That cuts both ways: Apple knew they were selling those G5s too.
And that's what they did; they sold them right through the end of 2006(after Mac Pro was released), brand new, full price.
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
That cuts both ways: Apple knew they were selling those G5s too.
And that's what they did; they sold them right through the end of 2006(after Mac Pro was released), brand new, full price.
If you wanted to, you could think of Snow Leopard as Leopard for Intel done right, and that it's Intel users who have been 'ripped off' by Apple all this time.
The whole point of Snow Leopard is optimization. Why would Apple spend resources optimizing for an EOL chip? Snow Leopard won't have any new features (except Exchange support), so why would PPC owners want to buy an OS that centers solely on optimizations around an architecture they don't have?
I don't get it. As far as i can tell, unless you on rely industrial strength apps that thrive on things like threading, parallelization and memory space, PPC is alive for most users until the cat after Snow Leopard.
The whole point of Snow Leopard is optimization. Why would Apple spend resources optimizing for an EOL chip? Snow Leopard won't have any new features (except Exchange support), so why would PPC owners want to buy an OS that centers solely on optimizations around an architecture they don't have?
I don't get it. As far as i can tell, unless you on rely industrial strength apps that thrive on things like threading, parallelization and memory space, PPC is alive for most users until the cat after Snow Leopard.
Ummm, it didn't seem to be stretching them thin when nobody knew they had x86 versions of every version of OS X running in a secret lab.
Really Apple has brought this upon themselves; although the only serious reason they "HAD" to switch to Intel was the fact that IBM did not deliver on a low-power high performance laptop chip. Intel has been slobbering over an Apple deal for so long it is no wonder they have a devoted team giving regular rectal exams to Mr. Jobs. The die-hard Wintel geeks must really be throbbing when Apple seems to get new hardware from Intel first.
-mark
They weren't developing the iPhone at that time, either.
Right now, Apple is keeping OS X running on: ARM, PPC and x86. That's a tremendous amount of work.
Also, there's a monumental difference between secretly making sure every version of Mac OS X ran on x86 hardware and it actually being useable.
It's not like Mac OS X has always been at the state where they could just install it on an Intel machine and go. Before Mac OS X 10.0, NEXTSTEP was running on x86 machines. The Unix underpinnings (FreeBSD) in every version of Mac OS X have been primarily developed for x86 machines.
In all likely hood, one or two core OS team members would make sure any Apple specific code clean compiled without any endian issues under x86 and then package it all together. That's it. That's not very time consuming, because it's not active development.
iPhone runs on a StrongARM processor.
I won't even dignify the rest of your post with a response.
Don't let the door hit you? Would you like a tissue? I mean, what do you want us to say? Bye, I guess.
Edit: If that's the case, my apologies. I just hate when these threads devolve into people pulling the hey, I'm leaving the platform if they do this crap. If you're going to do it, just do it. Tell Apple, but don't tell us, because honestly, we don't care.
VVVVV
I think s/he means that it will be the last one available to purchase (since s/he is on a PPC) not because they are having a bitch fit.
It was nothing personal, just business. Anyone buying a PowerMac in 2006 knew about the transition, at least I would hope someone spending that much on a pro machine would be well informed.
Always pushing ahead
Expected. Apple has had a track record of pushing the envelop in just about everything they do. This Snow Leopard is no exception.
let's face it, the only way to really improve performance is to garner the full benefit of multiple cores and multiple processors in a single system.
The software around today for using all the cores/processors efficiently is sadly lacking in many areas.
Intel's future multicores will be here soon but much of the software to fully use them efficiently just isn't around.
The programmers in general need a big helping hand to start coding with parallel processing or multi threaded Apps. They will need training and I expect Apple has this in mind and Snow Leopard should serve as a catalyst for this learning and doing activity.
The general High Performance Computing community is well aware of the programmer roadblock to fully use parallel processing as they struggle every day to get more and more performance out of the current multicore systems.
Go for it Apple..... take the lead and run with it..... others WILL follow, I'm sure of it.
Expected. Apple has had a track record of pushing the envelop in just about everything they do. This Snow Leopard is no exception.
let's face it, the only way to really improve performance is to garner the full benefit of multiple cores and multiple processors in a single system.
The software around today for using all the cores/processors efficiently is sadly lacking in many areas.
Intel's future multicores will be here soon but much of the software to fully use them efficiently just isn't around.
The programmers in general need a big helping hand to start coding with parallel processing or multi threaded Apps. They will need training and I expect Apple has this in mind and Snow Leopard should serve as a catalyst for this learning and doing activity.
The general High Performance Computing community is well aware of the programmer roadblock to fully use parallel processing as they struggle every day to get more and more performance out of the current multicore systems.
Go for it Apple..... take the lead and run with it..... others WILL follow, I'm sure of it.
I'll just put my neck on the line and guess that within the next 30 years they might upgrade to a new computer... and will have probably bought a new OS by that point too.
Agreed. If you can do right now what you need to, then what's the problem anyway?
But as quoted above, the only advantages are featureless; it's performance.
Maybe Apple should include the currect PPC code of Leopard in the DVD and then have a tickbox when you install it.
"Choose your processor"
Choose PPC, get the 10.5.X code for PPC, only. Your system may run quicker without the Intel code (no idea on this).
Choose Intel, get 10.6.0 and your system runs a little faster because there's no PPC code and it's optimised for your processor.
The placebo works.
Agreed. If you can do right now what you need to, then what's the problem anyway?
But as quoted above, the only advantages are featureless; it's performance.
Maybe Apple should include the currect PPC code of Leopard in the DVD and then have a tickbox when you install it.
"Choose your processor"
Choose PPC, get the 10.5.X code for PPC, only. Your system may run quicker without the Intel code (no idea on this).
Choose Intel, get 10.6.0 and your system runs a little faster because there's no PPC code and it's optimised for your processor.
The placebo works.
Perhaps they would like to have a version of OS X that is Carbon Free and Pure Cocoa. The same OS that was promised back in 1997. It sure was annoying explaining to everyone what Carbon is and how us NeXT folks were going to show how Cocoa was better.
It's only taken 11 years.
I like the people that say that if you bought a Quad/Dual G5 in 2006, your an idiot.
Do you guys not remember what it was like back then? The pro apps were barely intel compatible, Adobe hadn't come out with an Intel Optimized version of their apps, and there wasn't many companies at all with Universal Versions of their apps.
I witnessed lots of editors opt for the Quad G5 instead of waiting it out for the rumored Mac Pro, simply because the software wasn't ready for Intel yet.
Do you guys not remember what it was like back then? The pro apps were barely intel compatible, Adobe hadn't come out with an Intel Optimized version of their apps, and there wasn't many companies at all with Universal Versions of their apps.
I witnessed lots of editors opt for the Quad G5 instead of waiting it out for the rumored Mac Pro, simply because the software wasn't ready for Intel yet.
I can see release day of OS 10.6, we have obtained speed increases across the board from 5-58% and all it required was to remove PPC code.
BS, I call. If the speeds increase across the board is less than 60% then I say what really is the point. PPC and Intel version of Mac OS 10 were create alongside for years, the same can occur presently till 10.7 is released. 10.6 whose be a phase-in period of intel and a phase-out of PPC, not to scrap PPC completely leaving the G5 with the shortest lifespan.
affair indeed on 
part.And this is coming from someone without a PPC Mac anymore.
If you and the other G5 owners who bought in 2006 are thinking of a class-action, you have my support to send
a message. That your argument for snow leopard might burn out old machines... the fans could be clogged, which has nothing to do with the operating system?!?!
I think we're all jumping to conclusions here. Sure, dropped PPC support is a believable possibility, considering the current requirements, but I choose not to jump to the conclusion that it will be in the final requirements.
I think dropping PPC support is inevitable, of course, and not necessarily a bad thing. I think concentrating on tuning for and supporting the newer architecture is good. But I think one year from now is too soon. I feel there needs to be at least one more PPC-supported OS release.
At this point, all my Macs are Intel, and there are lots of Mac users who have gone Intel since the transition began. But, that does not excuse Apple from having to support customers who bought Macs less than 5 years ago. I think this should be the minimum of support.
Sure, Snow Leopard does not immediately make Leopard users obsolete, but it does start to limit what the user can do, and while it may not matter for most users, in general Power Mac users are pros who (rightfully) expect to be able to do everything, run everything and get every bit they can out of their Macs. When Snow Leopard only apps start popping up, that won't be the case anymore.
But again, this is merely a possibility at this point. I'll hold my judgment for the official announcement.
I think dropping PPC support is inevitable, of course, and not necessarily a bad thing. I think concentrating on tuning for and supporting the newer architecture is good. But I think one year from now is too soon. I feel there needs to be at least one more PPC-supported OS release.
At this point, all my Macs are Intel, and there are lots of Mac users who have gone Intel since the transition began. But, that does not excuse Apple from having to support customers who bought Macs less than 5 years ago. I think this should be the minimum of support.
Sure, Snow Leopard does not immediately make Leopard users obsolete, but it does start to limit what the user can do, and while it may not matter for most users, in general Power Mac users are pros who (rightfully) expect to be able to do everything, run everything and get every bit they can out of their Macs. When Snow Leopard only apps start popping up, that won't be the case anymore.
But again, this is merely a possibility at this point. I'll hold my judgment for the official announcement.
QFT
Apple has the opportunity to take a lead in this area: providing an OS that can exploit the multi-core Intel CPUs, GPUs and maybe even things like the Cell chip (or any other CPUs/hardware that might find themselves in Apple products).
They also have the opportunity to create and deliver developer tools to 3rd-parties so they (the 3rd-parties) can do the same for their products.
Given the above, the Apple platform would be the obvious choice for those developers and users, alike, who are seeking the best available solutions.
This is an opportunity to set the standard...
Seconding bsx: Go for it Apple!
We have 3 Intel Macs and 6 PPC Macs and use Pro Apps. My point is, that most people will replace a computer (or several) to take advantage of a new OS or app that justifies the replacement. This does not mean you need to replace everything, every time something new is announced.
The way I see it, they still have Leopard for PPC and eventually they will have Snow Leopard for Intel Macs only, so both platforms will be supported with a working version of Leopard for quite some time.
It might not be until three years from now that they release a further operating system and become truly 'Intel only', leaving PPC behind. By then most PPC owners may well want (or be able to afford) an upgrade to Intel Macs.
This is an interim period and it seems to me to be the right time to be doing this.*
*Although, it's easy for me to say that, as I've just bought a shiny new Mac Pro. However, I won't be dashing out to get Snow Leopard anyway, because Leopard works just fine for me right now.
It might not be until three years from now that they release a further operating system and become truly 'Intel only', leaving PPC behind. By then most PPC owners may well want (or be able to afford) an upgrade to Intel Macs.
This is an interim period and it seems to me to be the right time to be doing this.*
*Although, it's easy for me to say that, as I've just bought a shiny new Mac Pro. However, I won't be dashing out to get Snow Leopard anyway, because Leopard works just fine for me right now.
I couldn't agree more. It was not until CS3 was out for a couple of months that I bought my first intel mac, the iMac in my sig. Until that the point was: Why get a new system when CS2 (my main work software) won't run a great deal faster than on my PowerBook and crash more often?
Apart from that, everybody seems to go "well lets just cut off the old stuff". So, why not make 10.6 intel AND 64 bit only? Let's just screw those idiots who bought first gen MacBook Pros, MacBooks and iMacs. They knew 64 bit intel chips were around the corner and still bought their old tech crap. Or even better, lets make it intel, 64 bit AND quad core only, after all, we know quad core mobile chips are coming in 2009, so aren't we all who bought any Mac except the Mac Pro just plain dumb?
Who finds sarcasm can keep it.
Did you ever think for ONE MOMENT that there's MORE to optimizing an OS than the particular CPU involved? Unless Apple is making Snow Leopard in assembly language, I would imagine MOST of their optimizations have to do with general code optimization which pretty much works across all CPU platforms. And in case you hadn't noticed, OSX is made for more than just Intel CPUs today (i.e. guess what, the MAIN reason they want to optimize it is so they can squeeze more efficiency, power and use less resources on the iPhone and iPod Touch, which in case you didn't know, are running OSX Leopard). Oops! There goes most of your argument.
Personally, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the final version of Snow Leopard will drop PowerPC support. Indications are that the hooks are still in the system. Just because a beta build doesn't include support, that doesn't mean it won't work in the end. It may not be 'as optimized' as the other CPUs, but that doesn't mean it won't be present when it ships.
I'm guessing they want a new 10.6 designation because it will play some integral part in their gizmo and they want to stress how improved it will be. Personally, I'd like to see an integrated Apple car computer system--part iPod, part navigation system, part iPhone and part car computer interface. You could EASILY load the thing up with data, updates and music in your own garage across your own WiFi network even. You wouldn't have to use any discs, memory sticks, iPods or laptops to transfer data to it. Given that technology is coming to the forefront in the automotive industry, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that's where Apple shows up next, shipping WITH certain new car lines. I believe there was already some mention in the past about Apple working with that industry. A meaner, leaner OSX means a faster, better operating system in that environment with less costs per unit involved. There's also the question of what CPU such a system would use (the iPhone uses a 620MHz ARM CPU, for example, not an Intel CPU. For all we know such a system could use the next generation PPC chip.
Look at which semi-conductor company Apple just bought and what they previously made. Here's a hint, it was PowerPC!!!). People are PUZZLED why they would buy a company that specializes in PowerPC chips when they apparently got out of that business...or did they? What chip would be easier to develop for in the future that does NOT use a chip that could be made to run Windows? PowerPC would be protection against a car maker switching mobile operating systems if they heavily invested in their current lineup with an incompatible CPU whereas Apple's OS can run on ANY of them. Think about that for a moment. Is PowerPC support dead? I don't personally believe so. I think they're planning on using it in their next generation product and I think that product is autoMOBILE technology. Imagine a Lexus running OSX and the things it could do for you while you're on a trip, for example.
There's also the possibility that iPhone 3.0 will switch from ARM to PowerPC. And if OSX is truly maintained internally to be optmized for BOTH Intel and PowerPC platforms, if the CPU curve ever went the other way again, Apple could easily reintroduce a desktop using it again with ill-effect because the OS already fully supports it. Linux can run on a LOT of CPUs. Maybe Apple is thinking to the future NOW so it'll be ready to ship THEN.
In any case, if people want to ENSURE Snow Leopard continues to support PowerPC (even if less optmized than Intel in the end), they should raise as big a stink as possible with Apple NOW when it's not too late to add/retain it.
Good opportunity
Don't you think it makes sound financial sense for Apple to do this?
When they made the switch to Intel that is their lowest spec intel machine they need to support. It's a dual core based system that sets the bar relatively high in terms of legacy hardware support for an OS. I think Microsoft would love to have the chance to clear out all old hardware and be able to develop exclusively for more modern architectures. IT's one of the key issues they're having with Vista.
I think it will really allow them to open a gap against Microsoft in performance terms, which will ultimately drive sales of new machines.
They will keep providing regular updates for bug-fixing / performance improvements for Leopard so older machines will still be supported, so there's little likelihood of them becoming obsolete in the next 2 or 3 years.
Sounds like a smart move to me.
Don't you think it makes sound financial sense for Apple to do this?
When they made the switch to Intel that is their lowest spec intel machine they need to support. It's a dual core based system that sets the bar relatively high in terms of legacy hardware support for an OS. I think Microsoft would love to have the chance to clear out all old hardware and be able to develop exclusively for more modern architectures. IT's one of the key issues they're having with Vista.
I think it will really allow them to open a gap against Microsoft in performance terms, which will ultimately drive sales of new machines.
They will keep providing regular updates for bug-fixing / performance improvements for Leopard so older machines will still be supported, so there's little likelihood of them becoming obsolete in the next 2 or 3 years.
Sounds like a smart move to me.