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
Powerpc
Dumb move Apple. You have the cash on hand, unlike every other company, yet piss on 20-25% of your fan base. Just plain dumb, especially in a time of economic crisis. Just makes no sense. I see some PowerPC users switching to Windows 7 over this just because it leaves a bad taste in their mouth. And don't even get me started over whether or whether not Apple has a PowerPC build of Snow Leopard. Anyone with a brain knows they do.
To not support Apple computers purchased within 3 years of Snow Leopard's release is
INSANELY GREAT!
NOT!
INSANELY GREAT!
NOT!
Dumb move Apple. You have the cash on hand, unlike every other company, yet piss on 20-25% of your fan base. Just plain dumb, especially in a time of economic crisis. Just makes no sense. I see some PowerPC users switching to Windows 7 over this just because it leaves a bad taste in their mouth. And don't even get me started over whether or whether not Apple has a PowerPC build of Snow Leopard. Anyone with a brain knows they do.
To not support Apple computers purchased within 3 years of Snow Leopard's release is
INSANELY GREAT!
NOT!
Dumb move Apple. You have the cash on hand, unlike every other company, yet piss on 20-25% of your fan base. Just plain dumb.
Oh the tears!!!
There goes your $10,000+ that you blew on computers!
More tears, please!!
I think after Snow Leopard that updates can occur more frequently. I am sure Apple knows some of the technologies it have in future versions and it could have had the base line ready with this release.
Getting rid of PPC will reduce the testing time just like with getting rid of Classic.
Getting rid of PPC will reduce the testing time just like with getting rid of Classic.
the mac book air will let you boot wirelessly if you hold alt while it starts up, so it would be a bit weird if it didn't let you install snow leopard wirelessly, but it's also kinda weird they don't specifically mention it if it is possible, because at least when apple announced the mba they made a big song and dance about how you don't need a dvd drive so it doesn't matter it doesn't come with one, but now on they're own website they're basically implying mba users can't install snow leopard without one (although i guess maybe they mean mba users still need a dvd drive, just one on another computer they can connect wirelessly to?)
hahaha I thought exactly the same thing.
Good move, Apple: sweep aside the old tech and get everything trimmer and faster on what you currently offer.
Imagine people crying over not being able to run Snow Leopard on their 333mHz imacs.
Unfortunately, that line pretty much destroys any possible credibility you might have thought you had and labels you as an Apple fanboy. Sorry.
Oh, and I've used an Apple computer since 1983 and even I wouldn't make that claim! LOL
Ummm, we are talking about some computers bought within the last 2-3 years,
NOT the last DECADE!
DUH!
NOT the last DECADE!
DUH!
PS: By the way, I am enjoying the other thread about OpenCL support that doesn't include Intel Macs within the last 1-2 years.
Can you say karma?
Add the 2 disgruntled groups together and you've got over 50% of all Mac users, uh huh.
Do the math.
Yeap...i see prices of all G5 machines going down to the chaina town
Strangely enough, however, iMac G4 keep the same prices since few years, but that is because of its beauty. Apple really should bring that design back again.
Thanks for the kind words *LTD*
My iMac G4 is still going strong, and runs Leopard really well with it's stock configuration. I plan to keep and use it as my primary desktop until it entirely caputs one day. At which point, I will debate repairing it to keep it and use it as long as possible.
Hey,
if you choose Upgrade & Install or whatever it is (maybe Archive & Install?) but it has something to with upgrading, EVERYTHING is kept. It's just your core OS that is updated, no Dock items, Apps, Terminal Prefs, etc. will be lost.
HOWEVER, it is a good idea to make sure Time Machine or similar software is up-to-date just before you hit upgrade, JUST IN CASE
Hope I helped,
SuperMacMan
That's great!
By the way I noticed that for tigers, they have to buy mac box set which include iWork and iLife '09. My Leopard has iWork and iLife '08, by upgrading through the US$29 DVD, my iLife won't be upgraded will it?
Ummm, we are talking about some computers bought within the last 2-3 years,
NOT the last DECADE!
DUH!
PS: By the way, I am enjoying the other thread about OpenCL support that doesn't include Intel Macs within the last 1-2 years.
Can you say karma?
Add the 2 disgruntled groups together and you've got over 50% of all Mac users, uh huh.
Do the math.
Yeah, I'd be pissed and trolling the forums too if I blew $10,000+ on Mac hardware out-of-pocket without enough sense to pass the cost on to my employer at the time.
(People who whine on MR doesn't represent "50% of all Mac users." In fact, we have nothing to do with the majority of Mac users.)
Actually, if the processor can decompress faster than the disk would otherwise have read the uncompressed file, then reading a compressed file would actually be a performance gain.
Also, filesystem-level compression usually means that the (de)compression happens in chunks, i.e. in a stream. The whole file isn't loaded into RAM to be decompressed -- the net effect is that it's fed from the disk into RAM and is decompressed on the way.
Static, easily-compressed parts of applications (e.g., textual resources, documentation) will benefit greatly from this.
As always, it depends on the exact implementation ... But I'd put money on this being much more advanced than your MS-DOS 6-era 'DoubleSpace' stuff.
Well, you're twisting the facts, if you ask me. What if these people weren't rich pricks that had thousands to blow, but instead people who saved their money for a while and decided to get an expensive computer that would last them very long instead of a cheaper one they would have to replace in 2-3 years? We can't base our arguments on guessing what kind of people bought PowerMacs. Besides, I was only talking about PowerMacs because they were the last ones to be replaced and are especially ironic because they stopped supporting the newest OS even before their warranty expired. The whole my-box-is-good-enough-but-apple-obsoleted-it problem exists for people with G5 iMacs too. And they're regular people.
Since the you simply made up the first part, this isn't relevant anymore.
Again, I never said they stopped support completely, in fact I even think there are some laws that determine how long they are required to provide security patches, etc. If you own a business, you usually consider this when you purchase software and the company you buy it from always claims the support period in which they will continue to release stuff. Anyway, we're discussing the fact SL is not supported on PPC, move on.
Really? I'm quite surprised, because practically all of the apps I've been using in the last couple of years are universal binaries, very very rarely do I see something that's Intel only.
Besides, the compatibility of software is the problem of its creator and the person who bought it. I would argue just the same if I bought a license for an app that could easily work on my machine hardware wise but the author decided to only support Snow Leopard while I have Leopard.
Firstly - "all of its apps" usually only means iTunes and Safari, if we're talking about what comes with the OS. That doesn't change much. It's like saying XP is more like Windows 7 because you can install IE8.
As far as 3rd party app makers are concerned - if they pull that stuff off, they're just as bad as Apple in this case, yes. But that doesn't make Apple any better.
Well, that's true theoretically, but so much is wrong about it I don't really know where to start. As SSDs have proven, the problem isn't so much in the bandwidth as it is in the access delay. As you would still need to access the drive first, the latency remains the problem. Besides, it would only be a performance gain file-transfer wise, it would still be a loss as far as CPU and RAM consumption are concerned. And lastly, as you already mentioned, it would be pretty useless for most multimedia content, etc. Text files profit most.
I'm not sure what you mean by serious users. This is hardly a sport! To me a serious user is one who uses Macs full time ( unless some corporate policy prohibits it ). I don't personally know anyone who is still stuck with a PPC ( only ) but I am sure there are a lot of loyal users out there who are in those shoes and all of them will feel left out. 3-4 years transition period is kinda small especially by Apple's standards.
But it is what it is. Leopard is a pretty good OS and just because the next version got even better doesn't make it any worse. Plus to be completely fair, in order to add PPC support in 10.6 Apple would have had to disable all the new features when you run it on PPC. In that case there is hardly any difference between 10.5 and 10.6.
I think that kinda sucks. All these years with a 64-bit G5 and now the first 64-bit version of OS X doesn't support PPC.
They can keep on using their computers just fine. Leopard will still be supported for a long time, and there's nothing wrong with Leopard. I would understand the annoyance if Apple said "when we release SL, we will push the Big Red Button(tm) in our headquarters that causes all PPC-Macs to self-destruct", but they are not doing anything of the sort. What they are doing is to release new version of their OS that only support Intel-Macs. Since PPC-Macs can work just fine without that latest OS, it's not really the end of the world.
And if you really, really, REALLY want SL, then invest few bucks and buy a Mac mini. It's probably faster than the G5 Powermac was
.How exactly is their computer "obsolete"? Are you saying that before SL is released those computer will work just fine, but after SL has been released, they can't be used for anything fun or productive anymore?
I have a 1.25Ghz G4 Mac Mini. I don't consider it to be obsolete. And I don't consider it to be obsolete even after SL has been released.
More whiners.
I'm for one I'm happy about this. This is finally moving the industry forward. You've guys (PPC) have had years to get Intel Macs. Apple is trying to move forward with a cleaner OS. Why would you expect them to hold back? This is like MS with their 32-bit Windows 7. That's holding the industry back. We've had 64-bit processors for like a decade now, and none of them have ever been used to their full potential. That's why MS and Apple should make thier new OS's 64-bit as standard. Force the industry to take it and let's move ahead. Snow Leopard is what Leopard should have been in the first place. PPC has run its course.
I'm for one I'm happy about this. This is finally moving the industry forward. You've guys (PPC) have had years to get Intel Macs. Apple is trying to move forward with a cleaner OS. Why would you expect them to hold back? This is like MS with their 32-bit Windows 7. That's holding the industry back. We've had 64-bit processors for like a decade now, and none of them have ever been used to their full potential. That's why MS and Apple should make thier new OS's 64-bit as standard. Force the industry to take it and let's move ahead. Snow Leopard is what Leopard should have been in the first place. PPC has run its course.
Previous version were 64bit as well. It's just that SL will be even more 64bit than previous versions were.
Don't you all see Apple conspiracy here? The second Snow Leopard is released, every PPC based Mac will spontaneously combust! The exact same thing happened to my G4 733 when Leopard came out! Oh wait, my G4 733 still runs Tiger just great and gets security updates!
I would say from my experience in consulting, most people run the OS their Mac came with until it dies or there is some program that will not run on their current OS. That means I still see a ton of 10.3 and 10.4.
All of the people worried about support should be more concerned about how long Adobe, Quark, etc will support the old OS's. After all, since everyone making these claims are "Graphic Professionals" surely this is more important than the OS itself. Last time I checked CS4 and Quark 8 are both compatible back to Tiger - and I don't see them changing that until they absolutely have to!
I would say from my experience in consulting, most people run the OS their Mac came with until it dies or there is some program that will not run on their current OS. That means I still see a ton of 10.3 and 10.4.
All of the people worried about support should be more concerned about how long Adobe, Quark, etc will support the old OS's. After all, since everyone making these claims are "Graphic Professionals" surely this is more important than the OS itself. Last time I checked CS4 and Quark 8 are both compatible back to Tiger - and I don't see them changing that until they absolutely have to!
each linux has been compiled on a single architecture. Beside that, osx is not only a kernel but also some utilities. Try to get a simple binary from a linux intel and install as it is on a linux PPC....
Yes.
A volunteer/paid group of dedicated professionals. Ever notice that each one is a separate install package.
The linux kernel is optimized for each processor, even AMD. The applications, not so much.
All this talk about universal binary is over?
What Apple has really done is make the code base easier to maintain and set the ball rolling for people to be forced to upgrade in the next few years if they want to keep up with the joneses. They did the same thing with the transition from OS 9 and I'm sure most if not all are glad we switched. On the other hand I don't think it would have been too difficult for Apple to maintain two releases for PPC and X86 and optimize each one. But hey, you want the latest OS it's time to upgrade.