They can't... Rosetta can't function without the PPC binaries.
Which is why I am horribly confused as to why they would drop PPC now when you still need to build PPC apps/libs for Rosetta to continue to function.
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
They can't... Rosetta can't function without the PPC binaries.
Which is why I am horribly confused as to why they would drop PPC now when you still need to build PPC apps/libs for Rosetta to continue to function.
No one who is thinking clearly buys the first version of a new hardware architecture. And besides, it's not going to surprise me if Apple's next step is 64-bit only, and those who did buy those first 32-bit Intel systems find that 10.7 won't run on them.
Yeah, it's definitely stupid to take Apple at its word on these things.
If it'll drop ppc support why applications are still universal??? (screenshot from developer preview)
Because they are refining the base OS and not the apps initially. Once they finish the development tool tweaks they can recompile the apps to trim the PPC fat.
Boot Camp Assistant on my Mac shows up as Universal, but I cannot run it on a PPC Mac, note that it states Intel on your sample screen shot..
2008-2005 equals 3 years. So your machine will be supported for the "promised" years.
why are people cracking on about 10.6 just being a performance update, and 10.7 will be the new os x to bring new features, etc.
i say, after 10.6, bring on OS 11!
i say, after 10.6, bring on OS 11!
The amount of whining on here is ridiculous.
You people need to stop being cranky babies
this 10.6 update is coming a year from now the EARLIEST. That means you will have gotten 4 plus years out of your PPC card. 4 years is a lot, if you want more, buy a new computer!
You people need to stop being cranky babies
this 10.6 update is coming a year from now the EARLIEST. That means you will have gotten 4 plus years out of your PPC card. 4 years is a lot, if you want more, buy a new computer!
Dropping PPC support will only really be an issue if apps come out that require Snow Leopard, but you know what, I don't think most apps will. The ones that do you will probably want to run on newer, beefier hardware than a G5 anyway, if you see what I'm getting at? Not to put down the power of the last generation G5s but they'll be outdated eventually.
(EDIT: I want to add, yes there will be some new features that PPC users might want too, but it seems like it will mostly benefit Intel users.)
Apple will still release updates for Leopard like they have for all previous versions (as someone mentioned, even Panther machines are still seeing some updates). Your Leopard-running PPC is not suddenly going to be completely unsupported. It's going to be a good OS for some time just as Tiger is now (10.4.11 is great).
If Rosetta were dropped, however, that would cause some issues for me since I still use/need Adobe CS2 (boo for no backwards compatible saving option).
I've seen several people mention CS3 and Snow Leopard but I guess I'm not making the connection. What about Snow Leopard will be good for CS3? Won't CS4 be out by then (if not sooner)? Is Adobe even going to take advantage of the new features?
(EDIT: I want to add, yes there will be some new features that PPC users might want too, but it seems like it will mostly benefit Intel users.)
Apple will still release updates for Leopard like they have for all previous versions (as someone mentioned, even Panther machines are still seeing some updates). Your Leopard-running PPC is not suddenly going to be completely unsupported. It's going to be a good OS for some time just as Tiger is now (10.4.11 is great).
If Rosetta were dropped, however, that would cause some issues for me since I still use/need Adobe CS2 (boo for no backwards compatible saving option).
I've seen several people mention CS3 and Snow Leopard but I guess I'm not making the connection.
What about Snow Leopard will be good for CS3? Won't CS4 be out by then (if not sooner)? Is Adobe even going to take advantage of the new features?
This certainly does suck for all the PPC owners out there. But, has anyone actually tried to install this 10.6 Alpha on a PPC box--just because it is not officially supported does not mean it is ipso facto impossible. If PPC support has been completely dropped, then why in the hell did they include applications compiled as "Universal" on the 10.6 disc? If they have axed the whole concept of multi-platform support and are programming only x86-specific code from here on out, shouldn't all of the Applications say "Intel 64bit" instead of Universal?
Either way, I think Apple is making the wrong decision if they are abandoning their architecture-agnostic stance. I mean, PPC support is free for Apple: all of the tools, compilers, assemblers, etc... are already developed, so making a PPC version is as easy as hitting a button. Are they really that concerned about saving a gig or two of hard drive space? When TB (or near) capacity drives are becoming the norm, this argument doesn't make sense.
Not that PPC has much of future as a desktop chip architecture (the power consumption is way to high), but it seems dumb to sh*tcan the modern idea of abstracted code for low-level x86-only code. But obviously, the reason that Apple switched to Intel is--like it not--the x86 architecture is here to stay. It was here when many of us were born and it will be here when we die, in some form or another. Intel has an almost-complete monopoly on the desktop CPU market because of x86 and it will probably remain that way for a long time to come. Even Intel's own in-house attempt to slay x86 and replace it with the RISC-y IA64 architecture failed miserably and has since been abandoned.
Either way, I think Apple is making the wrong decision if they are abandoning their architecture-agnostic stance. I mean, PPC support is free for Apple: all of the tools, compilers, assemblers, etc... are already developed, so making a PPC version is as easy as hitting a button. Are they really that concerned about saving a gig or two of hard drive space? When TB (or near) capacity drives are becoming the norm, this argument doesn't make sense.
Not that PPC has much of future as a desktop chip architecture (the power consumption is way to high), but it seems dumb to sh*tcan the modern idea of abstracted code for low-level x86-only code. But obviously, the reason that Apple switched to Intel is--like it not--the x86 architecture is here to stay. It was here when many of us were born and it will be here when we die, in some form or another. Intel has an almost-complete monopoly on the desktop CPU market because of x86 and it will probably remain that way for a long time to come. Even Intel's own in-house attempt to slay x86 and replace it with the RISC-y IA64 architecture failed miserably and has since been abandoned.
Har har har. An Operating System so advanced, it doesn't even exist... I can hear the fanboys of the future rushing to claim that corporeality is so passe.
Trimming the PPC fat won't save you a whole lot. Languages take up most of the space. For example, look at Safari: 69MB for the app itself. 3MB of that is actual executable code. Another MB or two for icons/etc. The remaining 64MB or so is localized resources (3MB per language).
For things like Activity Monitor, you save a few hundred KB by stripping out the PPC code.
Plus, as I said just a couple posts up, Rosetta breaks if your libraries aren't universal.
Which has its own reasons for being a bad move. PPC-only apps that haven't yet been updated will be dead in the water.
I can understand going x86-only on most apps shipped with the OS... but not the core libraries. Not yet. You don't save enough to make it worth it. A single language's resources can easily rival the size of the executable code itself.
Fact and fact... maybe my perception is a bit skewed because I'm in the audio/video business where a 3 year old computer is pretty worthless, but at my workplace no computer is older than 3 years -- leasing contracts typically run 36 months so that pretty much dictates the replacement intervals. Anything older than 4 years has already been picked up by charities. The oldest machine in my home is a G4 Mini from '05 but it's been sitting on a shelf since last summer. And don't get me started on hardcore gamers who buy new machines every 6 months...
Apple stated that? Where?
And has apple ever had a support cycle this short before? Dumping a machine three years after it was discontinued?
Nope, the multicore and GPU updates will have new APIs. So unless apps code specifically to run both with and without them, they won't be 10.5 compatible.
Yeah, because your G5 is going to just completely stop working and never turn on again as soon as Snow Leopard DVDs are on the shelf of the Apple Store.
Well, it probably isn't going to be able to run the latest apps.
You really think there will still be TIGER updates after 10.6 ships? And even Leopard updates are a stretch - 10.4.11 is the ONLY time apple has updated an OS after the next version shipped. Since 10.6 is basically a service pack of 10.5, I wouldn't be surprised if they do fewer 10.5 updates than they did with other OSX versions.
Maybe someone will write a liposuction application for Leopard 10.5 users who will now feel a bit self-conscious sitting beside the slimmer, faster, younger snow Leopard.
Or, just download the 10.6 wallpaper.
Or, just download the 10.6 wallpaper.
Windows is stuck supporting so much old architecture.. we should be happy things are able to move forward. The problem is for ppl that bought macs at the end of the PPC era.. i would be pissed if I got a G5 quad.. I was there way back when I got a 68040 mac a few months before PC 601 came out.
But chances are if you make a living with your computer and actually need the latest and greatest your not running a PPC still or have been looking at an intel box for awhile.
ATM it seems like the ppl that are getting cut out are the students and soccer moms sitting on 4+ yr old tech that claim to need 64 bit PPC support to answer email and type essays in MS word. And basically are on hardware and software capable of doing what you do. If it wasnt you would upgrade to a better computer.
But chances are if you make a living with your computer and actually need the latest and greatest your not running a PPC still or have been looking at an intel box for awhile.
ATM it seems like the ppl that are getting cut out are the students and soccer moms sitting on 4+ yr old tech that claim to need 64 bit PPC support to answer email and type essays in MS word. And basically are on hardware and software capable of doing what you do. If it wasnt you would upgrade to a better computer.
Has this been true of any previous OS X release?
By my reckoning and experience, after 10.n+1 comes out, you get one more 10.n.x release, then nothing ever again. More importantly, after 10.n+1 comes out, a substantial body of software moves to 10.n+1-only support (primarily because Apple's dev tools on the new OS make it far easier to target only the new OS than to be compatible with older versions).
Fact: for over a year it was impossible to build a 10.2-compatible C++ application in the 10.3 developer tools (XCode rather than Project Builder); the gcc libraries were just completely FUBAR until their second update for 10.3.
Apple has a very poor track record of supporting developers who want to support "old" OS versions. And the result is apparent with a casual glance at VersionTracker or MacUpdate: most new-release apps are compatible only with the version of the OS the developer used, or newer.
That's an assumption. I have my doubts about "same apps".
Now here's an idea - if apple REALLY wanted to go to intel only but reassure PPC owners, they could promise that all 10.6 apps would run on 10.5. But there's no way in hell that will happen.
A few thoughts
If it's going to be Intel only I'd have to say it will be a free upgrade (much like 10.1). It's not going to add a single thing to a very, very large % of the Macs out there and the coding should be similar enough that any Leopard app with run on Snow Leopard (just not conversely if it's built for a 64-bit box exclusively).
I do think we're quite a ways until we get to the point where new apps are going to be 64-bit ONLY. I mean - if you're a developer why would you write an app that wouldn't run with half the computers out there (or more?)
Also - what the heck are they talking about smaller foot print? The HD free space required is EXACTLY the same - 9GB for Leopard, 9GB for Snow Leopard. I fail to see any HD space saving. On that topic this is only an issue for MacBook and MacBook Air owners - I can't imagine that a MBP with 200-250GB of HD space is down to it's last 2-3 GB and bumping that up to 5GB is going to make much of a difference. Now if the code is more efficient (which it likely is) then that's fine but don't peddle some BS about more HD space when it uses exactly the same - that's, dare I say, MS-eque...
If it's going to be Intel only I'd have to say it will be a free upgrade (much like 10.1). It's not going to add a single thing to a very, very large % of the Macs out there and the coding should be similar enough that any Leopard app with run on Snow Leopard (just not conversely if it's built for a 64-bit box exclusively).
I do think we're quite a ways until we get to the point where new apps are going to be 64-bit ONLY. I mean - if you're a developer why would you write an app that wouldn't run with half the computers out there (or more?)
Also - what the heck are they talking about smaller foot print? The HD free space required is EXACTLY the same - 9GB for Leopard, 9GB for Snow Leopard. I fail to see any HD space saving. On that topic this is only an issue for MacBook and MacBook Air owners - I can't imagine that a MBP with 200-250GB of HD space is down to it's last 2-3 GB and bumping that up to 5GB is going to make much of a difference. Now if the code is more efficient (which it likely is) then that's fine but don't peddle some BS about more HD space when it uses exactly the same - that's, dare I say, MS-eque...
They should make a seperate copy for Intel and PowerPC. Two disks, each for their own architecture. People would be happy then.
I agree, I don't even understand fully why they didn't do it in the first place?
I think they may have done is to further soften the blow during the PPC to Intel crossover.
But yes, they should release and Intel version and a PPC version, i mean after all its supposed to be faster than leopard? well surly that's going to be most hand on older machines with slower cup's and less RAM.
I mean after all these are still mostly capable computers that could be used for further computing enjoyment for years to come.
I really hope they don't drop PPC support because after all these are apple branded computers, we want to see as many useful ones of these out in the wild for as long as possible in my opinion.
If apple truly to want to become the "greener apple" you keep hearing about i would suggest computers with a long life spans would be much better for the environment - oh and on that note it would be nice if they could speed up the process of "greening it up" it would nice to see things change in that dept a little faster. How about setting a true example for EVERY other company out there. Clearly apple is a truly exceptional company with allot of good things going for it, how about leading the way..wait... how about leaving everyone else in the distance?
My point was that they may not have recompiled most apps code at this stage of development. The primary selling point of Snow Leopard is performance improvement for the Intel platform. Saving a few MB on the HD these days is just gravy.
And let the b*tching begin...
Oooo noooezz!!11!1one!! lol, yeah for sure. can't wait to hear all the complaining. For those that claim only the Intel Mac people don't care about dropping PPC support...I've been using Macs since 1990. I've had my share of PPC's, but its time to move on.
And what does your 'reckoning and experience' tell you from the last time Apple realeased an update that featured optimization as the sole feature?
Oh, that's never happened before? Well, then why are you trying to base your guesses on past experience when there isn't anything in the past to compare this to?
Compiling Intel-only won't make it run any faster, it will just make the application bundle smaller. A universal binary just includes complete binaries for both Intel and PPC.
Well listen to this. Just because it's common in a corporation to replace hundreds of computers every two or three years, doesn't mean it's the same situation for users with a home computer, or better yet maybe a student who just bought a computer not long ago. Oh yeah it's still totally useful. Need a new printer, oh, well too bad because there aren't any drivers for you. Something wrong with your computer, well don't call tech support because they won't help. Surf the internet? A thing of the past when you find out that some of your favorite websites dropped support of your web browser. Absolutely it turns on, but what good does it do?
I doubt Apple's this stupid, but if they really are dropping PPC, I just hope that third party developers can figure it out.