just hope 10.5.8 to be as solid as 10.4.11. That would be a nice last os for PPC´S - It´s silly to expect apple to support old hardware for ever. (But i expect them to keep releasing security upgrades to leopard for a few years anyway, maybe even 10.5.9)
right i bought my ppc g4 december of 05 and it runs just as good if not better than an intel minus that stupid isight camera thats all
As I was just posting in another thread, I still have the latest version of Leopard running on a heavily upgraded G4 Powermac from 2000(!). It's sad to me that I won't get the latest OS running on at least my 2004 G5 PowerMac, but I guess 5 years is still decent... just obviously not as over 9!
Get a Hackintosh. You can get one well within that price range. You can even get a Netbook sized computer that will run OS X. Apple clearly doesn't want you as a customer at that price level, so why even try to support them?
My next computer will be a quad-core Intel with a high-end GPU. I want one in the $900-1500 price range. Apple doesn't want me as a customer in that price range with that equipment either. I've already priced a PC Hackintosh for $900 that will do the job. $1200 with a really sweet graphics card. My feeling is that if Apple wants my business, they need to sell hardware that I want at a reasonable price. That's how the market place in a Capitalistic society is supposed to work. Apple doesn't think it needs to compete because it has no competitors for hardware for OS X. Well, screw that. I'd rather learn how to make a Hackintosh than give Apple an extra $1300-2000 for a Mac Pro. Yeah, that's where their only competition lies at when you can get a quad-core with a gaming level GPU for $900-1200 with a PC. The fanboys think that Mac Pro is a righteous deal at $2500 for the base model and another $460 for a good GPU. Yeah, a $3000 Mac that you could get similar performance with a PC for nearly 1/3 the price. Screw Apple. I've had it with their price/performance ratio and total lack of hardware choices.
I think you should save up for a little longer and get the white macbooks. It's only another 250. itll be worth it in the long run. trust me
I am in the same boat as you except my G5 is slightly newer. Its a shame since Windows 7 runs great on much older hardware.
Isn't that what I said? x64 and amd64 are the same.
There is no "special AMD 64" codebase. x64 is the only "64-bit extended x86" code.
Wouldn't it be funny if one day, Apple switched back to PPC? Then we could hear the pro-Intel people complain like some of the pro-PPC guys had been doing.
Except for game makers and certain software developers