The last PowerMac G5s had lots of I/O capability too. Unless you're just running integer or floating point CPU crunching, I would imagine a PowerMac G5 with enough memory would beat most any of the Intel laptops for anything involving memory, disk or network access.
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
The point remains the same, if you can't afford the hardware required to run the new OS then buy new hardware or get over it, and live with (Oh, god no!!) a stable and fine OS.
If this rumor remains "true" I agree with Abstract that it will be an intel only upgrade, about about $50-$75.
The lawsuit is about new computers that had stickers saying 'Vista Capable' on them, and then turned out not to be able to run the new GUI. E-mail evidence shows MS knew this, and did it anyway to please Intel, whose older integrated chipsets can't run Aero. Vista still runs on those computers, just without the GUI effects.
OS X Leopard does the same thing with the transparent menu bar on older G4s, but they never sold those G4s as Leopard-Capable.
I totally agree. One of the main arguments they presented users on their get-a-mac page was that a mac would not get obsolete in less than five years. I know that not running 10.6 does not necessarily mean being obsolete, but it goes towards being so. I really hope they give us PPC users one more OS before dropping support.
Well it's pretty much impossible unless you take out the fan or overclock your CPU.
...or the fan is clogged which happens on older computers, which ppcs are. Sorry it happens.
I agree.
All my games are running smoother on my PowerMac G5 compared to my almost one year old iMac.
Doom 3 and same engine games => slower on the Intel iMac
Older games like UT2K4 or Halo (all universal) => slower on the Intel iMac
The G5 is a great CPU you know
. And a dual (core or proc) PowerMac G5 with 8Gb (or more) of RAM, a 1.35Ghz Bus and a ATI X800XT AGP8x card is in real live at least as fast as my almost one year old Intel iMac C2D 2.16Ghz with a PCIe X1600 card.It's like when Apple switched processors, the PPC G5 is a bad and old CPU. In fact it's still a very good, very fast, 64 bits RISC processor. It's still a prefered CPU for many research projects because of it's architecture. In fact many specialists would agree that the PPC architecture is far superior compared to the Intel architecture. If you use scientific programs well written for the G5 architecture, this CPU will outperforme many of todays competition... Not bad for a "dead" CPU.
And for all those who are saying or claiming the PPC is dead. It's alive and running leopard on the fly
.The Intel switch is not the first big switch from Apple
. And it will also not be the last one . You can count on that .That's correct in that today's platform is totally different from seven years ago. You might have got a hint from the build numbers and from XNU/Darwin's kernel numbering that there won't be a 'version 11' of MacOS. Today's MacOS X is an evolved NeXTSTEP, which officially topped at version 4.2. The internal builds reflect this operating system ancestry, in the same way that Vista is just MSOS/2/NT 6 and XP was just release 5.1 of Windows NT.
So Rhapsody/MacOS X Cheetah/Puma was NS5, Jaguar was NS6, Panther NS7, Tiger NS8, Leopard NS9, and Snow Leopard NS10.
The X stands for Unix. Yes, they pronounce it ten, but it's just for marketing purposes since it rolls off the tongue much better than ecs.
Those who remember the 90s also know that Mac OS 8 and 9 were just an up-to-date Macintosh System 7.5 with a marketing name and some of the minor under-the-hood and interface features that were part of the failed Copland/Gershwin development project.
The version of OS X after Snow Leopard might have an altogether different name, since they've just got to version 10 of NS and GrandCentral and OpenCL, plus ZFS in the server version, seem to point to major changes in the way the kernel works; though as well as it might not, and go to Mac OS X 10.9, which would be at the current rate of OS development 7-8 years ahead of now.
What's for sure is they've forked the user interface: they've got the kernel and core services and libraries and media layers shared by the OS X iPhone and Mac OS X, everything else is so different because it has different purposes and hardware (and architecture, since the iPhone has an ARM processor). Eventually, laptops as we now them today might disappear and be replaced by distributed devices with the touch features and frameworks of OS X iPhone.
Apologies if this has already been posted...
No PPC...I guess that means we won't see future versions of OS X on the XBox
No PPC...I guess that means we won't see future versions of OS X on the XBox
another $129 thankyouverymuch.
Where did you see a price posted? Oh, you made it up.
Actually, there are quite a few radical changes. First, the new stuff - Exchange support, OpenCL, for example. Then the complete rewrite to be able to benefit from > 4 cores. Overall streamlining. Quicktime X. Overall, it's probably as time consuming an upgrade as Leopard, even if it doesn't look like it from the surface.
However, few of those are going to be of any benefit to PPC users (Exchange support, perhaps). So dropping PPC isn't really hurting them much.
If Snow Leopard were coming out today, that would be true. Instead, it's 'about a year' away - which means the newest PPC machines will be 3.5 years old - which is quite a few computer generations.
As for lazy and flawed, how many computer software projects of this size have you run?
It was 3 years ago. Not any more. The world moves on.
And dropping G4 without dropping G5 wouldn't save anything. Dropping PPC reduces the work required by 50%. Dropping G4 wouldn't save much at all.
Apple has been releasing new versions of OS X every 18-24 months. This one will be on schedule. And as a G5 user, I'm not annoyed at all. I'll just leave the G5 on Leopard and move the other machines to Snow Leopard.
That's a silly argument. Macs running Mac OS 6 can work happily on a network with Leopard machines, as well. Why do you think that's going to change with Snow Leopard?
Except that supporting PPC doubles the workload. Supporting 32 bit in addition to 64 bit doesn't add much work at all. Plus, the 32 bit Intel machines are even newer than the PPC machines. Can you imagine the whining if Snow Leopard didn't run on a computer that will be 2 years old at the time?
I spent $3000 on my fully loaded final revision powerbook in late 2005 and this is the thanks I get; only 1 os upgrade before being ditched.
I don't have the kind of money on hand to buy another computer for some time, and why would I, this thing runs great. It would be nice to get the same upgrades as everyone else seeing as my system is more than capable of handling it...
how the hell do the rest of you afford to replace your systems so damn often? My applecare hasn't even ran out yet and I'm already being told my computer wont be supported much longer.
I don't have the kind of money on hand to buy another computer for some time, and why would I, this thing runs great. It would be nice to get the same upgrades as everyone else seeing as my system is more than capable of handling it...
how the hell do the rest of you afford to replace your systems so damn often? My applecare hasn't even ran out yet and I'm already being told my computer wont be supported much longer.
I'm really not understanding why people are thinking this. At this point Rosetta is for older applications that are not ported and won't be ported. Why do they need to continue PPC support in Mac OS X to keep Rosetta?
It's not unreasonable to assume that it'll be US$129. The last 4 upgrades have been... haven't they?
Your comment shows that you don't understand what universal binaries are or how they work. All you will get is reduced size.
The only downfall to supporting multiple architectures is the added development time. But in reality Apple is supporting three at the moment; PPC, Intel and ARM for the iPhone.
The sad part is Apple basically overnight has led people to believe that they have forgotten how to code for PPC. The future progresses; but I find it really hard to believe that the G5 is "slacking" as much as Apple would lead people to believe.
I've played on Mac Pros a lot in the stores; and although I know for heavy crunching it will lay waste to my G5, the overall fact is that for general purpose computing it isn't all that much faster; which in turn is probably what Apple is trying to fix with the announcement of Snow Leopard. But hey, multiple cores is multiple cores; and most G5 systems have more than one core. It isn't like Intel SMP is radically different than IBM SMP; SMP is SMP and those who own such systems should get the benefit of Apples endeavors in my opinion.
-mark
Let's look at your arguments:
1. Why are you comparing a fast destkop system to a laptop? Even so, by most tests the Core2 is faster than the G5 ever was.
2. The G5 systems are 64 bit in all essential respects. How does failure to offer them 10.6 change that?
3. Dropping PPC support will not make Intel systems faster, true. But if they can allocate twice as many engineers to the Intel systems because they're not needed on PPC, it will certainly make a difference.
4. You state that 2-3 years of 'shelf life' should be OK for specialized pro level systems. What do you think the quad G5s were when they came out? You just wiped out your whole argument.
I spent $3000 on my fully loaded final revision powerbook in late 2005 and this is the thanks I get; only 1 os upgrade before being ditched.
I don't have the kind of money on hand to buy another computer for some time, and why would I, this thing runs great. It would be nice to get the same upgrades as everyone else seeing as my system is more than capable of handling it...
how the hell do the rest of you afford to replace your systems so damn often? My applecare hasn't even ran out yet and I'm already being told my computer wont be supported much longer.
In late 2005 you should have been well aware of the Intel transition announced in the middle of the year. The "Intel PowerBook" was even announced in early November of 2005.
This coming from someone who is probably playing on their X-Box right now.
-mark
HA! Yeah, I wonder how many people realize that PowerPC is the brains behind all the current-generation game consoles.