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

[Peace]

Ahhh Yes, as a matter of fact there Fanboy, much of it will...

Want an example???? Soon Apple will release iTunes updates that require "OS X 10.6.1 or higher.... I won't even be able to sync my iphone to < 3 year old PowerMac G5......

And that's just one example....

You can now return to your "everything is perfect is Steve's world" blindness...

I don't see Apple dropping iTunes support for PPC for at least 2 more years. Relax. Your computer will still be fine. But if you're like my brother and think computers are like cars. You can hang on to them for 10 years and not worry then welcome to the age of technology.

 

[ravegreen]

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

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

And in other news: A recent study reveals that 100% of all non-smokers die.

 

[badNameErr]

Can you give us any reasons as to why, minus the fact that people with Core Duos won't be happy?

No, that is exactly the reason: pragmatism. The outrage from users and the bad press Apple would receive if they dropped support for their 3 year old Intel models would be huge. I can smell the lawsuits from here....

You can't tell us that Apple cares about keeping compatibility with old models.

Actually they do care about supporting old hardware. They didn't support Leopard on PPC because they thought it would be fun!

EDIT: When I use the word 'care' above I mean they support it because they know they have too.

If somebody suggests that OpenCL and/or Grand Central only work on 64-bit Intel I could maybe believe that. But the idea that they will completely drop support for the old 32-bit Intel machines in Snow Leopard is a real stretch for me.

 

[slu]

Let me reword that.

That's why Snow Leopard will be Intel 64-bit architecture only.

In your opinion. In my opinion, this is extremely unlikely. What does Apple gain by doing this?

In my opinion, very little.

And again, as was previously posted in this very thread, SL can be installed on a CD Macbook.

 

[Porco]

The headline/title for the thread is quite disingenuous, in my opinion.

I think it's been said already, but this one particular new feature is not listed as being supported by Intel Core Solo machines either, so to me it's clearly about performance, not which architecture of chips it's running on.

 

[Dokter_Mac]

it's the way to go, even so, I've been using my PM G5 for the last four years and it keeps rocking, in fact, with the new adobe CS4, it is heavy metal!

I do have an intel mac (MBP), and that will be my test monkey.

I'll only turn full intel when the G5 becomes useless, which by the way things are I expect to be in the next two/three years.

I understand apple's move to full intel, and I won't wine, it just makes more sence to do this than supporting "obsolete" processors.

Amen!
I'm also a very happy PM G5 user.

If I want to open the new Garageband lessons I just double click the files and they work equally good as on my girlfriend her iMac Core Duo.
It's a bit weird that Apple don't support the first Intel Macs with no core duo inside?
And why not a smart installer or more testing to learn which machines can handle those lessons?

Another thing I noticed in all previous Snow Leopard beta's is that all the apps are Universal? Why do you build Universal Apps in a System which is rumored to be Intel 64 bit only?

Anyway, I'm expecting to use my PM G5 (64bit ) for another year or two. Unless the company which I test for would offer me a new test machine with the horsepower I'm used to .

Take care all

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Ahhh Yes, as a matter of fact there Fanboy, much of it will...

ahhh come now, NetScheduler, respond, please.

 

[RebootD]

Nope, there is nothing to get over beside the sad devotion to the abandoned tech.

I'm sorry but its the truth. Keeping up with Apple tech that is at the very least 3 years current, is not sad, its normal.

Hanging on to fantasy ( and subsequently criticizing all others) is your own problem, and is indeed a problem.

Wouldn't this situation be different only because of the massive code overhaul from PPC to Intel? One of the main things everyone hates about windows is how bloated it is, support for legacy hardware/software and issues that come up from that.

They supported OS9 legacy for a long time because they were still using PPC architecture so it made it easier. Now with everything Intel it doesn't make sense for a company known for a lean-mean and efficient OS to keep legacy support for PPC that no longer exists in their lineup. Don't take it personally!

 

[PVguy]

"Earlier versions of Snow Leopard worked fine on a Core Duo Macbook."

What I want to see, and soon, is the official hardware support list. Will Snow Leopard run on my Core Duo (not core 2 duo) mac mini, or not? If not, I'll pick up Leopard for it. It's still running Tiger, as I usually skip versions. Since I want to keep the security updates coming as long as possible, I''ll wait for Snow Leopard, if it's supported, or get Leopard if that's the end on the line for the original Core processors.

My trusty Quicksilver is staying on tiger until either Apple produces some desktop hardware worthy of purchase, or I get tired of waiting, and try a hackintosh. If that doesn't work out, I'll probably try Linux. It may now be at the same "good enough and much cheaper" stage that let Windows 95 nearly kill off Apple back in the old days.

But no, I don't expect Apple to support a 2002 computer with a 2009 OS.

 

[stephenli]

Note that in this entire thread there is way more complaining about PPC users who may complain then actual complaints by PPC users.

Yes. PPC user here. Very sick and sad for this. My 2.5 yrs old Quad G5 could no longer able to install new OS. To me, it doesn't make any sense at all. Its just 2.5 years old!!!

Im going to use my G5 until its death. Its still working fine now except Sony's AVCHD codec movies are not support PPC.
I don't want to buy MacPro, but I have no choice on headless Mac.

 

[covisio]

PowerPC user having a whinge.
Well, not really. Sure, I'd like a brand new Mac Pro but I'd have a real hard time justifying that to the guys who buy the hardware in my company (erm, global recession, anyone?).
I currently run a Dual 2.3 G5 with 4.5 Gb RAM, and an (admittedly seriously long in the tooth) PowerBook G4 1Ghz with 2 Gb RAM.
To replace my current setup is going to cost in the region of £4,000 to £5,000. Okay, the PowerBook owes me nothing and is well past retirement, but nevertheless I still use it, PROFESSIONALLY.
I don't agree that you can't use a PowerPC machine professionally. It depends on what you do. I do mostly 2D graphics using Creative Suite et al. My choice of machine does not affect my creativity. Perhaps some things I do could be faster, but £5K faster? Not right now.
It is not Apple who dictate when I change my machine. It is Adobe. As long as they support PowerPC then my G5 will live.

 

[weg]

Of course the back end architecture of Windows hasn't evolved much in 16 years either.

Neither did the Mac OS X architecture in the last 3 years. It's still based on a Mach kernel. All Apple has done in the last 4 OS releases is UI cosmetics (even spotlight is just "glued on").

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Neither did the Mac OS X architecture in the last 3 years. It's still based on a Mach kernel. All Apple has done in the last 4 OS releases is UI cosmetics (even spotlight is just "glued on").

:O
Seriously? Seriously? You think that they have to redo the mach kernel just to have "back end" changes? Geesh

 

[Amdahl]

I find it so funny that people think dropping PPC support is a good idea. As a programmer, I know that my code ends up more bug free and better optimised the more platforms I support....If Apple is dropping PPC support, or even support for 32 bit Core Duo they are doing it for marketing reasons, not for any good programming reasons.

Yeah, but trying to explain that to the cult around here is not a good idea. Ogg like Apple! Apple good to Ogg! Why Ogg head hurt?

This is true, and I expect Apple will continue to build OS X internally on PPC and possibly other CPUs like Cell and Sparc. (Just like they kept x86 builds around when everything was PPC). But there's a huge difference between having the capability to build for different platforms and actually shipping commercial products on those platforms. The latter requires much more time and expense for testing and support, and Apple quite reasonably figures those resources could be better spent elsewhere.

Gee thats funny, it would seem to me the ability to sell a bunch of PPC users a new OS would easily overtake that testing expense for a product you've already spent the time to make.

i dont want apple to keep compiling code for two proccesors, they can use that manpower on somthing more useful.

Manpower? Have you ever used Xcode? Tell me how much 'manpower' it takes to build Universal vs. Intel-only? You check one box. DONE.

 

[Dokter_Mac]

Neither did the Mac OS X architecture in the last 3 years. It's still based on a Mach kernel. All Apple has done in the last 4 OS releases is UI cosmetics (even spotlight is just "glued on").

Common ...
With the release of Leopard Apple got the full UNIX lable!
That's not because they did some cosmetic changes.

The Mach Kernel evolves as we speak. And that means not just adding or glueing new things to the kernel...
If that was the case the kernel would be a huge file at this time. In fact, it's a very small but smart programmed kernel.

About the PPC Macs (called death by many Intel users)
Here is a list of Macs which will be become absolete in March:
• Xserve Raid
• Xserve (Slot Load)
• Xserve (Cluster Node)
• PowerBook G4
• Power Mac G4 (Digital Audio)
• Power Mac G4 (Quicksilver)
• Macintosh Server G4 (Digital Audio)
• Macintosh Server G4 (Quicksilver)
We are talking about machines that are not Leopard compatible.
There is still a big list of PPC Macs from before the Intel switch which are not absolete. This means that Apple will support every PPC Mac not listed above! If my PM G5 for instance would have a cooling leak, Apple will repair the liquid cooling, the motherboard, the processors, etc. I believe this example says enough about PPC and Apple...

 

[kb9klc]

if you use a PPC as your main computer now, you need to get yourself into a apple store this year, i cant speak for the G5, but my ibook is a dog that needs to be buried/ recycled, or sold to someone to dumb to know the difference. the youngest PPC will be 3 in august. i dont want apple to keep compiling code for two proccesors, they can use that manpower on somthing more useful.

Well since I can't afford new ones, you can send the ppc machines to me. Thanks in advance. I do know the difference, however I also know what I can afford.

 

[Mac Maven]

I really am a bit disturbed by the level of ignorance some of you gleeful PPC haters. Many of you seem to believe that PPC support is somehow holding back your Intel hardware. You can't see me but I'm shaking my head at you. PPC support has nothing to do with your Intel machines. Yes, Apple needs to devote some level of resources to continued PPC support, but aside from that the OS X binary that you run on your Intel hardware is distinct from the OS X binary that runs on my G5.

Listen, I have a 2008 MBP for work and I really like it, so I'm not an Intel hater (anymore), but my G5 DP 2.0 is still my main Mac. Your Intel machine won't run any faster with the PPC code gone in SL, if it indeed will be. The only difference for you is that the binaries may a bit smaller than they are currently, but they won't run any faster as a result because you're not running any PPC OS level code on your Mactels and you never have. There's no Rosetta translator at the OS level, so stop thinking that PPC support is hindering your hardware. That's almost like blaming the iPhone for draining Apple's OS X resources since it also runs a version of OS X on another chip platform. Oh, and having support for multiple hardware platforms in OS X is completely different from the bloat of Windows legacy software support - it's a false analogy for the reasons I already stated. Educate yourself before you spout off in a public forum, would you?

 

[MD5Hash]

I understand Apple doing this but I'm writing this on a 2.6 GB Dual 2 Ghz PowerPC G5, and I can assure you that it doesn't feel old or slow at all (despite being almost 6 now).

I guess it'll just keep running Leopard until it dies (which is hopefully a long way off - it's been turned on for all of those 6 years with never a hint of a problem ... it's a beautiful machine)

Amazing; as an apple tech for two years who saw dozens of liquid-cooled PM G5's come in for leakage damage, you must be part of what, 10% to say that...

 

[jclardy]

Manpower? Have you ever used Xcode? Tell me how much 'manpower' it takes to build Universal vs. Intel-only? You check one box. DONE.

The difference here is that Apple isn't writing high level Objective-C code for the core operating system. So it is not as easy as checking a box, they would have plenty of assembly code to port over from x86 to PPC especially with the performance enhancements they are doing with OpenCL. By eliminating PPC support they save many man-hours porting machine code back to PPC.

 

[doubleohseven]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5G77a Safari/525.20)

I really am a bit disturbed by the level of ignorance some of you gleeful PPC haters. Many of you seem to believe that PPC support is somehow holding back your Intel hardware. You can't see me but I'm shaking my head at you. PPC support has nothing to do with your Intel machines. Yes, Apple needs to devote some level of resources to continued PPC support, but aside from that the OS X binary that you run on your Intel hardware is distinct from the OS X binary that runs on my G5.

Listen, I have a 2008 MBP for work and I really like it, so I'm not an Intel hater (anymore), but my G5 DP 2.0 is still my main Mac. Your Intel machine won't run any faster with the PPC code gone in SL, if it indeed will be. The only difference for you is that the binaries may a bit smaller than they are currently, but they won't run any faster as a result because you're not running any PPC OS level code on your Mactels and you never have. There's no Rosetta translator at the OS level, so stop thinking that PPC support is hindering your hardware. That's almost like blaming the iPhone for draining Apple's OS X resources since it also runs a version of OS X on another chip platform. Oh, and having support for multiple hardware platforms in OS X is completely different from the bloat of Windows legacy software support - it's a false analogy for the reasons I already stated. Educate yourself before you spout off in a public forum, would you?

I agree with this. Being an Intel user myself, I think that a G5 machine (or maybe even a G4) are still very reliable machines.

 

[Amdahl]

The difference here is that Apple isn't writing high level Objective-C code for the core operating system. So it is not as easy as checking a box, they would have plenty of assembly code to port over from x86 to PPC especially with the performance enhancements they are doing with OpenCL. By eliminating PPC support they save many man-hours porting machine code back to PPC.

Let me solve that problem for you: OpenCL isn't supported on PPC.

Second, most of the OS is not assembly code. Go check out the Darwin source and see for yourself. Just like Linux, just like BSD. The hard work for PPC support in OS X was done years ago. It doesn't have to be redone.

 

[Eric S.]

Dropping PPC support is a good thing for the Mac World overall. Sorry if it pinches people who refuse to upgrade, but that is a choice they make.

If I had something to upgrade my Power Mac G4 to, I would. And don't say iMac because I have no desire for an integrated display, especially in a "desktop" that is mainly laptop parts. But give me a real desktop tower at half the cost of the Mac Pro and I'm there.

I have no need (at present) to move my G4 past Leopard. But I really do wish that Apple would fix the "gaping hole" in its product line.

i guess they simply don't want to spend the effeort to test and guarantee that it runs on all power PC based macs.

That's exactly correct. It would cost Apple relatively little to propagate forward a PPC version of OS X. But it does cost significant resources for test and verification of the legacy platforms.

 

[swagi]

if you use a PPC as your main computer now, you need to get yourself into a apple store this year, i cant speak for the G5, but my ibook is a dog that needs to be buried/ recycled, or sold to someone to dumb to know the difference. the youngest PPC will be 3 in august. i dont want apple to keep compiling code for two proccesors, they can use that manpower on somthing more useful.

Actually I disagree. No, don't go to an Apple Store.

First of all take your OLD and OBSOLETE G4 Mac and secure your personal data. Then go back to Tiger or (if you have a copy around) Panther.

Get yourself some copies of old versions of your beloved software, which you really really liked. (e.g. Quicktime 5 was so much better than 6 in function but misses mp4) Guess what, iLife 05 or 06 still works on that machine. As do other nice Apps. Toast 6 Titanium is fine and dandy, I still don't get why people upgraded to 7, let alone 8 or 9.

Oh, and don't forget to take you OLD and OBSOLETE G4 to some of your friends and show them how much fun it is to cut and edit stuff in Quicktime with little hassle.

Btw: Don't forget to show your good old Leopard Intel Mac buddies some stuff, they have never seen before, like categorized Spotlight, a working Mail App and so on.

Sorry, I just had to rant, as all 'new Apple stuff' is getting out of control. iTunes has just become a bloated POS, some people still prefer iMovie 06, iPhoto - nah, don't get me started on that.

And as a matter of fact I can assure you that there is barely something in the software these days, you couldn't achieve with software from 2-3 years ago. Guess why so many people still are on CS 2. If it wasn't for going Universal, some of them would never have upgraded.

So, well, basically I still wait for the Nehalem MBP. Maybe then I will think otherwise, but my current position is, that there is little to no new function in current Apple software, that's worth consuming all this computing power. Yes, you guessed right, I'd rather be wowed by great Apple hardware again than follow a stupid keynote about 'Places' and 'Spaces'.

 

[SPUY767]

The truth is, that not too far in the future, you're going to run into Apps that just won't perform acceptably on even the best PPC hardware. My dual dual 2.5 G5 was absolutely crushed in terms of performance by the Dual Dual 3.0 mac Pro I bought in 2006. It wasn't even in the same ballpark. I can't imagine the difference between one of the faster C2D's and the Paltry G4's running in power books.

If I had something to upgrade my Power Mac G4 to, I would. And don't say iMac because I have no desire for an integrated display, especially in a "desktop" that is mainly laptop parts. But give me a real desktop tower at half the cost of the Mac Pro and I'm there.

I have no need (at present) to move my G4 past Leopard. But I really do wish that Apple would fix the "gaping hole" in its product line.



That's exactly correct. It would cost Apple relatively little to propagate forward a PPC version of OS X. But it does cost significant resources for test and verification of the legacy platforms.

Your G4 PM would be handily outperformed by a high end Mac Mini.

 

[SPUY767]

.