Grand Central is for the optimization of multicore x86 systems, no? So, why would this be included in a new release for PPC? That architecture has been dead since August 2006 when the last PowerMac was sold, and still will be dead in the summer of 2009 when Snow Leopard drops.
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 Drops PowerPC Support
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
First, regardless of Snow Leopard possibly being Intel only, Apple will still HAVE to support PPC Macs for a while for their various apps. So universal apps aren't going away that soon. Just imagine if PPC Macs couldn't use the newest iPod or iPhone because the required version of iTunes wasn't PPC compatible (imagine Apple dropping support for their own customers before Windows XP users... although I wonder if they care about their existing customer base sometimes).
That aside, Snow Leopard being Intel only does suck. Is it the end of the world? No.
If SL is released in a year, that'll be 4 years for my PowerMac G5. Might be about time for a Mac Pro at that point anyway.
I'd get an Intel iMac now, but they have the crappy glossy screen on them. If they'd put put a mid-level desktop, I'd buy it now. Mini is worthless, MacPro is too expensive for frequent upgrades.
That aside, Snow Leopard being Intel only does suck. Is it the end of the world? No.
If SL is released in a year, that'll be 4 years for my PowerMac G5. Might be about time for a Mac Pro at that point anyway.
I'd get an Intel iMac now, but they have the crappy glossy screen on them. If they'd put put a mid-level desktop, I'd buy it now. Mini is worthless, MacPro is too expensive for frequent upgrades.
Except that new apps that take advantage of the new things probably won't run on 10.5.
And in this case "runs faster" mostly means "uses all the cores". It really sucks that dual and quad G5 owners never ended up getting software that did a good job of using the hardware - there has always been tons of power available, but more often than not one or more cores just sit there unused.
Although it is kind of funny that xeon owners (who have the same situation right now) are rejoicing so much over this, while the same thing may happen again. Apple always promises things like this but rarely delivers - the current octos may lose support before apple really figures out how to take advantage of them well.
Because they had to drop it eventually, but obviously many people feel it's not time yet since it hasn't been that long, and the quad G5s are faster than many machines that will be supported.
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Who cares if you spent $3000 on a box that is getting dumped...just spend another $3000!
So I guess improved developer tools and APIs to make it easier to program for the 16 cores (Becktonx2) that will likely end up in a Mac Pro around Nehalem's launch and the 4 core CPU, Clarksfield that will likely end up in the Macbook Pro and the iMac and maybe the Macbook as well, each core being dual threaded (well hyperthreading is arguable, but whatever just go with it) as well as tap into the idle power of a GPU when it's not being used for graphics intensive tasks equals a super service pack? Err... whatever you say...
Sebastian
I remember when people held off on upgrading to the Intel platform because Adobe had yet to release Intel-native CS3. Now those who bought G5 towers in the waning months between the premiere of the Macbook Pro and the Mac Pro can hear the death knell of obsolescence even before their 24 month lease is up. THAT's gotta hurt.
This isn't sarcasm. I have a 32 bit Intel MBP that's next in line for old age benefits, even though it hasn't been retired yet.
This isn't sarcasm. I have a 32 bit Intel MBP that's next in line for old age benefits, even though it hasn't been retired yet.
Performance and stability that is in part hampered and compromised BY the PPC support itself. You don't by any chance happen to think that supporting two vastly different architectures is one of the very reasons why Leopard has been one of their dodgiest OS X releases to date? Supporting two architectures sucks developer time and resources and forces them to make compromises that hurt both PPC and Intel performance and stability.
It's funny how Apple fans will mock Windows for its towering load of legacy baggage, but when they suddenly find themselves on the receiving end of legacy ditching, they freak out and demand that Apple be a little more Microsofty.
From my perspective it really doesn't matter at all if PPC is not supported because there are no new features and PPC owner wouldn't profit from the speed enhancements ala multicore and GPU processing anyway. So what could a PPC owner want this for ? Exactly.
Brilliant move from Apple by the way.
Brilliant move from Apple by the way.
Bingo. PPC guys, your computers will continue to be powerful but OS X must move forward and it can't do that while hanging on to PPC. The dropping of classic support, Leopards requirements, and Grand Central should all have been a big red flag. And yes, I'm aware a few of the G5's had 2 cores, but Snow Leopard is looking forward at 4-8 cores.
Awesome!!! I really hope that 10.6 will really be Intel only. I'm sure that if it is, Apple will continue to release important updates for 10.5 for a year or so after the release so that the PPC users will have a stable system.
Lets remember that the next release of OS X "Snow Leopard" is to FIX problems with the current release with very little new stuff. I would be nice to include those fixes for the G5.
Answers for rjfiske
Ive been a Mac user since 1987 back when research companies and the Government used the SEs and Mac II. So, I consider myself a heavy user.
Yes I only compared my G5 to the units I own, a Mac Mini and my MacBook Pro. I would not expect them to do any more than what they were purchased for. The Mini was purchased to handle my FTP and print server, not high level Video work and the MacBook Pro was purchased for traveling. My statement was not to be taken that the Intel machines were inferior in any way, only that my main unit is a G5 and the other units were Intel.
As long as my G5 and the software does the job I need it to do I will continue to use it. I will still upgrade the Intel machines to Snow Leopard and I suspect that Apple will continue to release fixes for Leopard 10.5.
Answers for rjfiske
Ive been a Mac user since 1987 back when research companies and the Government used the SEs and Mac II. So, I consider myself a heavy user.
Yes I only compared my G5 to the units I own, a Mac Mini and my MacBook Pro. I would not expect them to do any more than what they were purchased for. The Mini was purchased to handle my FTP and print server, not high level Video work and the MacBook Pro was purchased for traveling. My statement was not to be taken that the Intel machines were inferior in any way, only that my main unit is a G5 and the other units were Intel.
As long as my G5 and the software does the job I need it to do I will continue to use it. I will still upgrade the Intel machines to Snow Leopard and I suspect that Apple will continue to release fixes for Leopard 10.5.
The exact same thing could be said for Universal binaries and Rosetta. If PPC support is being dropped why not kill Rosetta and make all apps Intel only?
re:
Why don't they just make two separate versions and keep everyone happy and keep both versions "lean"?
Why don't they just make two separate versions and keep everyone happy and keep both versions "lean"?
I still run Tiger on my G5, happily. It's a heck of a lot more stable and runs my pro apps cleaner than the Mac Pro 8 core with Leopard, albeit slower. (and not a heck of a lot slower, either, with an x800xt) In short, whatever.. so be it then.
Let's face it anyone still running a PPC Mac in July 2009 (by then at least 3 years beyond the very last of the PPC's) was very unlikely to be the kind of person to rush out and buy a new OS anyway were they?
At the very best you could say the last 10% of the PPC machines *might* have had owners willing to buy the new OS - to run that machine for maybe another year at most...hardly worth screwing the future of all intel machines over a few lingering ppc users unwilling to jump toward the literally phenomenal performance gains that THEY would experience from both just a new intel machine AND an intel optimised snow leopard - these people aren't thinking right...they are just being tightwads...
This is hardly a crisis issue...
I say it's a good thing that Apple drop PPC...bring on a boosted intel only release...can't wait!!
At the very best you could say the last 10% of the PPC machines *might* have had owners willing to buy the new OS - to run that machine for maybe another year at most...hardly worth screwing the future of all intel machines over a few lingering ppc users unwilling to jump toward the literally phenomenal performance gains that THEY would experience from both just a new intel machine AND an intel optimised snow leopard - these people aren't thinking right...they are just being tightwads...
This is hardly a crisis issue...
I say it's a good thing that Apple drop PPC...bring on a boosted intel only release...can't wait!!
They probably will, this is the first Developer Preview and they probably haven't changed all the apps to x86/x86-64 binaries yet.
Sebastian
I don't think this is fair to PPC users, hell Vista runs on a 1ghz P3. I'd rather cut my arms off than use it, but it runs.
It's not dead. IBM are still making them, hell the X360 is PowerPC. What you meant to say is there dead in Macs. And even with that statement I'd have to disagree.
Not suprising, but when I saw some of the screenshots of the Activity monitor posted elsewhere and the descriptions were listed as "Universal" I thought PPC support might live on.
Oh well. Our old eMac needs upgrading anyway.
Oh well. Our old eMac needs upgrading anyway.
misleading MacRumors headline
Doesn't this suggest that the Intel-only requirement only pertains to the Developer Preview, and not necessarily to the final product?
Doesn't this suggest that the Intel-only requirement only pertains to the Developer Preview, and not necessarily to the final product?
Thank heaven's for yours and the other posters who have made it clear that Apple has done a great job supporting older versions of the OSes. If, in 2 years, users of the PPC platform are as up-to-date as they can be with applications that are the latest versions, then they get years and years worth of further use out of the "old stuff."
People are still using OS9!!!!!!!
I am always amazed at the complete idiots who post on here using the term "obsolete." That word does not equate to crippled and nonfunctional as is so often inferred.
Apple will benefit from not having to include PPC in lowered development costs and less distraction which should result in more, better and frequent apps.
People are still using OS9!!!!!!!
I am always amazed at the complete idiots who post on here using the term "obsolete." That word does not equate to crippled and nonfunctional as is so often inferred.
Apple will benefit from not having to include PPC in lowered development costs and less distraction which should result in more, better and frequent apps.
Looks like Apple feel that by 10.5.10/.11/.12, PPC stability will reach its maximum. Maybe the G5s would benefit from OpenCL, but the other stuff may have Intel-only benefits.