Mac OS X Snow Leopard Does Require Intel Processors

[Dr.Pants]

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.

There was a mention by.. Serlet(?) that said the main thing with Leopard was that it was mostly 64-bit - the largest thing in it that was 32-bit was the kernel.

Anyways, as a PPC user, I guess it was inevitable that Snow Leopard is dropping Power, but as everybody said, its for the best. Leopard works just fine.

 

[*LTD*]

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.

SL is 64-bit.

 

[Peace]

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.

This speaks volumes about Windows 7 X64 :

Your Windows 7 X64 desktop is running 32-bit apps.

 

[*LTD*]

This speaks volumes about Windows 7 X64 :

Your Windows 7 X64 desktop is running 32-bit apps.

Snow Leopard has a 64 bit kernel, which can run 32 bit applications.

 

[Peace]

Snow Leopard has a 64 bit kernel, which can run 32 bit applications.

I know that. Thank you. I was merely pointing out that Windows does the same thing.

Personally I don't think Microsoft or Apple are completely ready to drop support for 32-bit apps. Too many older machines out there.

 

[*LTD*]

I know that. Thank you. I was merely pointing out that Windows does the same thing.

Ah, my bad.

 

[tbrinkma]

To put it another way - there is absolutely no way I can imagine buying a top-end non-Apple personal computer in November 2006 only to have the hardware company that makes it tell me "You see, we're afraid Windows 7 will not run on your computer, although it's more than capable of running it. We don't feel like writing drivers, but don't worry - we'll keep sending Vista patches your way."

I went through this in the Windows world with a laptop that was top-end when Windows ME was the current consumer version, (soon to be replaced by XP). They had Windows 2000 drivers for *most* of the hardware, but never released any XP drivers for it.

For reference purposes, here's the release dates of the three versions of Windows involved:
Windows 2000- February 2000
Windows Me - July 2000
Windows XP - October 2001

My laptop (a $3200 model when purchased in mid-2000) lost Windows support for basic components like the *video card* in less than a year and a half. I had the same thing happen with a CD-RW drive. It had 98 & 2000 drivers, but no XP drivers. (Linux supports the drive to this day.)

Fortunately, I owned a copy of Win2K at the time, because I'd have been out of luck otherwise, since ME support for just about any software was fleeting.

 

[jaw04005]

Personally I don't think Microsoft or Apple are completely ready to drop support for 32-bit apps. Too many older machines out there.

Nor do all applications need to be 64-bit. Why do we need a 64-bit Stickies application for example?

32-bit support will be around for a long time.

SL is 64-bit.

It's both because it has to run on both Core Solo and Duo (32-bit only), which shipped with the first generation Intel Macs.

 

[*LTD*]

Nor do all applications need to be 64-bit. Why do we need a 64-bit Stickies application for example?

32-bit support will be around for a long time.



It's both because it has to run on both Core Solo and Duo (32-bit only), which shipped with the first generation Intel Macs.

It's a 64-bit kernel, with support for 32-bit. Or we're both saying the same thing, LOL.

 

[CptnJustc]

I went through this in the Windows world with a laptop that was top-end when Windows ME was the current consumer version, (soon to be replaced by XP). They had Windows 2000 drivers for *most* of the hardware, but never re February leased any XP drivers for it.

For reference purposes, here's the release dates of the three versions of Windows involved:
Windows 2000- 2000
Windows Me - July 2000
Windows XP - October 2001

I've had plenty of my own driver issues with virtually every new release of Windows. Now, the argument might be that what we're talking about is supporting an architecture, not a variety of hardware... but supporting legacy architecture is pointless unless you're going to support the legacy hardware that runs on it, and that is a hefty drag, even with Apple's more limited hardware universe. So consider that PPC support involves not just the processor, but development and support for everything from PPC-era motherboards to video cards.

Plus, forcing every Intel Mac user out there to continue swallowing up something like (apparently) 6 GB a pop isn't inconsiderable -- if I'd had 6 GB more free, I wouldn't have upgraded the HD on this laptop. C'est la vie....

 

[Peace]

It's a 64-bit kernel, with support for 32-bit. Or we're both saying the same thing, LOL.

Depending on your machine. Currently there is a 32-bit and a 64-bit kernel.

 

[Cabbit]

"The USA government let their people down by discriminating against Asian people", would you argue and say "I'm white and I wasn't let down, it's a <5% minority they're ticking off"?

Unfortunately your statement bolds true as the USA government does discriminate against minority groups by saying one man one woman or no marriage. So it would be "I'm strait and i wasn't let down, it's only a <10% minority there ticking off"

 

[Ttownbeast]

I'll eventually get an Intel Mac but not any time in the foreseeable future so long as my G4 still works good

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

Reading the posts here makes me wonder about the prices for used PPC macs. For no legitimate reason i absolutely love PPC macs and i am curious to see if the prices drop a bit after 10.7.
I wouldnt mind having an old G5 Power Mac sitting around running Leo if i can pick one up for cheap in the fall.

 

[milo]

Whoever bought the last new PPC Mac in 2006 had access to the latest and greatest OS for three years.

Except that that "latest and greatest OS" was pretty inefficient and lousy at supporting multiple cores. The quad G5 never even got close to its full potential since the OS never really took advantage of those cores well. It's not like it's some slow, antiquated machine, it still outperforms most of the intel boxes that have shipped. And 64 bit hardware, an advantage over a number of intel machines. Quad G5 would probably see more of a performance boost than most of the intel machines out there since it has more cores and can use better GPU.

Did anyone else notice that when Bertrand Serlet said Snow Leopard saves you 6GB it was "thanks to technologies like file system compression"? Not explicitly refinements in code.

Exactly. Leaving out the PPC code actually saves very little space - in general, the actual code is only a tiny fraction of disk space for apps and system, the vast majority is images and foreign language translations.

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

Except that when the 10.4 dev release came out it was also intel only, leading people to jump to conclusions...which turned out to be wrong. Sure, intel only was a good guess, but nobody knew for sure.

Cutting off their support? How?

By not supporting it with the latest OS. And once apple drops support, it means we'll likely see a huge move to 10.6 only apps and intel only apps.

Yeah, Apple is making the new OS Intel-specific since they haven't sold anything non-Intel in 3 years, but they're still going to have to offer PPC builds of stuff for a LONG time - the G5's aren't exactly slow even by today's standards.

What do you mean offer PPC builds of "stuff"? They're not offering the latest OS. I'll bet the next major versions of FCS and Logic are 10.6/intel only as well.

 

[Lokheed]

Check your facts. Mac Pro and Intel Xserve were announced on August 7th 2006, the latter became available in November 2006, which means people can still have valid AppleCare 3-year warranty on their machines while Apple is already cutting off their support OS-wise.

Dude, check your math. SL is released September... unless the calendar people put September before August, I'd say their 3-Year Apple Care would be over...

 

[pdjudd]

Except that when the 10.4 dev release came out it was also intel only, leading people to jump to conclusions...which turned out to be wrong. Sure, intel only was a good guess, but nobody knew for sure.

I would argue that was a different case - those dev releases were intel only because Apple was targeting Intel computers and Tiger releases were only going to be usable on intel just like tiger retail was only good on PPC machines.

It's a bit irrelivant, Apple showed long ago that they were committed to Intel and not to PPC.

 

[pdjudd]

Dude, check your math. SL is released September... unless the calendar people put September before August, I'd say their 3-Year Apple Care would be over...

September is before November. It's just a couple of month difference. Plus you can get apple care for a year after your initial purchase.

 

[milo]

I don't think anyone has suggested that Apple will cease support to Leopard.

So you really think they will continue to support 10.5 with more updates after 10.6 ships (even though they've never done that with previous OS releases beyond one or two final bugfix releases)? And that they'll continue to offer apps that run on 10.5?

I did, I was only saying that removal of PPC binaries could be helpful in this area.

Except that removing PPC code actually saves very very little space.

Filesystem compression is a very old concept that's entirely unnecessary nowadays, with todays prices the 6 GB improvement is worth about 50 cents.

Even on a laptop? Even on a box using SSD instead of a hard drive? Saving even six gigs is a huge deal.

We heard Snow Leopard = Intel only a year ago

No we didn't, we knew the developer preview was intel only.

did some think they would just sneak PPC support in there?

You mean like they snuck PPC support into 10.4 after the initial dev releases were intel only?

Still bummed to hear it confirmed. Figures the dirt cheap $29 update is the one I can't take advantage of!

Amen to that. It's hard to buy the "but Leopard is awesome!" consolation speech when out of the other side of their mouth Apple is telling users how inefficient Leopard is that it requires a major release to finally make it run well.

 

[mcmlxix]

Serious users who would want SL straight away would have already upgraded to Intel by now, anyway.

They've had 4 years.

Not necessarily. I tend to adopt every other (or every, every other) new advancement. It seems more sensible to my wallet, and I get more bang for my transition.

This is why my PPC iBook G4 still runs Tiger (and runs it very well I might add) and why I didn’t transition to Leopard. I figured I’d upgrade to Snow Leopard, but seeing than I won’t be able to doesn’t upset me.

Apple will continue to support Tiger, Leopard, etc. so my G4 isn’t left twisting in the wind. It’s still a great machine, and currently suits all of my needs except one. At 14” it’s too big and too heavy to be as portable as I’d like, and although Apple’s current line up (MB, MBP, MBA) is quite sexy, they too are all too large for my portability needs.

Then there’s the iPhone and iPod touch, which are too small for my usability needs. So I say, come, come mystery device, operate with Snow Leopard, and run iPhone apps in some sort of widget mode.

 

[cult hero]

Minority? Clarify customers? You must be joking! I'm talking about the people who paid several thousand dollars for their multicore G5 PowerMacs. Just because they aren't a majority anymore doesn't mean anything. If I were to say "The USA government let their people down by discriminating against Asian people", would you argue and say "I'm white and I wasn't let down, it's a <5% minority they're ticking off"?

Are you kidding me? Seriously? You're comparing the official depreciation of old hardware to state sanctioned racism?

"My grandfather was put in a Japanese internment camp in WWII."

"Oh that's nothing, I bought a Multicore G5 PowerMac and Apple depreciated the hardware and didn't provide OS 10.6 to me."

PowerMac owners are a small number compared to, you know, MacBook toting college kids. An even smaller number are people who don't upgrade their PowerMacs with some regularity because, you know, people who need that kind of power have to keep up with it too.

Yeah, it sucks. But you know what? The machine you bought didn't suddenly get slower. Leopard didn't become less powerful. It still does everything it did when you bought it. What is it that you've lost, precisely, that makes your suffering akin to racial discrimination?

Crap, Mac people sit around and lambast Microsoft time and time again because they continue to "kruft up their OS by supporting tons of old stuff that most people don't use anymore." Then Apple does something crazy like kill the floppy and embrace all USB in an effort to pull the computing world out of a decade gone by and people whine and moan and complain that they're "losing support."

If you want to be supported to infinity, buy a PC or use Linux. (Which I do for applications where I need that kind of thing.) If you want to play with newer tech that isn't bogged down by old crap, go Apple. Apple has done this sort of thing too many times for me to even begin to feel sorry for users who feel like they got burned when a forced upgrade came. (And it's not really "forced" anyway.)

I can't completely agree with that, you know. Compilers are where the optimisation's at.

Kinda-sorta. Real good optimization is at just about every level. One bottleneck eats an otherwise lightning system.

 

[milo]

Core Duo... As in Core 2 Duo? I didn't think that Intel made any Core Duo processors that were 32-bit only.

Core Duo and Core 2 Duo are completely different chips. The former are 32 bit and the latter 64.

6 GB space savings = my old PPC code...

Actually no. You can use third party apps to strip out all the PPC code now, and you won't save nearly that much. You save a lot more by stripping out all the foreign languages, and it looks like the upcoming OS also uses compression and other tricks.

You're talking about people who haven't bought a machine from Apple in almost three years, who had several thousand bucks to blow on a top-end professional machine in 2006, but either can't or won't replace it this fall when it goes out of warranty coverage. I can actually see this being the case for some people, with the economic downturn.

But then you're further narrowing it to those who feel for whatever reason that they must have the latest and greatest OS. Congratulations, you've narrowed your set to "professional users who don't act like professional users at all." Professional users don't buy the latest and greatest OS as soon as it comes out, because as anyone can tell you, there's too much risk of incompatibility with their existing apps, and they can't afford downtime (and loss of income) due to that. I've gone through three versions of Adobe Creative Suite and I'm still running Tiger, because I heard about the problems people had with InDesign on Leopard.

Those are some pretty sweeping generalizations and I have a hard time agreeing with them. There are pro users who want the newest OS because it is more stable and efficient than the last one, and are capable of making the switch without losing downtime. And a smart pro user will upgrade their machine when it is no longer fast enough to run the software - in the case of the G5's, the machines will still be plenty fast enough (faster than many intel boxes certainly) but these perfectly good machines will be shut out not because they're not capable of running the OS, but because apple doesn't want to go the trouble of supporting them. Much of the point of buying the top of the line machine is that (usually) you can keep that same machine for a long time instead of buying a slower, cheaper one and having to upgrade more often.

Frankly, when apple makes a move like this it sends the message to me that I should just assume Apple will screw me in a couple years so it's not worth spending much on one of their machine - it should be considered disposable.

1. Apple continues to release new versions of applications built to support not only old OS versions, but the old architecture.

And you really think that will continue with new app releases after 10.6 ships?

So if Apple continues to release new versions of all its apps for your 3-year-old computer's architecture and OS, and the only "latest, greatest" software you can't run is from third-party vendors, your irritation should be directed at those third-party vendors, I think.

IF that's what happens, I'll be much more forgiving of Apple. But that's a big if, and I don't expect it to happen - over the next few months we'll see what Apple does, I expect they dump support in their apps as well, but I'd love to be proved wrong on this one.

Previous version were 64bit as well. It's just that SL will be even more 64bit than previous versions were.

That's a load of crap. (or were you being sarcastic?) Apple insisted that 10.4 was 64 bit...but it wasn't in a usable way. Same thing with 10.5. If previous OSX versions really gained any advantage from 64 bit, would apple really be hyping it so much in 10.6? (and I assume, hoping that nobody noticed that they shoveled that same hype twice before)

 

[Eidorian]

Nor do all applications need to be 64-bit. Why do we need a 64-bit Stickies application for example?

32-bit support will be around for a long time.

I'm sure that 64-bit Stickies would be quite an improvement over 32-bit

 

[Letni]

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:


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

Folks.. Remember this is apple, even though Snow Leopard is 90% 64 bit, the way apple designs their binaries, most core system and applications can contain both 32 and 64 bit versions of code. Apple has done this in the past in many respects with originally 68k and PPC code on Classic in the same binary, as well as X86 and PPC code in the new "Universal Binary".. My guess is UniBin (since no longer has PPC going forward) will mean it has optimized 32 and optimized 64 bit parts of each application/core system of SL to support those orignial Intel Macs that only have the 32 bit support (Core Duo/Core Solo machines)..

Letni

 

[ktlx]

Except that that "latest and greatest OS" was pretty inefficient and lousy at supporting multiple cores. The quad G5 never even got close to its full potential since the OS never really took advantage of those cores well.

I'm curious what support you have for that claim? I had a quad G5 and it was pretty easy to max out all four cores, with the proper tasks. The issue I saw with the G5 was it's memory subsystem had high latency and a smallish L2 cache, so only certain CPU bound tasks could really push it. I don't see how the kernel could wave a magic wand to fix the high memory latency and small L2 cache.