Mac OS X Snow Leopard Drops PowerPC Support

[noob job]

Until 10.5 is EOL'd ppc still has support so ffs ****.

If you bought ppc after intel announcement you knew you were buying a dead platform and by the time of 10.5 EOL you probably got 5 years so quit whining.

Yes, because Apple NEVER announces and then doesn't deliver.

Dead platform? Installed base vs new platform. Yes, I should have rushed out and bought an intel machine right away, because all my goodies would have worked so perfectly with it.

P.S. Keep the swearing to yourself junior. (What are you twelve?)

 

[heisetax]

10.5 doesn't work for many anyway, why shuld PPC Users have to suffer like Intel User

While I understand that for simplifying and speeding up the OS, intel support only could streamline the whole thing, I can't help but feel like a number of G5 owners who had gotten tired of waiting for CS3 will feel ... a small tinge of outrage?

Leopard won't run for over 15 minutes on my Intel Mac Pro, so I have no need for Snow Leopard or anything after that. It actually runs better on my PPC PowerBook. I guess that I'll be running Mac OS 10.4.11 until my software requires more.

Knowing the way that Steve Jobs stops support for still good & useful technology, I was surprised that 10.5 was designed to run on the great PPC Mac. Other than running Windows software, I like my PPC Macs better than my Intel Mac Pro. I can run my 4 displays on my G4 PPC PowerMac just as well as on my Intel Mac. In fact with the problems that my ATI video card has, I would welcome back my other G4 PPC PowerMac.

I have always had my copy of the new Mac OS here the day that it went on sale. After the uselessness of Mac OS 10.5 on any of my systems Apple will have to prove its usefulness of their new OSes before I purchase them. Much of their software is falling into the clas that MS has had such a tight grip on. i.e. Software that you need to get your job done, but not really ready for prime time use or sometimes any use.

I have liked my Macs for the past 24 years. But Steve Jobs tight control of things have messed up many of our Macs. This just seems to be another case in his long history of stopping a usable technology when another technology comes along.

Now will Apple surprise me & produce a new operating system that works. Maybe like MS when they were a year late in updating Virtual PC that their reason for the delay was that it proved to be much more difficult than they could handle. Has Apple gotten to that point? The lack of PPC support seems to indicate so.

PPC Macs over Intel Macs
Bill the TaxMan

 

[iJed]

As previous people have said, OS X is pretty much fully optimized for PPC Mac's. However, it really isn't on the Intel side.

My bet is that OS X on PPC can probably still be optimised a lot more than on x86.

1. GCC for x86 is likely to be a lot more mature than GCC for PPC
2. NeXTSTEP had years of x86 optimisation before being ported to PPC
3. The Mach-O binary format is more suited to x86 than PPC
4. The BSD components that make up Mac OS X were mostly written for and optimised on x86

 

[nick9191]

Seems like the minimum specs havent changed much from Mac OS X Leopard (10.5)

They've streamlined the whole thing, technically the min specs should be lower. I guess they've set it at 512mb since even the earliest Intel Macs all had at least 512mb.

 

[heisetax]

Which may be better than many of the Intel Macs

Complainers: please try to remember that your PPC computer will continue to work as it always has. This is for the benefit of all and the advancement of the OS.

I tried.

But many of these people like to keep their software current. When programs have requirements for the latest OS & that OS doesn't support the PPC, the software developer suddenly has a smaller market, just as the PPC User has a smaller choice of new software. This may be a win for Apple in someways, but in otherways it will only result in resentment & loss of sales to the many, many PPC Mac owners. Having both PPC & Intel Macs, I will think many times before I would purchase software that will only run on some of my computers. The OS is also in that group. There are more people in this group besides me.

The Mac software developer that wants to serve the largest market will be forced to not use items that require the new OS. This means less software for all of us.

Bill the TaxMan

 

[castlema]

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.

That is exactly what I meant. I have my G5 and I do not plan on spending money on a new computer until this one no longer works for me. Not everyone needs to have the latest and greatest all the time. Apple (it appears) is making a business decision about processor support and I in turn am making a business decision that I am not going to but new hardware just to run a new operating system.

Don't assume everyone is emotionally invested in the tools they use.

 

[unwinded]

Leopard won't run for over 15 minutes on my Intel Mac Pro, so I have no need for Snow Leopard or anything after that. It actually runs better on my PPC PowerBook. I guess that I'll be running Mac OS 10.4.11 until my software requires more.

Knowing the way that Steve Jobs stops support for still good & useful technology, I was surprised that 10.5 was designed to run on the great PPC Mac. Other than running Windows software, I like my PPC Macs better than my Intel Mac Pro. I can run my 4 displays on my G4 PPC PowerMac just as well as on my Intel Mac. In fact with the problems that my ATI video card has, I would welcome back my other G4 PPC PowerMac.

I have always had my copy of the new Mac OS here the day that it went on sale. After the uselessness of Mac OS 10.5 on any of my systems Apple will have to prove its usefulness of their new OSes before I purchase them. Much of their software is falling into the clas that MS has had such a tight grip on. i.e. Software that you need to get your job done, but not really ready for prime time use or sometimes any use.

I have liked my Macs for the past 24 years. But Steve Jobs tight control of things have messed up many of our Macs. This just seems to be another case in his long history of stopping a usable technology when another technology comes along.

Now will Apple surprise me & produce a new operating system that works. Maybe like MS when they were a year late in updating Virtual PC that their reason for the delay was that it proved to be much more difficult than they could handle. Has Apple gotten to that point? The lack of PPC support seems to indicate so.

PPC Macs over Intel Macs
Bill the TaxMan

Please tell me you're joking? Won't run for over 15 minutes? PPC Macs over Intel Macs? Runs better on your PPC PowerBook? The weakest Intel Mac they sell right now (The Mini) running in all-Rosetta mode (if that were even possible) would outperform your G4 PowerBook.

Why do the PowerPC guys have something against Intel. I don't have anything against PowerPC. Apparently that architecture works great in game consoles. And my PowerPC iMac runs Panther quite well.

 

[peharri]

Doesn't make much sense to me

This will do nothing to "streamline" the OS. Despite being on the same disk, and occasionally being installed together ("fat binaries") the two code bases are essentially separate. Your CPU will only ever run Intel or PPC code when running any native Mac OS X system module. The best I can offer is that it might make installing the OS fractionally quicker, and mean less CDs will be involved - but then doesn't Leopard install from a single DVD anyway - because there are no fat binaries to copy.

The only PPC related hack Apple can do that really would streamline Leopard would be to remove the Rosetta code. But, then, I doubt it comes into play anyway.

Apple could drop support for some CPUs ensuring end users of the remaining supported architectures benefit, but "all PowerPC" is not one of them. Apple could, for example, drop G3/G4 support, or Core Duo (32 bit) support. That way the Intel binaries would be optimal for the remaining Intel machines, and the G5 binaries would be optimal for the G5.

Realistically, the only REAL benefit to this is that Apple gets to throw away testing for a bunch of platforms and therefore can spend more time on fixing bugs for the platforms that are left. That's it. Don't kid yourself: this isn't about making Mac OS X "teh snappy", it's about reducing development costs and focussing development on other areas. It's sad, I think it's premature, but then I never did like Apple's decision to become a PC clone maker (albeit with a better OS than Microsoft's) anyway.

 

[heisetax]

Price

I'm not surprised. Sounds like Snow Leopard is going to be an Intel Optimised version of Leopard, instead of a new OS.

Does this mean that this will be a free update? Those that believe that are safe to hold their breath. The rest of us can save our money by not purchasing something that will not support our very good PPCs.

Bill the TaxMan

 

[heisetax]

Why Snow?

why named snow?

Because this is just another Steve Jobs "Snow Job."

Bill the TaxMan

 

[noob job]

Because this is just another Steve Jobs "Snow Job."

Bill the TaxMan

HAHAHAHAHAHA! I LOVE IT!

"OS X - SNOW JOB only $129.00"

 

[sk8ordie]

I could care less, I still run OSX 10.3.9

 

[heisetax]

10.5 has how much needed space?

I thought Snow leopard was suppose to have a small footprint, save you hard drive space for your photos etc, seems you need to have 9 gigs spare.

I know nowadays you can pick up a 500gig drive for £60, but I assumed it had a much smaller install than that?
I suppose its a pre-beta(?) so we maybe things will change.

10.5 only uses 6.9 GB or less space. This seems to be a big increase for something that is to be no new features & support for only a small part of the MAC Base.

Bill the TaxMan

 

[Manic Mouse]

This is exactly why i think they shouldn't drop support for the PPC just yet. I think they could drop Snow Leapord support for the G4s, but not the G5s. Apple, as i can remember, did advertise the G5's as a 64 bit system, but still haven't put out a 64 bit OS; and i don't think that they should drop support for the G5s until they do.

It wouldn't be worth Apple's time developing the OS for G5's alone, since G5 Macs make up a small proportion of the userbase.

 

[napabar]

Because this is just another Steve Jobs "Snow Job."

Bill the TaxMan

Funny. I'd like to see you do what he's accomplished in the last decade.

Steve Job's "tight" control as you phrased it has pushed the Mac forward, cutting loose old and outdated technologies. Let's face it, before he returned, Apple was not very good at cutting the fat loose. Was it cool that a Mac Plus could run System, 7.5.5? Yes. Was it practical? Hell no!

Apple has been through a few transitions in the past few years, and they slowly cutting the fat out with new OS releases. First no Classic, then no PPC, next up, no Carbon, Rosetta, and 32-bit. They are moving to a unified environment for Macs, and I couldn't be happier. A golden age for Macs is on the horizon.

 

[noob job]

Funny. I'd like to see you do what he's accomplished in the last decade.

If he had the same cool-aid drinking fanatics behind him, he probably could.

FYI - Apple is a BUSINESS, whose job it is to make money...period!

 

[napabar]

Funny. I'd like to see you do what he's accomplished in the last decade.

If he had the same cool-aid drinking fanatics behind him, he probably could.

FYI - Apple is a BUSINESS, whose job it is to make money...period!

The fanatics were there when Apple was loosing a billion a quarter. They weren't enough to save Apple. You need new users, and Steve has provided that in spades.

 

[napabar]

It wouldn't be worth Apple's time developing the OS for G5's alone, since G5 Macs make up a small proportion of the userbase.

Exactly! Thanks for some sanity! Remember folks, there was no G5 PowerBook or iBook, which accounted for over half of Apple's sales. There was no G5 Mac Mini. There was no G5 eMac.

The G5 has a VERY small user base, made up primarily of late iMac owners. The Power Mac Towers are profitable, but small in numbers.

 

[noob job]

Exactly! Thanks for some sanity! Remember folks, there was no G5 PowerBook or iBook, which accounted for over half of Apple's sales. There was no G5 Mac Mini. There was no G5 eMac.

EXACTLY!

They were ALL G4's at the time!

MUCH, MUCH larger installed base than intel!

 

[Manic Mouse]

EXACTLY!

They were ALL G4's at the time!

MUCH, MUCH larger installed base than intel!

Really? I'm not so sure. Anyway, Apple don't develop their OS to sell software. They develop it to sell hardware.

 

[noob job]

They develop it to sell hardware.

THANK YOU!

My point exactly. This is not to stablize the OS or any of the other BS. It is to drive hardware sales. Plain and simple.

 

[napabar]

EXACTLY!

They were ALL G4's at the time!

MUCH, MUCH larger installed base than intel!

But, almost all the people clamoring for 10.6 to keep PPC support are talking about G5's. It's seems almost a consensus among that crowd that G4 would be dropped with 10.6.

 

[heisetax]

Windows vs Mac vs Age

According to the web archive you could still purchase a powerPC full line of Mac computer through the first quarter 2006.

Do you stop making a OS that works for machines that are 2.5 years old, especially for Mac hardware?

I mean for god-sakes Vista will run; like crap, on a much older machine.

I find this lazy, and flawed.

I still prefer the architecture of the powerPC and find it more efficient. If they could only get the chip heat down for a laptop sized G5 it would be a different world.

Buy a new Widows machine & it may run under Windows 98, Windows 2000 for sure. Buy a new Mac & you need 10.5.whatever it was when the machine came out. If MS wrote a good OS for the rest of us, then they would have it all over the Mac system. Even with this said there are many computer users that believe that Windows is a better OS than the Mac OS. Things like this makes them even more correct in their minds.

I've purchased Macs for 24 years & have never purchased a Windows only machine.

Bill the TaxMan

 

[atszyman]

Really? I'm not so sure. Anyway, Apple don't develop their OS to sell software. They develop it to sell hardware.

If the OS they release only runs on maybe half of their install base, I wouldn't expect any developer to actually use that OS for their development due to the limited market for the subsequent software sales.

So they develop the OS to sell the hardware, but it's also in their interest that if the OS is faster/more stable that it is also available on as many computers as possible so that software gets developed for that OS to take advantage of the speed and stability. If no one will write software for it, it's no longer a selling point and people will actually "upgrade to an older more familiar user experience."

 

[napabar]

THANK YOU!

My point exactly. This is not to stablize the OS or any of the other BS. It is to drive hardware sales. Plain and simple.

And you drive hardware sales by having a smooth and stable OS, with a common development environment.

Besides, most of Apple's explosive Mac sales have been since the Intel transition. It's not like it's been a sales failure and they're trying to goose it along....