For someone who claims to know a lot about microprocessor architecture, stating that Grand Central is evidence of "scrapping" single-core Intel is downright idiotic.
You clearly cannot tell when someone is being facetious. The reason you cannot tell is because you haven't been reading anything, but skimming things just enough to write your next rant.
THAT claim was made by someone on here as proof that PPC will not be supported (i.e. Snow Leopard will require multiple cores so that leaves out PPC users). THAT was the stupid claim (I had a dual CPU G4 and there are plenty of dual and quad G5's out there so it made no sense to begin with regardless) and that was what he was pointing out again here. Just because something NEW is supported, that doesn't mean something old will not be supported.
So Apple releases an initial developer version of Snow Leopard without PPC support yet they make no announcement that PPC support has been dropped. One can either jump to either yes or no conclusions by that evidence OR they can conclude Apple either hasn't decided for certain yet and is watching for outcry versus no outcry to steer which direction they ultimately go (in which case threads like this help PPC's case).
The main point is some of us have said we DON'T KNOW if Apple has dropped it for certain or not, but that those like youself that claim is has with no uncertainty what-so-ever are simply making things up based on ONE THING and that's the first developer release for Snow Leopard doesn't have PPC support. All the rest is ranting on about how stupid the rest of us for not jumping to conclusions. Someone ranted very loudly that "OSX 10.6 will *NOT* be called "Snow Leopard" people!!!" and yet that IS what it's called. People said leaked iPhone molds were wrong. Some were wrong. Some were right. The whole point about speculation is that it's conjecture. But people like yourself don't see conjecture. You only see black and white. It's right or it's wrong. There is no conjecture. Could you give me the lottery numbers for tomorrow while you're at it?
So? You need two machines anyway.
Have you heard of Rosetta? It means an Intel owner can compile their app for PowerPC and TEST it via Rosetta on the same machine. You don't need two machines on 10.5, Captain.
Regardless, I've seen plenty of software out there that was compiled for a given OS or platform, but plainly says the author had no way to test it on that configuration so use at your own risk. Beta-testers can help there as well.
But even so, that is the main reason there is so much software for MacOSX that doesn't work on older OSX releases. There are entire sites that list compatibility by OSX version. There are already apps out there that don't support 10.4 simply because said author doesn't have 10.4 and so he doesn't CARE if it could or would work. He simply denies it to work under 10.4 and that's that. Snow Leopard will be the same way. You'll get new users that buy machines that have 10.6 on them and they, not being major corporations that care about maximizing the user base for x amount of time will simply not include support for 10.5 because they don't own 10.5 or because the first beta they posted works under 10.6, but crashes under 10.5 and they don't want to get a hold of 10.5 or open their source to fix it.
OS9 still works fine on my 1.8GHz 7448 G4, but that doesn't mean I can get software for it. Whereas, you can still get Firefox3 for Win98 (that is older than OS9). That's the difference between Mac and PC operating systems. There aren't enough users for developers to CARE on the Mac whether it supports older systems or not.
OS X and OS X iPhone are not identical.
Wow. We've got Sherlock Holmes here! Guess what? It's STILL OSX. It's not OSX Portable like Windows Mobile (which is NOT Windows). It's STILL plain old OSX with some extra unused stuff removed.
The desktop-class development seed has never and will never contain an ARM build unless some future ARM derivative becomes a desktop processor
You don't get it at all. The point is that just because Apple has or has not given you something in a developer release, that doesn't prove the claims on here that means Apple has DROPPED IT. Whether you made the claim or not is irrelevant. Those people are on your side. I've proposed that while PPC for the desktop is dead for now, it MIGHT get used in the future in either future generation iPhones (i.e. the ARM comparison) or some new gizmo yet to be released. You cannot argue against that conjecture without claiming to be a fortune teller or an inside person within Apple that can confirm they've just dropped all development for PPC period and it'll never appear anywhere ever again. Yes, those are the claims I've seen in this thread. It's gone. It's over. It's history. It's a dead weight on the backs of REAL Mac owners, etc. It's a load of BS, that's what it is.
What you TRULY have here are a bunch of selfish Intel owners that clap and shout at the idea Apple might be doing something...anything... that might make things better for THEM. Who cares about the Quad G5 buyers from two years ago who have systems that would put the average iMac owner of TODAY to SHAME. Screw them! I'm not one of them, so screw them! Ha ha! I rule the Universe! I'm Dark Helmet! Princess Apple only loves me!
(something it's not very well suited to do). PowerPC could easily be adopted in future embedded devices and OS X iPhone could easily be developed to facilitate it.
It's not easy if they drop it internally. Yes, that was a claim in this thread. See trashed helmets above.
Honestly, each time you make a claim like this, the humor value skyrockets in your admonishing of people who "don't know" what they're talking about.
Well, the first time you say something useful instead of just condescending, I'll let you know you have gloating privileges.
Who said anything about mimicry, emulation, or anything of the sort?
Well, if it wasn't you (honestly I don't feel like wasting my time looking), someone in this thread said how great it'll be to get rid of PPC code and get Intel away from optimizations that are poor imitations of Altivec (e.g. MMX, etc.). Two of us made the point that MMX, etc., has NOTHING TO DO WITH ALTIVEC other than they are similar in FUNCTION but UNRELATED IN CODE.
The whole point is dropping PPC will NOT make Intel run faster. There is NO PPC code run on an Intel Mac. It might make future install discs smaller (well unlikely as well given it fits on ONE double-sided DVD already), but that has little to do with it it running faster or having lighter requirements. I honestly believe there are people in this thread that think Intel machines are running part of the OS under Rosetta or something. It just isn't so.
Back to square one. That depends entirely on why and how the memory usage is reduced. Even neglecting specifically optimized hardware performance for a moment, if it is more efficient virtual memory management (likely, given that memory-consuming resources are largely non-executing modules), it will be hamstrung by PPC's poor bus performance. Any advantage would be eliminated and could even worsen performance (almost certainly on the G4).
MAYBE instead of making up new tripe, they could simply optimize the crap they screwed up in Leopard compared to Tiger. Or do you think something like "Spaces" rewrote the book on the MacOS and made Leopard into the memory sucking kludge it is today? No, Leopard is the first MacOSX to REALLY increase BLOAT. Snow Leopard is announced as a bloat-killing, bug-fixing update and you assume they're going to change HOW they deal with bloat and those changes will not work on slower buses and the like.... Um, yeah. Right-O-Matey!
10.2 - 10.4 (other than Spotlight) all were faster, more efficient, less bug-prone versions of OSX. 10.5 comes along and it's a bug-ridden, memory hogging piece of bloat that was rushed out the door so Apple could get back to working on iPhone 2.x, which is their new bread and butter. So now they announce that 10.6 (instead of 10.5.xx) will fix the bugs and reduce the bloat! Well, it's about time! The whole point is it NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN BLOATED TO BEGIN WITH.
Now, you can point out rightly that Microsoft gets more bloated every time it releases something. That doesn't make it good programming and that doesn't mean it HAS to happen that way. Many people were disappointed in 10.5 and that's because it went from a relatively bug-free, efficient 10.4.11 to a horribly buggered, slow, memory hogging 10.5 and gained relatively few NOTE-WORTHY features in the process. The only systems 10.4.11 systems weren't completely stable on were the Intel ones. Thus, Apple's work isn't finished and hence I'm not surprised to see them announce bug-squashing measures for Intel CPUs.
There's no certainty. There are, however, several points suggesting it and exactly zero contradictory evidence.
Exactly zero, eh? I've given a list of evidence (from buying a PPC chip maker of all things, NOT announcing no PPC suport for Snow Leopard, to several articles on the Net speculating future iPhones might be PPC based). You ignore it. You call it names. You basically have NOTHING to offer here. Given your "ZERO" claim, I'd say you can't add either.
No, there are many people who believe 10.6 will end up being universal, despite all signs pointing the other way. There's nothing wrong with that. Only some of them are whining, ranting chores. A rectangle is not a square.
Why do you CARE what some people "believe". I've said time and time again, I don't KNOW if it will or not. I'm simply contradicting the BS arguments I see on here that says it WON'T *PERIOD* and don't you dare argue with the all-knowing (insert name here). I'm here to say such people don't know squat. Their arguments are based one ONE thing only and that's the first developer release of Snow Leopard doesn't have a PPC build. From THAT *ONE* thing comes all this other speculation about where OSX is going and how those technologies couldn't work or shouldn't work or will get in the way of keeping any kind of PPC support, however unoptimized for the sake of compatibility for more than 3 years since the still highly relevant Quad-G5 was sold. And even though those multi-processing technologies and smaller memory footprint, etc. would make that quad-G5 all the more relevant for years to come, it doesn't matter. They're GONE! Why can't you stupid "believers" admit it??? I could believe Apple would do it because they make most of their money from HARDWARE and they want those G5 owners to buy a new computer regardless of whether they should have to or not because it's more money for Apple. It's why they don't release a mid-range tower. They want you to buy a new iMac every other year.
No, the difference between you and me is that I don't CARE what they believe or what you believe. I'm only interested in seeing facts, not fiction. And these dramas you keep posting about how stupid people are to not admit their beliefs are WRONG ('cuz you know it) remind me of X religions trying to force THEIR VIEWS on other religions.
Instead of asking Apple if PPC support is dead or not, you'd rather rant on about how funny it is to watch PPC users wish on a star that they weren't being abandoned when the writing is on the wall. THAT is the crutch of my entire argument here. YOU don't know the future. YOU don't know jack. But you do like to run your mouth a lot, I'll give you that.
