Mac OS X Snow Leopard Drops PowerPC Support

[rjfiske]

He who stands still, moves backward

Skate to where the puck is, not where it's been

Henry Ford: "If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have told me a faster horse."

Einstein: "A mind that opens to a new idea never comes back to its original size."

Steve Martin: "A day without sunshine is like... you know... night."

Ok I took it too far.

 

[sebastianlewis]

Where can we get a legit copy of this?

If you're that determined.. um... become a Developer, shell out something like $500 for an ADC Select or Premier (forgot which, but one of them is more expensive) account, and a Snow Leopard seed should be on ADC eventually.

Sebastian

 

[oacory]

Early Developers Version

Guys this is a early developers version and all the developers that I know and developers that Apple would trust say pretty up to date on the software an since the intel processors are supposedly better it would only be natural they would develop on them first. It would only be later that they would develop a lesser processor. It doesn't mean we won't have PowerPC Support, just not as the first development of it.

 

[toxicbomber]

In Snow Leopard the exploit that osx86 and Phystar uses is gone because Apple has dropped Power PC support. Basicly the Power PC did not have APM chip inside it but the intel chip does. Snow Leopard activates this chip and now no one would be able to crack inside it. That's how they get OS X running on un-authorized PCs. So nuts to you below me... and I am sorry about my grammar. I was typing in a hurry.

 

[NoOneButMe]

lol.. bye bye OSX86 project.. bye bye, Phystar! The moment they drop PPC support in Snow Leopard, the exploit do run os x on a pc... is gone. I'm so happy.

Erm.. you obviously dont know anything about osx86. Let along how to read what you're typing. osx86

(Not aimed at you specifically so dont take it as such..) Shame the ability to read doesn't seem to be among the prereqs for getting an internet connection

 

[gehrbox]

That Vista runs on 8 year old hardware, whereas Leopard doesn't, and Snow Leopard certainly doesn't.

My 350mhz iMac is 9 years old and runs last years mac OS X. On top of that it is completely usable.

 

[mustang_dvs]

I'm surprised by the "Apple-supplied" video card...?

 

[Anuba]

(For those that are wondering, Tiger's most recent security update was November 2007 I believe, one month after Leopard's release).

Not that anyone wants to know, but Windows XP Professional will receive support and security updates until 2014, 13 years after its initial release.

Even the staunchest of M$ haters gotta admit that's pretty generous compared to Apple's commitment to PPC users...

 

[atszyman]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Just because the OS is no longer universal does not mean that the OS can drop universal binary support. Software is often programmed for more than one OS, so an Intel only 10.6 OS still needs to support UB since the same application like Photoshop CS4 will also likely need to support 10.5 and probably 10.4 too. That is true even in 10.7 since there will still likely be quite a few PPC users on 10.5.

Why not? Applications written for that OS don't need to be able to run on machines that can't run that OS. Applications for OSX don't have to be able to run on machines not supported by OSX.

If the PPC base is so small why would you want to be able to compile for it? I can understand wanting to be able to run the apps on the previous OS version(s) but if the PPCs are so old and few and cause so many issues with stability and performance why include support for universal binaries on 10.6? Running on 10.5 or before does not require a universal binary unless it's run on a PPC machine.

 

[Amdahl]

How many Dual G5s are still in use? Those are the only PPC Macs that would actually benefit from Snow Leopard.

All of them?

I don't think they just get thrown in the trash. Dual G4s might be a different story, but dual G5s work fine on Leopard.

 

[Eric S.]

This should come as no surprise to anyone. Apple has always stated that a typical Macs life span is approximately 3 years. Since the last PPC computers were last sold in August of 06 (the quad g5's), that means that they would be approximately 3 years old, this time next year (assuming they haven't leaked yet).

Where have they "always" stated that? Where have they ever stated that?

Here are Jobs' own words in June 2005, when the PPC->Intel transition was announced:
"we're going to be supporting both these processors for a long time because we've got a very large installed based on the PowerPC that you're going to want to sell your software to and there's going to be a growing installed base on Intel that you're going to want to sell your software to."

Now, what does "a long time" mean? Three years? Well, in that same 2005 WWDC keynote, Jobs stated that Apple would still be selling PPC machines until the end of 2007. Yes, the original plan said that here in June 2008 we would have seen the last PPC machine sold only six months ago. And obviously we would have expected new OS releases to run on PPC for some time yet to come.

The quad-core G5 was replaced by the Mac Pro in August 2006. That means that someone who paid $3000+ for one of those two years ago today probably expected them to be marketed for another year and a half, and had no idea that Apple was about to EOL the PPC line. I can see why someone like that would be PO'ed if PPC support is ended. Personally, I don't care. I have Leopard on my G4 tower and Tiger on my iBook, and those are fine for me.

 

[csimon2]

Complainers: please try to remember that your PPC computer will continue to work as it always has.

You really don't get it, do you? PPC owners aren't upset about this because on the date of the release of Snow Leopard their machines will just "stop" working. PPC owners, especially PPC owners who use their machines for production or other professional work, are upset because as soon as Apple throws in the white towel for PPC, then so will every other developer out there.

I think most logical PPC owners have come to the conclusion that the complete Intel switch was going to happen eventually and they are fine with that. But I also think most PPC owners were hoping to at least make it through the end of this decade before their machines became "obsolete" in terms of being able to run new or updated software, especially versions of sw from Apple itself.

 

[Amdahl]

Just to be clear, the problem is that one year from now in June-ish 2009, Apple will no longer release updates for an operating system that was released in April of 2005? I can hardly fault Apple for this, though your point is taken.

It doesn't matter that it was released in April 05. It was sold as brand new top-o-the-line 7.5 months ago.

(For those that are wondering, Tiger's most recent security update was November 2007 I believe, one month after Leopard's release).

That was the last OS rev. The most recent security update for 10.4 was two weeks ago with 10.5.3. And that last OS rev (10.4.11) was two weeks after Leopard release.

 

[Lancetx]

Not that anyone wants to know, but Windows XP Professional will receive support and security updates until 2014, 13 years after its initial release.

Even the staunchest of M$ haters gotta admit that's pretty generous compared to Apple's commitment to PPC users...

And spending those kinds of resources on legacy software that incredibly ancient is exactly why Mac OS X is leaving Windows in the dust. I'd much rather have Apple working more toward the future rather than supporting something from 13 years in the past.

 

[iJed]

It is NOT an emulator... It is a translator.

Rosetta is very much an emulator. An emulator is basically something that translates code from one architecture to another.

Some facts for the people here:

• The developer preview of Snow Leopard has PPC apps
• The PPC apps on Snow Leopard have many recent modified dates (ie recompiled recently) as well as newer version numbers
• PPC code would be removed if Apple were dropping PPC support. Why would they bother compiling for PPC?
• These apps being universal have absolutely nothing to do with Rosetta
• Rosetta support will almost certainly be there in Snow Leopard
• Not supporting PPC in a developer preview does not mean that it will not be supported in a final release

 

[dwaite]

A bad idea

I personally feel this is a bad idea. As a developer, one of the great reasons to make this a free update for stability is that you will pretty much guarantee all your customers are on it. You can write your code using all the newest technology, knowing that your customers can all either upgrade to 10.6 for free, or or are way back on 10.4 which is not a supported release. If PPC users can't move forward as well, it means you still have users which are stuck on 10.5 until they buy another computer.

 

[mactonight]

This sucks! I plan on purchasing a new Nehalem Mac next year, and I don't want my OS to be slowed down with support for all those legacy Core and Core 2 CPUs. I really hope they drop support for the 32-bit and especially those crappy 1st gen 64-bit intels by the time snow leopard is officially released. Out with the old, I say! I mean, come on - did you really think Apple would support your slow-ass Penryns forever? They don't even have Hyper-threading, the filthy savages. Nehalem is the future, we need to abandon the past!

 

[Anuba]

If PPC support is hampering performance and stability and those are your main goals why not eliminate the PPC translation/emulation as well and force developers into Intel native development to enhance performance and stability on the application end as well?

If you're asking me personally -- yeah, go ahead. No third party stuff on any of my Macs predates 2007. I have the money to keep up and I'm a typical guinea pig idjit who will install anything new no matter what it breaks.

But if Apple has any kind of ambition to add enterprises to their user base, they're gonna have to try a little harder than that, I mean... Windows not only supports 10 year old software and hardware, it will support it for at least another 10 years into the future. XP Pro will be supported and updated until 20-effing-14 when it's 13 years old. CEO's don't like to lie awake at night wondering if the company's entire machine park of 30,000 laptops will be rendered obsolete tomorrow because some guy in Cupertino called "Steve" likes to play Russian roulette. Windows may suck, but boy can that CEO sleep calmly.

And spending those kinds of resources on legacy software that incredibly ancient is exactly why Mac OS X is leaving Windows in the dust. I'd much rather have Apple working more toward the future rather than supporting something from 13 years in the past.

See above. If moving ahead constitutes "leaving in the dust", then yeah, but if you ever want to see the day that OS X has a >50% market share then Apple must take on those enterprise users who make up a huge chunk of Windows' install base. If Apple keeps up their current attitude toward legacy support, they are forever doomed to be a consumer and creative pro brand.

 

[CajunMike]

End of the PPC line



I'm not surprised at this development at all. I have a maxed-out Dual-1GHz G4, and since installing Leopard, my machine's response has become appallingly sluggish. Running iTunes, Mail, Safari and iPhoto will slow the machine to a crawl, especially when switching apps. In addition, my 2GB of RAM is almost always running about 1200-1300MB used. Pre-Leopard OS X didn't ever use this much RAM, even with a dozen apps running simultaneously.

Leopard also appears to be quite disk-intensive on the PPC platform. Maybe the code to run Leopard on PPC is not at all efficient, requiring copious VM swaps to disk, not to mention the processors simply don't have the firepower of the Intel chips.

I suspected that Leopard would be the last gasp for the PPC. Guess I'll pass my current machine to my Dad, and I'll be looking for an iMac and/or MacBook Pro.

 

[rjfiske]

It doesn't matter that it was released in April 05. It was sold as brand new top-o-the-line 7.5 months ago.



That was the last OS rev. The most recent security update for 10.4 was two weeks ago with 10.5.3. And that last OS rev (10.4.11) was two weeks after Leopard release.

As I said, your point is taken.

 

[tba03]

The requirements specifically say "Snow Leopard Developer Preview", not just "Snow Leopard".

It could mean nothing, maybe the PPC code isn't up-to-date. It could also mean that PPC is a thing of the past, like the 680x0.

I do agree that leaner code should mean faster machines, so I don't mind the drop of PPC support, even though 2/3 of my Macs are G4s (and still run Tiger anyway).

maybe since they know the dev have ntel machines to build on they don't bother with PPC at this stage (and they certanely know each and every dev machines serial numbers/specs) (not that I want PPC support, my old TiPB G4 will not even run 10.4)

 

[bosskxx1]

Jeepers!
Six pages in and finally someone is talking sense! And it's a "newbie."
I swear this forum is getting dumber and dumber ...

I have worked in tech support for years as I am sure many have and I have used computers since they first existed.

The average amount of time a user owns a computer before getting a new one or seriously upgrading the hardware is just over two years, three if it's a quality computer. This has pretty much always been the case.

While I am proud of the fact that I got 6 years out of my G4, and while Apple computers generally buck that trend and last a bit longer, to expect your 3 year old hardware to be supported is nonsense.

further stupidity to point out...

The majority of complainers are quoting "two years" as the age of computers that won't be suported... reality check folks ... by the time snow leopard is released it will be three years "plus" minimum. if you consider the announcement of the intel switch to be the marker it will be more than four years!

Finally, as several people have already pointed out, Leopard will still be supported even *after* snow leopard's release. They will likely support the old cat for at least a year after the new one comes out, so if you bought a PPC machine unknowingly just before the intel announcement, it will be five years old minimum, when "support is dropped" for it. That's a very good deal if you ask me. Especially considering that with the accelerating Mac adoption curve, PPC machines are going to be only a tiny fraction of the installed base at that point.

If the existence of a new OS called Snow Leopard that only runs on intel equates to "dropping support" then I guess they completely closed off support for Tiger when Leopard came out? And I guess Microsoft threw XP in the dustbin when Vista arrived?

Think before you post people.

Actually I am not a newbee but I don't know how to change that right now. My overall point is that supporting legacy hardware is a very big problem in the industry. I think one problem is this forum is people don't know how hard it is to support two different architectures. Apple kind of trivializes how easy it is, when it really isn't. For third party developers it is a little easier, but it is much harder for the OS X designers at Apple. Every processor architecture has its little minute differences that are associated with it. These OS programers must correct for these minute differences between PPC and x86 every time they write or improve something in OS X. Besides creating it, they also have to test on both architectures to make sure that both results are correct. This becomes very time consuming, and it cuts into the time into making optimizations in the system.
This also applies to the Carbon APIs. By not working as much on Carbon, it will make Cocoa a lot better.

But that won't necessarily make the PPC obsolete anytime soon. Just because you don't have the latest OS doesn't necessarily mean that you won't be able to run the latest software that is available for it.

 

[OldTimey]

Aye....was bound to happen!

*sheds tear for all those that will be left behind*

Nobody is getting "left behind." If someone has a PPC mac, eventually they are going to upgrade. When they do, Intel is the only option, and they'll be able to run whatever version of OSX is currently offered. It's not like PPC users are no longer mac owners or OSX users. geez. In a handful of years the first Mactels will no longer be supported...but they are still mac users (sort of)

 

[xamkil83]

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!

Your right, that is ridiculous... You did spent that $3000 on that computer three years ago or more (the same computer's that are now going for $250 - $300 on eBay), so I under stand why you would not want to buy the newest fastest computer tech that is out. So you be happy with you (OLD) PPC Mac.

The point I was trying to make though, is that Apple is still going to support PPC Macs that are running Leopard, and Tiger. So I don't see why people are complaning. They stopped using the PPC technology over three years ago, I think it is time for you to move on...

 

[xamkil83]

That Vista runs on 8 year old hardware, whereas Leopard doesn't, and Snow Leopard certainly doesn't.

So does that mean that your going to switch to Windows?