Mac OS X Snow Leopard Does Require Intel Processors

[MikeTheC]

Hopefully now that it's been announced people will quit debating it endlessly.

To hope people here will quit bitching about it endlessly, though, is another matter.

 

[Amdahl]

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

No, Universal Binary will always mean PPC+Intel. There is no reason why a special marketing name is needed for x86+x64 binaries, unless a developer goes against Apple protocol and releases as 64-bit only app. Apple may someday release a 64-bit-required OS, but it is going to be a LONG time before that hypothetical OS refuses to run 32-bit code.

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.

Earlier 970FX CPUs had only 512k per core, but the Quad G5 and the other PCI-Express G5s used the 970MP, which has 1MB per core. Considering many of the Intel Macs used chips with only 2MB for both cores, the Quad G5s look just fine. Plus, they had advanced prefetch hardware and have four times the register space of a 32-bit Intel Mac. As Apple bragged, the 970 could have 'over 200' in-flight instructions. I don't think any Intel chip comes close to that.

The PPC archatecture is obsolete. They have not sold PPC Macs for years. The intel atchatecture (the core solo and core duo) are approaching obsolesence, but the necessary 32 bit compatability that SL offers makes it a smaller issue than maintaining support for a different archetecture.

Technically, x86 and x64 are two different architectures. The complexity is reduced in that an x64 system can natively execute the x86 architecture as well.

Honestly, it just gives me one more reason to build a Hackintosh next time instead of buying from Apple.

This is the lesson here.

By the time Sept rolls around the youngest PPC computer will be nearing 4 years old. That's a typical hardware refresh cycle for many company.

No, I and many others will have systems still under AppleCare until the end of this year.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

Microsoft is introducing a new Grand-Central-like facility called the "Concurrency Runtime" (AKA "ConcRT" or "Concert").

This will be supported on Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 7. Nice that if a developer rewrites an application to exploit cores and threading on Windows - he can get that benefit on older systems running older hardware.

He doesn't have to make a special "non-ConcRT" version for Vista and XP.

Big difference in the approach to the threading opportunity.

Thats interesting, i'll have to look into Concert a bit.

Its good that MS supports old OSs. When i went from Tiger to Leo i lost almost all my 3rd party programs, but switching from XP to Vista only lost one or two which. It would be great if Apple gave a crap about legacy app support.

 

[pdjudd]

To hope people here will quit bitching about it endlessly, though, is another matter.

Do you mean that I will still have to cite Apple's own pages to explain to people what Apple's 64 bit implementation really means? Darn...

Seriously, people bitched when Leopard dropped Classic support even on the PPC side. It should be no surprise that Apple was telling you something about older legacy support about systems that they stopped selling years ago.

 

[pdjudd]

Technically, x86 and x64 are two different architectures. The complexity is reduced in that an x64 system can natively execute the x86 architecture as well.

That's what I was trying to get across. x32 support is easier on Intel x64 bit processors. There's no reason to drop that hardware support since its native. PPC of course, is not native in the same fashion.

When I was talking different architectures I was talking PPC vs Intel and not 32 and 64 bit.

 

[JMC2008]

iSight iMac

I am totally happy with the PPC I have in addition to the C2D.

If it stays Leopard, what a great way to end the run IMO. Definitely going out on a high note....!

JC

 

[Amdahl]

1) I don't really appreciate being called an "Intel Bigot". Lets keep the insults down to zero, OK?
2) Hardware gets obsoleted. That's always going to be the case regardless of the platform you are on. I fail to see your point...
3) Your first statement is wrong. Snow Leopard supports all Intel processors and still incorporates 32 bit support. If you had read my link to Apple's page, you could have seen:

No, it really is bigotry(although I don't mean to imply it on your part; sorry for that.). And most of the insults come from the Intel fans, who really have no stake in the matter. SL may include 32-bit support, but if you expect to run it in 64-bit mode, you will need 64-bit drivers. Apple will include their own drivers for many products, but 3rd party hardware will need to provide their own. Many older Apple products will probably see no 64-bit support, just as PPC sees no support. (Potential examples on Apple's part, actual status unknown by me: USB Modem, Firewire iSight, older printers, scanners, etc.)

Emphasis mine. Please read the link I have provided about 64 bit support in Snow Leopard. I have quoted it 3 times now..

Yes, and it says 64-bit Applications will have no problem with your hardware, which presumes you have drivers. It doesn't say the hardware will work in the first place, because Apple can't promise that.

While no one can speak of later OSX releases, we can speak about the next one quite well. And that one will incorporate support for 32 bit programs and drivers.

I would agree with that (for 32-bit App compatibility), but I also would have expected 10.6 to be the last PPC OSX. 32-bit Intel users may find 10.6 is their last bootable OS release.(Note: I am reading 'next one' as 10.7)

That's what I was trying to get across.

Yes, I just wanted other readers to understand that the architecture argument is a weak argument, because PPC is already supported by OSX, just as 32-bit Intel is already supported on OSX. The hard work for both has already been done, and dropping PPC is not an example of 'saving' hard work, just as keeping 32-bit Intel doesn't really create new work. The decision is being made more for the platform reasons, and marketing decisions. Some PPC users simply believe Apple has misjudged the situation and absolutely shortchanged PPC users who bought their top-of-the-line systems from mid-2005 to the end of 2006.

Apple did not sell those systems with an advisory "We are going to screw you if you buy from us." Yes, PPC was going away. But the talk was of a pleasant 'Universal' experience. The message was Buy From Apple, because we're taking care of everybody. Dropping support for systems less than 3 years old is a breach of that promise.

 

[nuckinfutz]

Apple did not sell those systems with an advisory "We are going to screw you if you buy from us." Yes, PPC was going away. But the talk was of a pleasant 'Universal' experience. The message was Buy From Apple, because we're taking care of everybody. Dropping support for systems less than 3 years old is a breach of that promise.

http://www.apple-history.com/

Does not list any PPC based Macs announced in 2006 so we're going on 4 years old and certainly not less than 3

 

[NT1440]

Apple did not sell those systems with an advisory "We are going to screw you if you buy from us." Yes, PPC was going away. But the talk was of a pleasant 'Universal' experience. The message was Buy From Apple, because we're taking care of everybody. Dropping support for systems less than 3 years old is a breach of that promise.

Can you please tell me how 4+ years of useablity is being screwed over?

Can you please tell me how your computer is no longer going to run simply because you can't have the latest and greatest OS?

Can you?

I swear some of the rhetoric in this thread is above and beyond any rational thought I can grasp. People just LOVE to bitch about anything and everything.

 

[Eidorian]

http://www.apple-history.com/

Does not list any PPC based Macs announced in 2006 so we're going on 4 years old and certainly not less than 3

The iBook and Power Mac G5 were sold well into 2006.

 

[Amdahl]

http://www.apple-history.com/

Does not list any PPC based Macs announced in 2006 so we're going on 4 years old and certainly not less than 3

Don't be stupid. Why don't you tell me then when the Mac Pro started shipping? And then tell me when major apps had Intel versions.

 

[nuckinfutz]

Don't be stupid. Why don't you tell me then when the Mac Pro started shipping? And then tell me when major apps had Intel versions.

Hey it's not my website. Apple announced the Intel transition on June 5th 2005. When the Mac Pro shipped or when major apps had Intel versions is irrelevant. It has been almost 5 since the announcement so no wool has been pulled over anyones eyes. Anyone who purchased a Mac prior to the announcent of the Intel transition has likely replaced their Mac or are in severe need of replacement.

It's hard to fault Apple here Amdahl. Forward progress usurps the needs of people who purchased their Macs 3 years ago IMO.

 

[Amdahl]

Can you please tell me how 4+ years of useablity is being screwed over?

Can you please tell me how your computer is no longer going to run simply because you can't have the latest and greatest OS?

Can you?

I swear some of the rhetoric in this thread is above and beyond any rational thought I can grasp. People just LOVE to bitch about anything and everything.

Your questions beg the question of why people buy $3000 computers. They buy computers because they have present and future expectation that the existing software ecosystem for that computer will continue to deliver present and future value.

The history of failed computer platforms demonstrates this over and over: platforms that couldn't create the appearance of future success failed. Ergo, it is an important part of what you are buying when you buy a computer. If it wasn't, Windows and OSX would not have nearly the market share and market value that they do have. Apple switched to Intel in part to benefit from Windows market value, by being able to run it on their hardware once it was Intel-based.

Dropping current-level OS support for a computer less than 3 years old is not something reasonable on the part of Apple. This will be the single worst example, probably ever, of Apple's propensity toward screwing customers once they have your money. Apple is a disposable product company. That much is clear.

It has been almost 5 since the announcement so no wool has been pulled over anyones eyes.

You've got bad math there.. It's been 4 years and 5 days. Which again, isn't relevant, unless Apple was warning those who bought computers at the end of 2006 (2.5 years ago) that they were dropping support in less time than the warranty would last.

 

[pdjudd]

No, it really is bigotry(although I don't mean to imply it on your part; sorry for that.). [\quote]

Whatever, I dislike personal attacks on any end.

And most of the insults come from the Intel fans, who really have no stake in the matter.

So?

SL may include 32-bit support, but if you expect to run it in 64-bit mode, you will need 64-bit drivers. Apple will include their own drivers for many products, but 3rd party hardware will need to provide their own. Many older Apple products will probably see no 64-bit support, just as PPC sees no support. (Potential examples on Apple's part, actual status unknown by me: USB Modem, Firewire iSight, older printers, scanners, etc.)

You can never guarantee anything provided from a third party. Never.

Yes, and it says 64-bit Applications will have no problem with your hardware, which presumes you have drivers. It doesn't say the hardware will work in the first place, because Apple can't promise that.

Well that's too bad You cannot expect to have support forever. Contact the manufacturer and ask about support.

I would agree with that (for 32-bit App compatibility), but I also would have expected 10.6 to be the last PPC OSX. 32-bit Intel users may find 10.6 is their last bootable OS release.(Note: I am reading 'next one' as 10.7)

I think that Apple felt that since Snow Leopard was not going to be about new visual features and mostly under the hood, that selling it to a platform that was already in its sunset was pointless. Apple never really guaranteed OSX or PPC software support for a certain amount of years. Their software has been trending intel only for a few years now.

Yes, I just wanted other readers to understand that the architecture argument is a weak argument, because PPC is already supported by OSX, just as 32-bit Intel is already supported on OSX.

THe problem is that PPC and Intel are different. End of sentence. Apple dropped PPC because they no longer wanted to develop for it. Simply because support was technically possible is not the point of this discussion.

Again, Apple could have technically kept Classic around in Leopard for PPC users. They did not. Apple sent a huge message that they are consolidating their product line. That includes the PPC line at some point.

The hard work for both has already been done, and dropping PPC is not an example of 'saving' hard work, just as keeping 32-bit Intel doesn't really create new work. The decision is being made more for the platform reasons, and marketing decisions. Some PPC users simply believe Apple has misjudged the situation and absolutely shortchanged PPC users who bought their top-of-the-line systems from mid-2005 to the end of 2006.

Its about consolidating support on their product line. Its more profitable in the long run.

Apple did not sell those systems with an advisory "We are going to screw you if you buy from us." Yes, PPC was going away. But the talk was of a pleasant 'Universal' experience. The message was Buy From Apple, because we're taking care of everybody. Dropping support for systems less than 3 years old is a breach of that promise.

Universal does not imply forever. Some things were not intended to last forever and were not built for that. Do you honestly think that PPC would stay around forever? How about until Apple started shipping Intel only Apps (starting in iLife '08). Apple did not promise support forever or even indefinitely. They made it clear that the future was Intel.

 

[pdjudd]

Your questions beg the question of why people buy $3000 computers. They buy computers because they have present and future expectation that the existing software ecosystem for that computer will continue to deliver present and future value.

They go up to Leopard - support for that is not going away until at least 10.7. If you buy a $3000 computer right in the middle of a platform transition, you have to know that its not going to be be modern forever.

 

[Dokter_Mac]

Anyone know if SL will run on the Core Duo processors as they are limited to 32-bit?

NO 😉. So I guess it's not for all INTEL Macs 😀. (like in the specs)
They said it in the keynote also. Only for 64 bit Intel Macs. To bad for those early Intel switchers with 32 bit INTEL chips 😀.

Oh well, I guess it's also time for them to upgrade their hardware 😉.

And from what I saw at the keynote. SL is not a big misser. No wonder it's that cheap... I'll wait for 10.7 to switch.
For the moment my dualproc G5 is more then horsepower enough with Leopard. Hell, I paid enough for it 😉.

From a happy Power Mac user 😎

 

[flopticalcube]

NO 😉. So I guess it's not for all INTEL Macs 😀. (like in the specs)
They said it in the keynote also. Only for 64 bit Intel Macs. To bad for those early Intel switchers with 32 bit INTEL chips 😀.

Oh well, I guess it's also time for them to upgrade their hardware 😉.

And from what I saw at the keynote. SL is not a big misser. No wonder it's that cheap... I'll wait for 10.7 to switch.
For the moment my dualproc G5 is more then horsepower enough with Leopard. Hell, I paid enough for it 😉.

From a happy Power Mac user 😎

100% false.

 

[nuckinfutz]

NO 😉. From a happy Power Mac user 😎

And you'll be a happier Intel Mac owner someday because the OS will run like it's been tailored for the hardware. Because it has!

 

[Eidorian]

And you'll be a happier Intel Mac owner someday because the OS will run like it's been tailored for the hardware. Because it has!

Given the uproar over h.264 and OpenCL already that's a hard point to get across to many users.

It's nice to say it for marketing but the reality isn't as pleasant.

 

[Dokter_Mac]

100% false.

Well, check out the keynote again 😉.
And watch & listen careful 🙄

Greetz.

 

[macaliseme]

I can understand people that bought PowerMac G5s being a bit ticked off. It's a pretty heavy investment. However from a business perspective this is a very smart move in order to keep the OS optimized and progressing forward.

Those people who bought the PowerMac G5 KNEW what they were getting themselves in for - they chose to ignore advice in favour of having instant gratification then and there. Well, here we are 3-4 years later and the chickens have come home to roost. I for one have zero sympathy nor do I want to hear them complain in the slightest - they forfeited their right to complain when they ignored all the buying advice at the time.

 

[nuckinfutz]

Given the uproar over h.264 and OpenCL already that's a hard point to get across to many users.

It's nice to say it for marketing but the reality isn't as pleasant.

OpenCL = oversold and overhyped.

Nvidia's been working on CUDA for years now and they haven't hit any "mainstream" success yet people think that OpenCL , which got fast tracked and likely needs a lot of polishing, is suddenly going to turbocharge their computer? 😱

It's like Core Animation. It may demo nice with some fractal processing speeding up 500 % but when you look at the processing needs for the general user the CPU is still the champ of encoding video. Plenty of good discussion over at Doom9 about this.

 

[flopticalcube]

OpenCL = oversold and overhyped.

Nvidia's been working on CUDA for years now and they haven't hit any "mainstream" success yet people think that OpenCL , which got fast tracked and likely needs a lot of polishing, is suddenly going to turbocharge their computer? 😱

It's like Core Animation. It may demo nice with some fractal processing speeding up 500 % but when you look at the processing needs for the general user the CPU is still the champ of encoding video. Plenty of good discussion over at Doom9 about this.

Hardware h.264 decoding would be nice, considering that my iMac can do it in Windows but not in OSX.

 

[nuckinfutz]

http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html

General requirements
Mac computer with an Intel processor
1GB of memory
5GB of free disk space
DVD drive for installation
Some features require a compatible Internet service provider; fees may apply.
Some features require Apple’s MobileMe service; fees and terms apply.

Reading is fundamental

 

[Eidorian]

OpenCL = oversold and overhyped.

Nvidia's been working on CUDA for years now and they haven't hit any "mainstream" success yet people think that OpenCL , which got fast tracked and likely needs a lot of polishing, is suddenly going to turbocharge their computer? 😱

It's like Core Animation. It may demo nice with some fractal processing speeding up 500 % but when you look at the processing needs for the general user the CPU is still the champ of encoding video. Plenty of good discussion over at Doom9 about this.

I agree with OpenCL and Core Animation being overhyped but when you see it presented onstage at WWDC, saying how your operating system is tailored to the hardware feels more like a marketing exaggeration than something to be proud of right now.

It's even worse with the h.264 hardware acceleration and how hard Apple has pushed h.264 and HD only support it on the 9400M.

Apple is a good showman but final delivery is miss more often now.