Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

More Evidence Apple is Shifting Towards Intel-Only Software Releases?

Smart Move

For the fiscal health of Apple, it's the right move. It's not like anyone else is writing software to work on older computers.

If I still had my Powerbook that was not the latest and greatest I wouldn't expect my software to be either.
 
There are certain technologies that are being put into Snow Leopard that simply put can not be implemented on older architecture since they lack the physical fundamentals to run SL. As powerful as a dual G5 PPC was ( and is ) the architecture simply does not allow for newer things like Grand Central and OpenCL. This is why Snow Leopard will be Intel 64-bit only. It's not like Apple is trying to get rid of people that choose to keep the G5 or the original Core Duo. It just can't be physically done. And I'm glad , being a person that likes to use newer technology.

If you don't want to utilize this or can't afford it keep the G5 PPC. It's great for what it does. Apple Told developers 3 years ago they were moving to the Intel platform so it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone here. And history has shown us we can't compare Apple's to Lemons.;)
 
OnTrack Studios said:
As I've said before, a PowerPC based Mac should NOT be your primary system. Stay up to date, especially if your computer is used to earn a living. I have several PowerPC Macs but they are simply for "farting around." I like their design and they are functional for the most part. But when it comes to making money, I wake my MacBook Pro.
Click to expand...

While I slightly understand what you are saying, most of it is nonsense. Maybe you should go to your bank today or your local department of motor vehicles or your local police station or any retail environment and check out what they are using to run their business. I can guarantee you, you won't find the latest quad-core desktops running Vista or the latest iMacs running Leopard. People run businesses and earn a living very well on legacy hardware because they don't find the need to upgrade the latest software if their business runs perfectly on what they have. This goes the same for musicians and photographers. They don't need SN or the latest Mac Pro to run Protools or Reason or Photoshop.
 
I wish I had the money of some of you who seem to think everyone should get a new Mac every time they release an update.

Yeah, I know you sell the old one, resale value, blah blah.

Second, the vitriol against PPC is staggering. Some you people need to calm down the rhetoric against PPC. If you don't have a PPC Mac, why do you care so passionately? You are not affected. Coming into to threads like this to gloat and to tell people they need to get with the times makes you look pretty silly. And again, there is very little complaining by PPC users going on here. Maybe you should go read some of the threads from around the time the Intel transition was announced. PPC was the greatest thing ever then and Intel was useless trash.

Third, while Snow Leopard may be Intel only, I'll eat my hat if it leaves out Core Duo Macs. Someone here has to have a developer copy that confirm this. In fact, I think someone already did in the thread.

Peace, you speak like you are stating facts. Are you a system level developer that writes code that interacts directly with the chip? If not, then this is nothing but speculation on your part:

There are certain technologies that are being put into Snow Leopard that simply put can not be implemented on older architecture since they lack the physical fundamentals to run SL. As powerful as a dual G5 PPC was ( and is ) the architecture simply does not allow for newer things like Grand Central and OpenCL. This is why Snow Leopard will be Intel 64-bit only.
Click to expand...

There may be reasons not to implement OpenCL and/or Grand Central for the G5, but I doubt that it is physically impossible. Unless you are breaking an NDA, there is no possible way for you to know this for sure.

And lastly, everyone with a PPC Mac knows that new software will eventually stop being made for their machine. This happens to every machine. The issue people have is that this usually happens when the machine does not have the "horsepower" to run the new software. PPC owners, especially those that own Dual and Quad G5s, feel that their machine does have the power to run all current software, but they are intentionally being left out.

I think they may have point, but the developer must see if the extra cost for implementing for PPC is worth the extra revenue they would get by doing so. I'd imagine the installed base of Dual and Quad G5s is relatively small.

I have a PPC iMac G5. I never upgraded from Tiger or iLife '06. I still have the previous version of Office. I use Photoshop CS. I didn't upgrade many of these things because I felt I didn't have the horsepower in my machine to make it worthwhile. So I don't care if new software does not support PPC because my machine is too slow to take advantage of these features. But I can understand why owners of more powerful machines are disappointed.
 
It's sad, but what can you do about it? I don't mind too much that SL will be Intel only (though I think the claims about leaving out the CS's and CD's are ridiculous.), it's not like Tiger and Leopard aren't still working OS's.

However, I would like to say this: For those of you who have never worked with PPC Macs, I say you need to stop talking about them like you're an expert on them. Yes, they're a bit outdated and they're not as fast as Intel Macs. But that doesn't mean they're old or slow. For an average user, they still do a great job for internet, email, music, chat and even some light "professional" work if you get into the G5's. I understand you all enjoy your Intel machines, and that's fantastic, good for you. But don't go around bashing PPC's when you know nothing about them.
 
This is sensationalized news!

For anyone who actually bothers to read the specs for the feature in question, it requires a dual-core intel processor. That eliminates not only all PPC processors, but even the older intel machines! Obviously, this feature is VERY processor hungry, and it doesn't make sense for Apple to debug and test it for the few people who run a dual-core PPC computer and would actually purchase it (if a cual-core PPC processor could even run it).

To reiterate: This is sensationalized news!
 
slu said:
Peace, you speak like you are stating facts. Are you a system level developer that writes code that interacts directly with the chip? If not, then this is nothing but speculation on your part:
Click to expand...

Peace always seems to have some sort of information like that.. for example, did you check out his current location? ;)
 
Really, I own a mac mini with a G5 processor and a Macbook with an Intel processor, I don't mind them dropping support for the non-intel processors, it should allow them to downsize the operating system, make OS X even more stable and faster than it is now (which is already pretty stable and fast, but there's always room for improvement) and allow for the operating system to take up less disk space. I will still run my Mac Mini until it dies completely, which from what I have seen so far may be never, but I am not going to complain when there is no more support for it, as I understand there has to be that cut off sometime. Windows Vista will only run efficiently on systems that were about 1 year old when it came out, so really not an issue.
 
Cassie said:
It's sad, but what can you do about it? I don't mind too much that SL will be Intel only (though I think the claims about leaving out the CS's and CD's are ridiculous.), it's not like Tiger and Leopard aren't still working OS's.

However, I would like to say this: For those of you who have never worked with PPC Macs, I say you need to stop talking about them like you're an expert on them. Yes, they're a bit outdated and they're not as fast as Intel Macs. But that doesn't mean they're old or slow. For an average user, they still do a great job for internet, email, music, chat and even some light "professional" work if you get into the G5's. I understand you all enjoy your Intel machines, and that's fantastic, good for you. But don't go around bashing PPC's when you know nothing about them.
Click to expand...

Hi Cassie, I know this is OT but please take this as constructive criticism. Your pink text is very difficult to read, it's obvious you want to stand out but it's hard on the eyes to read your posts. Your posts always have good content to offer but it takes more effort to read them. It's much easier to read black text. Just my opinion.
 
slu said:
Peace, you speak like you are stating facts. Are you a system level developer that writes code that interacts directly with the chip? If not, then this is nothing but speculation on your part:

I don't write code. I can decipher it but oy! If I could actually write it!!

I wasn't aware someone had to write code to understand basic differences between PPC and Intel. I tested on the original Developer Kit and man was there a difference.

slu said:
There may be reasons not to implement OpenCL and/or Grand Central for the G5, but I doubt that it is physically impossible. Unless you are breaking an NDA, there is no possible way for you to know this for sure.
Click to expand...

I'm not breaking any NDA and it is possible if you read through all the white papers over and over.



slu said:
And lastly, everyone with a PPC Mac knows that new software will eventually stop being made for their machine. This happens to every machine. The issue people have is that this usually happens when the machine does not have the "horsepower" to run the new software. PPC owners, especially those that own Dual and Quad G5s, feel that their machine does have the power to run all current software, but they are intentionally being left out.
Click to expand...

Slap a crossfire video card in there and watch what happens. I've said this before and I'll say it again. Unix was not originally designed with heavy duty graphics in mind. It was a great number cruncher. Apple engineers are working very hard to bring top notch audio and graphics to the Mac. And since they went with Intel going from Altivec to SSE-4 ( or SSE-5 ) has been a pain in the arse.



slu said:
I have a PPC iMac G5. I never upgraded from Tiger or iLife '06. I still have the previous version of Office. I use Photoshop CS. I didn't upgrade many of these things because I felt I didn't have the horsepower in my machine to make it worthwhile. So I don't care if new software does not support PPC because my machine is too slow to take advantage of these features. But I can understand why owners of more powerful machines are disappointed.
Click to expand...

Run a universal or Intel only compile of Ps and you will know what I'm referring to.

That and Rosetta is history. It's an optional install now. Who knows. By the time the GM comes out it may be gone altogether.
Click to expand...
 
Jetson said:
Amazing how flippantly people say things like, "get rid of the old garbage code", "the PPC is old", etc.

I've got an iMac G5 and a MacBook Pro (Intel 2.4 ghz) and the G5 iMac is just as speedy as the MacBook, except when running apps designed to utilize the 2 cores.

Most of us like to keep our Macs for a while, we don't upgrade every year like some of the people here seem to do.
Click to expand...

Yes, much easier to accept news like when you only have the brand new macbook that your momma bought you and not 4 mac G5's with finalcut and protools systems. Seems a little too soon to cut out the G5's.
So a less than 3 year old Mac and I can't run the latest mac OS?
Fine so apple loses out on an OS upgrade right?
Am I more likely to upgrade my 4 hardware macs or buy a new OS?
Apple this is a bad move but you already know that, your bottom line is going to get much worse as people are going to keep their old hardware in the coming depression.
 
When I bought my G5, I bought the fastest one available because I wanted it to last as long as possible. Five years later and it's actually a lot faster than I expected it to be. The downside to spending all that money is that it is slowly becoming obsolete before it slows down, which is unfortunate. And it's not just Apple that is shifting away from PPC, so I'll have to make the switch in the near future if I want to continue to run the newest software.

I guess on the one hand, it's awesome that Apple made such a great computer that it has continued to perform exceptionally well for all these years. On the other hand, they're phasing it out before it has ceased to be functional.

Another issue that probably was discussed a long time ago is Apple's departure from using ADC connectors on their monitors. I bought a 23" monitor with my G5, which I love, but it has an ADC connector. Unless I plunk down $100 for the converter (which is bigger than a Mac Mini), the monitor is basically useless if I get a new desktop. Apparently there are also a lot of issues with the converters, making it a pain in the butt to continue to use the old monitor. Again, that's unfortunate.

I understand why the changes are being made. That's just technology. I'm accepting of that. Just makes me sad when things are rendered obsolete before their lifespan is up.
 
Peace said:
I don't write code. I can decipher it but oy! If I could actually write it!!

I wasn't aware someone had to write code to understand basic differences between PPC and Intel. I tested on the original Developer Kit and man was there a difference.
Click to expand...
You are correct in that you do not need to be a developer to understand the basic differences in chip architecture. I never said they weren't different. And I never said one was better or worse. And I don't understand the relevance of the second sentence. You said it was "physically impossible" to implement OpenCL and Grand Central for PPC. The original dev kit is irrelevant.


Peace said:
I'm not breaking any NDA and it is possible if you read through all the white papers over and over.
Click to expand...

Which white papers? Do you have a link?

Peace said:
Slap a crossfire video card in there and watch what happens. I've said this before and I'll say it again. Unix was not originally designed with heavy duty graphics in mind. It was a great number cruncher. Apple engineers are working very hard to bring top notch audio and graphics to the Mac. And since they went with Intel going from Altivec to SSE-4 ( or SSE-5 ) has been a pain in the arse.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't see the relevance of this and this is also more statement of opinion as fact.

Peace said:
Run a universal or Intel only compile of Ps and you will know what I'm referring to.

That and Rosetta is history. It's an optional install now. Who knows. By the time the GM comes out it may be gone altogether.
Click to expand...

Again, relevance?

In order for your original statements to be fact, as you continue to imply, you would need to have intricate knowledge of writing instructions for both PPC processors and x86 processors. You would also need to have knowledge of Apple's implementation of OpenCL and Grand Central. You admit you have neither.

I am not saying you are wrong, because I don't know how Apple is implementing anything, but, again, what I am saying is you are stating opinion, not fact. And I am stating that I don't agree with your opinion. And even if you knew how Apple was implementing OpenCL and Grand Central, then you might be able to say that it is impossible for Apple's implementation of these not work on PPC. Not that it was "physically" impossible.

You seem to be claiming that Apple is not going to develop for PPC anymore because it is impossible. This is a ridiculous assertion to make. It may be too expensive to be cost effective, but there is no way it is impossible.

During the PPC years, Mac OS X was secretly being developed for Intel chips, just in case. Who knows if that is happening again?
 
Transic said:
My TiBook is sad :p
Click to expand...

I agree. Ti was one of the best ideas Apple had. It screams high end unlike the current aluminum books that look like they are machined from a chunk of billet or cast block. IMO the aluminum looks great but what it is just isn't great. Ya know?

I would like to see a return to a more interesting material such as magnesium or carbon fiber.
 
I bought one of the last PowerMac G5s (dualcore 2 GHz), and it still runs pretty excellent for me. However, I have no problem with Apple discontinuing PPC support in new software. While their toolchain makes it relatively easy for them to support the two ISAs, that's still rather a lot of excess testing and burden that makes the release cycle slower, and 10.5 and my old apps still run just fine on it.

Anyway, I have one of the new MacBook Pros, and I'm slowly transitioning over to using it for my work (and will just keep my G5 around as a file server).

One thing I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is that Apple has actually actively supported PPC after the Intel switch MUCH longer than they supported Motorola after the PPC switch. Of course, OSX makes it a lot easier for them to do multiple-architecture support, but it's still a non-zero effort.

Now, this particular feature being Intel-only is a bit dumb, seeing as how at its core it's what, a preloaded GB project with a video clip? It seems that they spent more effort excluding PPC users than it would have been to just let them keep using it (especially since they still can). Much like how iMovie '08 actively prevents PPC users from using AVCHD even though AVCHD has been well-supported on PPC for years (my ancient Final Cut Pro HD supports it, and it doesn't even recognize my G5 as a supported configuration because PCI Express is too new!) but presumably they already have some boilerplate code for PPC exclusion and they're just letting it slowly filter into new features, until some time in the future where they don't need to anymore thanks to not having a PPC build at all to begin with.
 
slu said:
Which white papers? Do you have a link?
Click to expand...

Sorry can't do that.



slu said:
Again, I don't see the relevance of this and this is also more statement of opinion as fact.



In order for your original statements to be fact, as you continue to imply, you would need to have intricate knowledge of writing instructions for both PPC processors and x86 processors. You would also need to have knowledge of Apple's implementation of OpenCL and Grand Central. You admit you have neither.

I am not saying you are wrong, because I don't know how Apple is implementing anything, but, again, what I am saying is you are stating opinion, not fact. And I am stating that I don't agree with your opinion. And even if you knew how Apple was implementing OpenCL and Grand Central, then you might be able to say that it is impossible for Apple's implementation of these not work on PPC. Not that it was "physically" impossible.

You seem to be claiming that Apple is not going to develop for PPC anymore because it is impossible. This is a ridiculous assertion to make. It may be too expensive to be cost effective, but there is no way it is impossible.
Click to expand...

Many people on MR say to take what I say with a ( to quote the dear BV ) handful of salt. This is true. Take it any way you like.:)

But just wait and see.

My timing may be off but my theory is almost always close to correct.

And I have no insider info other than little chats with engineers every once in a while.
 
This would be a very smart move. PowerPC support is an elephant on your back. Without it you have programs that have a smaller foot printer, run faster because they are optimized for intel processors instead of giving up some speed for compatibility's sake, and are cheaper to develop.
 
You guys are hilarious

Reading all these comments are hilarious.

First of all, *my* opinion is that the G5 is still a good processor, and could easily be supported for these reasons:

1. Grand Central - I don't know the full details on GC, however I would suspect that whatever it implements to be able to use multiple cores efficiently would also apply to multiple CPUs, like Dual G5s. However, it won't be a requirement because remember, not all intel macs came with dual core cpus (eg. core solo mac mini)

2. Software changes - All the software changes are being made to existing universal binary products. For example, ActiveSync/Exchange support in mail/ical/address book, doesn't require an intel CPU to run. Plus, the finder is being re-written cocoa, they can make it a universal binary (yes, I agree they don't have to, but why wouldn't they). I definitely believe that Apple is trying to write their code as portable as possible, to run on any processor they may decide to use in the future. Mac OS runs on 3 cpus remember: PPC, Intel, and Arm for the iPhone/iPod touch.

3. OpenCL - The argument of OpenCL is useless because not every shipping today supports this. My almost year old BlackBook won't. No way apple is going to tell people like me that I can't run SL because of this.

Just my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back