Mac OS X Snow Leopard Does Require Intel Processors

[HyperZboy]

Operating System Suicide?

Between the OpenCL thread and its restrictions on which Intel Macs are supported and this thread and the end of support for PowerPC Macs with the latest update to Leopard called Snow Leopard...

That means less than 50% of all Macs will be supported by Snow Leopard when its released!

Possibly as little as ONE THIRD fully supported?

One word... OUCH! No wonder its only $29!

Rethink Differently Apple. ​

 

[JayMan8081]

I don't think this should really surprise anyone. Adding in legacy support for PowerPC would probably have been extremely expensive.

 

[jhsfosho]

Dropping support of PPC allows apple to use those resources for bigger and better things. I'm not dissappointed at all. Its been about 5 years since the start of the transition to intel.

 

[manowarwi]

Between the OpenCL thread and its restrictions on which Intel Macs are supported and this thread and the end of support for PowerPC Macs with the latest update to Leopard called Snow Leopard...

That means less than 50% of all Macs will be supported by Snow Leopard when its released!

Possibly as little as ONE THIRD fully supported?

One word... OUCH! No wonder its only $29!

Rethink Differently Apple. ​

Hey, just send me your "unsupported" G5. I'm sure I'll have no problem using with with Leopard for at least 3 more years.

 

[tcgjeukens]

PPC Snow Tiger.

For how many years does have to support the PPC?

Many posts say the PPC is ancient. In PC years you may be right, but an is clearly not a PC.
My G5 2.0Ghz DP is outperforming new IntelMacs in many applications. The marketing bars showing speed improvements are somewhat WinTel-like.

I feel sad PPC users can not benefit the efficiency enhancements of Snow Leopard.
Running on Tiger though, I do not feel an urge to settle for Leopard. PPC is very very stable and Tiger gives me more functionality than I could possibly need.

Do give me a PPC Snow Tiger.

Coen

 

[Razeus]

For how many years does have to support the PPC?

Many posts say the PPC is ancient. In PC years you may be right, but an is clearly not a PC.
My G5 2.0Ghz DP is outperforming new IntelMacs in many applications. The marketing bars showing speed improvements are somewhat WinTel-like.

I feel sad PPC users can not benefit the efficiency enhancements of Snow Leopard.
Running on Tiger though, I do not feel an urge to settle for Leopard. PPC is very very stable and Tiger gives me more functionality than I could possibly need.

Do give me a PPC Snow Tiger.

Coen

The Leopard speed improvements was getting rid of PPC support.

 

[HyperZboy]

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.

I've got Leopard running on a 350MHz Sawtooth, but that's not a machine I'm complaining about. Obviously, it runs slow, but it works.

I believe it shipped with MacOS 9! ​

The fact that there will be no possible way EVER to install Snow Leopard with all its BUG FIXES and optimizations will annoy most PowerPC users because it's STILL called "Leopard". If it were just simply called something else, I think there would be less outrage, although I think I'd still be a bit angry if I bought a Mac within the last 3 years.

I also think more Mac users keep their computers up to date compared to PC users, although I'll admit I have no data to support that theory. It's just from my personal experience and repairing my PC friends' computers all the time, hehe.

 

[zweigand]

Think of it this way… We are watching Apple's big cat throw up a giant hairball after a long and well-needed cleaning session. It isn't going to be pretty, but it's necessary.

Sorry to the hairball …er PPC users

 

[SPUY767]

They can still run Leopard though. PPC had a good run, but dropping it allows further optimization on the Intel side.

Windows in its various incarnations has served to show us that one cannot produce a well behaved, high performance OS without jettisoning some legacy support. Snow Leopard is essentially a highly optimized version of leopard anyway.

 

[SPUY767]

I've got Leopard running on a 350MHz Sawtooth, but that's not a machine I'm complaining about. Obviously, it runs slow, but it works.

I believe it shipped with MacOS 9! ​

The fact that there will be no possible way EVER to install Snow Leopard with all its BUG FIXES and optimizations will annoy most PowerPC users because it's STILL called "Leopard". If it were just simply called something else, I think there would be less outrage, although I think I'd still be a bit angry if I bought a Mac within the last 3 years.

I also think more Mac users keep their computers up to date compared to PC users, although I'll admit I have no data to support that theory. It's just from my personal experience and repairing my PC friends' computers all the time, hehe.

The bug fixes aren't going to be a problem. Any bug fixes that 10.6 gets, 10.5 will get as well. It's the optimization. You can't optimize an OS for two separate platforms.

 

[sushi]

My PPC based Macs run Tiger just fine.

Apple keeps providing updates. Works for me.

Sure I could have upgraded to Leopard. I didn't see the need. Tiger works fine for my needs on those computers.

The Mac OS without PPC code is the future. If that means my 6 and 7 year old Macs cannot run the latest Mac OS then so be it. Sure I know others have more recent hardware such as the G5 based Mac Pros and iMacs. I feel for those folks. However, the future right now is Intel based Macs and that is where Apple is focusing it's innovative juices.

 

[bobnugget]

To not support Apple computers purchased within 3 years of Snow Leopard's release is

INSANELY GREAT!

NOT! ​

Snow Leopard is coming out in September 2009, right? So you bought PPC systems after September 2006, even though Apple announced they were moving to Intel in June 2005! Also, didn't the Power Macintosh G5 get replaced with the Mac Pro in August 2006, along with an XServe move to Intel too? I thought all the rest were released before then. If you purchased bargain computers after apple replaced them, then I don't have too much sympathy.

 

[Truffy]

it's STILL called "Leopard"

That's just about the dumbest thing I've read in thsi thread. Have a cigar!

 

[Cloudane]

Makes sense and was always expected.. this is a streamlined release, and it'd hardly be streamlined with all the legacy stuff hanging on to it. Just look at Windows. Good on Apple for having the bawls to move on and leave the past where it belongs.

Sure, it'd be *nice* to have a speedy Leopard to put on my 12" Powerbook but it was far from expected to happen and if it were to sacrifice anything on the Intel platform (including Apple's time and attention) I would not be too pleased; so it's a good move.

Good to see that there isn't the same level of complaining as there was when it was rumoured around this time last year, people starting to see sense It's not like those expensive G5s are suddenly going to stop working - heck most software still works on 10.4 and a good portion even 10.3.

 

[TheSpaz]

My girlfriend, brother, parents and I all have Intel Macs so I'm not sad.

Get rid of your PPC Mac already! It's time to switch to Intel! It's sooooo much better! You won't regret it, I swear!

 

[pdjudd]

The fact that there will be no possible way EVER to install Snow Leopard with all its BUG FIXES and optimizations will annoy most PowerPC users because it's STILL called "Leopard". If it were just simply called something else, I think there would be less outrage, although I think I'd still be a bit angry if I bought a Mac within the last 3 years.

Apple kept the name similar to specifically point out that this was not going to be the same type of upgrade like there was from Tiger to Leopard was. As Bertran said in the keynote, "We wanted to make a better Leopard". The fact that you are reducing it down to "bug fixes and optimizations" shows that you don't understand what happened. This is not a service pack. A lot has changed, its just not in the feature sense of things. Heck, not even 1-2 year old Intel machines will be able to exploit some of the features in Snow Leopard like OpenCL and h.264 hardware decoding. Why one would expect a platform that Apple moved away from to get any major enhancements is beyond me. Who would Apple bother to invest in hardware they have not sold in years? What advantage would there be?

Unfortunate, yes. But it was going to happen.

As to the claim about people who bought g5 machines 3 years ago - I am sorry but there was never any guarantee that Apple would be able to support upgrades forever. Geveral g3 owners learned that the hard way when Leopard was released. People who bought machines 3 years ago were on the very tail end of the PPC migration and purchased knowing very well that Intel was the future. Apple will still provide what they can (support on Leopard, hardware maintenance - the stuff expected from Apple Care), but its unrealistic to expect Apple to invest significantly on obsolete hardware. When Apple said they were putting the pause button on features, that pretty much spells the end of PPC. It demonstrated that they were interested in optimizing for the future, not the past.

I also think more Mac users keep their computers up to date compared to PC users, although I'll admit I have no data to support that theory. It's just from my personal experience and repairing my PC friends' computers all the time, hehe.

Up to date software wise, yes. Unfortunately, Apple - like every other company - has to draw the line on future development. PPC was a dead end either now, or a year from now. Since they were already putting the pause button on leopard scale upgrades - they figured that now was the best time. PPC wouldn't benefit much anyway without signifigant investment (Apple, like any other company is going to do what they can to optimize their resources) and they can convince anybody who could upgrade to Leopard, that they might as well do it now.

Lets face it. It was going to happen eventually and this is the best way to do it. PPC users will not loose much by avoiding Snow Leopard. If it wasn't now, it would be with the next major release with 10.7. If they do it with a major release, there might be more of an outrage later. Right now, a PPC user would think - gee, I have Tiger, I might as well get Leopard for support sake, there isn't much that I will be able to use with 10.6 anyway - that PPC machine e been pricey, but I bought it knowing that Apple was moving to a new platform - no surprise.

 

[kingtj]

Exactly ....

Anyone still using a PPC Mac at this point, I would think would be using it for tasks where Snow Leopard isn't relevant anyway. (The biggest thing it sounds like Snow Leopard would give a PPC Mac user, if it was able to run on one, would be the MS Exchange support integrated into it. But again, how many *business* users out there in places running Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 would still be stuck with a 4+ year old PPC based Mac? If the company could afford to stay current on their Exchange Server version, I'm pretty sure they could afford to issue their employees newer, faster Macs after 4 or 5 years.)

I know in my own situation, I still own a G4 based Mac Mini, but it's used by my 7 year old kid in her bedroom. It lets her visit "Club Penguin" and a few other web sites for kids like that, and lets her play a few learning games I bought for it last Xmas. She's not exactly anxious for a Snow Leopard upgrade.

Whoever bought the last new PPC Mac in 2006 had access to the latest and greatest OS for three years. Apple's software updates and those of many developers usually support the current and previous OS, not to mention Leopard is basically on feature parity with Snow Leopard, at least in the UI. Thus, it will be five to five 1/2 years from their purchase that they will be truly out of date. When you consider most of the last PPC machines were not purchased in 2006, but late 2005, it's more like six years. That's a long time in the PC world.

Snow Leopard is about cleaning up the OS and building for the future, so it really was necessary to focus their efforts appropriately.

 

[Peace]

Really? People should have given up hope last WWDC when it was only released to devs to run on Intel machines...

I saw it coming the moment I received the Intel Developer Transition kit. "Transition" being the operative word.


Rosetta is still and will still be an option when you install SL. It is necessary in certain circumstances. One app I've been testing. Quicken Financial Life for Macs requires Rosetta to transcode the old PPC code to the Intel Platform. There will be other software that requires Rosetta to transition also. We've had 4 years to digest all this info. I'm surprised all the geeky, "I know it all" people here didn't understand certain graphics cards wouldn't support Open CL.

 

[Bennieboy©]

pfffft im sticking to my G5 and 10.4, i might consider 10.5 when it suits me, dont see all the problems with an operating system, if you want the latest just for the sake of having the latest then go waste ya money, my G5 is more then ample for what i ask of it, so,

 

[rustedshut]

[EDIT: apparently this is not true and all Intel will be supported... hopefully]

You 1st generation Macbook Pro Intel Core Duo owners ready to flip? -this includes me by the way- The Core Duo Macs will not be able to use Snow Leopard because the processor only supports 32-bit. Only Core 2 Duo processors will be able to use it. Not only do all PPC get screwed but, we early Macbook Pro owners have to try and sell a laptop that most people will not buy. Feel free to prove me wrong. Wikipedia isn't the best source for facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_Duo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2_Duo

"The Core brand refers to Intel's 32-bit mobile dual-core x86 CPUs that derived from the Pentium M branded processors."

"32-bit processes only. 64-bit processes are not supported. (See the Intel Core 2 successor, which is a 64-bit processor.)"

"Unlike the Intel Core, Intel Core 2 is a 64-bit processor, supporting Intel 64."

 

[Peace]

You 1st generation Macbook Pro Intel Core Duo owners ready to flip? -this includes me by the way- The Core Duo Macs will not be able to use Snow Leopard because the processor only supports 32-bit. Only Core 2 Duo processors will be able to use it. Not only do all PPC get screwed but, we early Macbook Pro owners have to try and sell a laptop that most people will not buy. Feel free to prove me wrong. Wikipedia isn't the best source for facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_Duo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2_Duo

That is false. Any Mac with an Intel processor will run Snow Leopard.

 

[pdjudd]

Feel free to prove me wrong. Wikipedia isn't the best source for facts.

You're wrong.

From Apple's page on the system requirements:

Mac computer with an Intel processor

Cite

Note that they do not say "Intel Core2Duo. They have a picture of one - but thats because its whats being used currently. But the system still has 32 bit elements - only 90% is 64 bit.

It does not say a 64 bit Intel processor and it does not say core2duo as a requirement. It just requires an Intel processor running Leopard. That's it.

Yes, there is a difference between Core Duo and core2duo, but that has nothing to do with Snow Leopard

 

[AidenShaw]

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.

Why aren't you complaining about Apple and their 32-bit Snow Leopard? Why isn't that holding the industry back?

There are a few things off with your Windows x86 analogy, by the way.

• Some of the best-selling systems are 32-bit netbooks and nettops. Win7 x86 is needed for those.
• The majority of new Windows 7 systems (excluding netbooks) are expected to be x64 versions. About the only reason to run Win7 x86 on an x64 processor is if you want to upgrade x86 Vista to Win7 - you can't upgrade 32-bit systems to 64-bit, must do a clean install. If you're doing a clean install, there's almost no reason to choose x86.
• Microsoft has clearly stated that Windows 7 will be the last client OS with x86 support. People can plan - there isn't going to be a "surprise" in a keynote in a few years saying that "by the way, we're not going to support xxx anymore".
• Unlike Apple, in the Windows world there was not a clear line marking the distinction between x86 and x64 processors. There are many very powerful and capable systems that are x86 only. Powerful 32-bit only systems were sold alongside x64 systems for some time, and entry systems used x86-only chips for quite a bit longer.
• And, of course, Snow Leopard still has a 32-bit version to support the very few Yonah systems that were sold. So Apple is just like Microsoft with deciding which legacy systems to support.

 

[rustedshut]

You're wrong.

From Apple's page on the system requirements:

Cite

Note that they do not say "Intel Core2Duo. They have a picture of one - but thats because its whats being used currently. But the system still has 32 bit elements - only 90% is 64 bit.

It does not say a 64 bit Intel processor and it does not say core2duo as a requirement. It just requires an Intel processor running Leopard. That's it.

Yes, there is a difference between Core Duo and core2duo, but that has nothing to do with Snow Leopard

The WWDC keynote and that Apple requirement web page is what encouraged me to research it. During the keynote they specified it was a 64-bit OS. As you pointed out, they have a picture of the core 2 duo. Where did I miss Apple mentioning the 10% is 32-bit and 90% 64? I watched the keynote while I was working so, I could have missed it; or did you read that online? In any case, I really hope you're right.

 

[pdjudd]

During the keynote they specified it was a 64-bit OS.

Not quite, they said it was the final stage of their 64-bit transition. That's very different than saying its fully 64 bit.

As you pointed out, they have a picture of the core 2 duo.

Thats becasue most of the Macs today still ship with those. They have been using core2 for a couple of years now on everything except the MacPros and the XServe. In other words, its just marketing. You don't think that Apple is going to exclude Mac Pro users right?

Where did I miss Apple mentioning the 10% is 32-bit and 90% 64? I watched the keynote while I was working so, I could have missed it; or did you read that online? In any case, I really hope you're right.

Bertron said during the keynote that they optomized 90% of the Apps for 64 bit. It may have been hard to pick that up. However Apple's own website prepeats that claim:

Nearly all system applications — including the Finder, Mail, Safari, iCal, and iChat — are now built with 64-bit code.

Its not a precise figure, but it makes it clear that some things remain 32 bit.