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

[Dokter_Mac]

It's not unlikely that Apple tests OS X on other CPU architectures, including the latest PPC. The only claims I've seen that Apple will switch back are from people who miss the good old PPC days.

The first version of OS X was running on x86 architecture inside Apple. The famous "just in case scenario". Nobody else, except the folks at Apple, knew about this.
Nobody can predict that Intel will keep up in the future. I'm sure that Apple would switch again, not necessarily to PPC, when it would be necessary.

I love the PPC architecture and I do understand why Apple switched to Intel.
It was/is a very good move from Apple. They could be bankrupted by now if they would not made the switch back then...

I do not understand why they dropping PPC G5 support in Snow Leopard or even in parts of the latest iLife'09 ((GarageBand) Even a 6 year old PM G4 with a decent GPU & 1Gb RAM runs those lessons smooth)) for the people who boughted the latest PRO Macs during the switch. The G5 was the first 64 bit processor introduced by Apple and the chip will never be able to unveil it's full potential. Maybe it's a strategy from Apple? Maybe a Quad G5, running Snow Leopard and utilizing OpenCL, surpassed some (or maybe many) of the newer current Intel Macs in the Apple labs? Who will say and who knows...

I still believe it's not fair for those "G5 PPC folks", which supported Apple during the switch by buying their costly PPC tophardware. During that same switch Apple even updated those machines with dualcore & quadcore G5 processors (check Mactracker for dates and compare them here)! And that's why it's also a bad PR move.
Imagine that Apple would drop Snow Leopard support for the first MacPro (introduced in Aug. 2006 and discontinued only a year ago) users! Can you imagine how those people would react? I would love to read the comments from those who are writing now to just move on and to buy a new MacPro .

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I think you are right. Computer power is growing much faster than our need for it is.

The life of a computer is getting longer and longer now. When it used to be only 3 years before computer was reaching the point of needing to be replaced. Now 6 years is not unheard of for a mid grad computer to last and still not be pushed to its limits.

A top of the line computer can easily go 7-8 years before software and need are out stripped.

My PC tower is 4.5 years old and I see at least another year or 2 left in it before it limits are even really getting pushed. It still covers my needs. It was only a middle of the road computer when it was new. Now it is over 4.5 years old and still going strong.

 

[ZorPrime]

Hugs his 1.67GHz G4 17" Powerbook and its built-in modem, 2 USB ports, Firewire 400 and 800 ports, S-Video Out port, full DVI port, user replaceable battery and RAM, remembers the good old days...

It was good while it lasted but progress is always good but I am looking forward to joining the rest of the HD world.

 

[wesleyh]

Imagine that Apple would drop Snow Leopard support for the first MacPro (introduced in Aug. 2006 and discontinued only a year ago) users! Can you imagine how those people would react? I would love to read the comments from those who are writing now to just move on and to buy a new MacPro .

Why do you always want to have the newest stuff? You can run Leopard just fine. Snow Leopard is to optimize intel processors, not PPC.

You aren't missing anything.

 

[Dokter_Mac]

Why do you always want to have the newest stuff? You can run Leopard just fine. Snow Leopard is to optimize intel processors, not PPC.

You aren't missing anything.

I can't believe you are writing this down? We aren't missing anything?!

The people I talk for are the PM G5 owners. Fast PowerMacs with a busspeed like for instance mine from "1.35 GHz". PowerMacs with 8Gb or 16Gb of RAM. PowerMacs with two processors and dualcore technology. PowerMacs with 64bits processors. Etc.

We bought those PowerMacs when Apple was switching to Intel. They continued to promote every PowerMac G5 update during that switch. And they never told us when we bought their tophardware those machines would only be able to run one major OS update (Leopard). That's unprecedented in Apple's history!

We would love to use to use the new Cocoa Finder.
We would love to use OpenCL.
We would love to use all the new stuff!

Like I said before, we will never see the full potential of our PowerMacs with the current Leopard. Only a PPC G5 version of Snow Leopard can do this.

BTW: It's still a rumor that Snow Leopard only would run on Intel Macs. No official specs are released from Apple for the final version. This is still a Rumor site

 

[Dokter_Mac]

I think you are right. Computer power is growing much faster than our need for it is.

The life of a computer is getting longer and longer now. When it used to be only 3 years before computer was reaching the point of needing to be replaced. Now 6 years is not unheard of for a mid grad computer to last and still not be pushed to its limits.

A top of the line computer can easily go 7-8 years before software and need are out stripped.

My PC tower is 4.5 years old and I see at least another year or 2 left in it before it limits are even really getting pushed. It still covers my needs. It was only a middle of the road computer when it was new. Now it is over 4.5 years old and still going strong.

Thanks ;-)

We bought those PowerMacs when Apple was switching to Intel. They continued to promote every PowerMac G5 update during that switch. And they never told us when we bought their tophardware those machines would only be able to run one major OS update (Leopard). That's unprecedented in Apple's history!

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Thanks ;-)

We bought those PowerMacs when Apple was switching to Intel. They continued to promote every PowerMac G5 update during that switch. And they never told us when we bought their tophardware those machines would only be able to run one major OS update (Leopard). That's unprecedented in Apple's history!

LOL not really.

It is stand proceeder for apple. They drop everything pretty soon after an update.

With OS they drop all major support for previous versions minus security updates.

Apple does not give a damn they just want to make you spend more money buy hardware and the fast way is to out date it.

 

[Dokter_Mac]

LOL not really.
It is stand proceeder for apple. They drop everything pretty soon after an update.

That's a wrong statement I think. Are you prepared to explain with arguments why you make such a statement? Because I would love to understand this "hard" statement...

With OS they drop all major support for previous versions minus security updates.

I can't agree with this statement. No hard feelings .
The past proves that. In case of an OS, for instance they still support 10.3 aka Panther. Here is a link of proof.
The fact they stopped at 10.3.9 is partially because of developer reasons. The 10.3.9 update is also the last Panther OS update because of compability reasons between 10.3.9 aka Panther, 10.4.11 aka Tiger and the current OS state of 10.5 aka Leopard which is 10.5.6. It gives developers a choice to build their apps backwards compatible. If they build their app in Leopard 10.5.6 they can be sure, if they want this, that their software will run in Panther without issues.

Security updates, as you say, are still supported. I believe they are currently keeping Panther 10.3.9 safe.
Do not expect any OS updates for Panther. I think that's a fair policy...

Apple does not give a damn they just want to make you spend more money buy hardware and the fast way is to out date it.

Again, even with the issues I discribe in this thread, I can't agree. Again, no hard feelings .
They do care! Many people can confirm this. I believe Microsoft also cares about their customers.
Apple is a company, so they want to make a profit like any other company out there. The situation for Apple was, during the Intel switch, difficult.
The PowerMac was the last product on the list for Apple and completed this Intel switch.
Hardware support like malfunctions where Apple (or a sub-contractor) has made a fault during production or developing goes still very far in time! And that support is FREE of charge. There are not that many hardware companies in this branche who can say they do that. I can't think of any company right now that comes even close to that support policy. Please let me now if you know one (or more)?

And again, I only have issues with the fact that Apples tophardware, sold during the switch, "could/will" see only 1 OS update (which is Leopard). If this rumor becomes true, this will be unprecedented in Apples history (or at least the last decades). For instance, Leopard is the first OS with no OS 9 support. That's a very long support time for OS 9!

Greetz

 

[matticus008]

I can't believe you are writing this down? We aren't missing anything?!

Not particularly. If Snow Leopard code doesn't contain any further optimization for the G5, there's little point in having it, apart from a collection of incidental bits and pieces.

And they never told us when we bought their tophardware those machines would only be able to run one major OS update (Leopard). That's unprecedented in Apple's history!

It isn't. iBooks sold into early 2004 are Leopard-incompatible (three years of updates). Early G3 PowerBooks, sold deep into 1998, were never able to run OS X at all (introduced in 1999). Panther killed support for a number of additional G3 machines only a few years old.

The ability to run future software is never guaranteed unless expressly promised. Doubly so when you're buying hardware that has been given a public death sentence in a matter of months.

Like I said before, we will never see the full potential of our PowerMacs with the current Leopard. Only a PPC G5 version of Snow Leopard can do this.

This assumes, without a basis for doing so, that Snow Leopard would have any appreciable performance impact in the first place. Most stock G5s can't use OpenCL. G5s can't currently use GrandCentral as implemented. They're perfectly good machines that perform perfectly well under Leopard. They will continue to do so for many years to come. New software will likely continue to support Leopard for quite a while--CS4, just a few months old, still supports Tiger-compatible Macs. So does Final Cut Studio.

If Leopard is the last OS for G5s, then it will have gotten at least 3-4 years of OS updates and at least a few years of application software beyond that. Even if all new software produced in 2010 and onward doesn't support the G5 at all, being one version out of date is rarely a problem. You get a few years of solid use beyond that. We're talking 2012 or later here, and the machines will be six years old and counting--more than a good life.

Any firm that upgrades software at every revision and leaves hardware to linger for a decade has mixed-up priorities.

 

[AidenShaw]

Most stock G5s can't use OpenCL. G5s can't currently use GrandCentral as implemented.

This is simply a decision on Apple's part - not inherent in the nature of the G5. You've reversed cause (Apple didn't) with effect (G5 can't).

Apple decided not to write a PPC version of 10.6. Not because the features couldn't be supported on PPC, but because Apple decided not to.

Even if no graphics card on a PowerMac G5 was suitable for GPGPU use, all Apple would need to do is to write a G5 driver for one modern card, and sell that card as an "OpenCL Accelerator". (That would be decidedly un-Apple, but it could be done.)

 

[Tallest Skil]

Early G3 PowerBooks, sold deep into 1998, were never able to run OS X at all (introduced in 1999).

If by "early" you mean Kanga only and by "deep into" you mean May, then you're right.

Obsolescence sucks, but there is little to be done about it when Apple says, "It's time..."

 

[matticus008]

This is simply a decision on Apple's part - not inherent in the nature of the G5.

...which means absolutely nothing to the user, even if it were absolutely true. Strictly speaking, however, it's not. There are significant differences in the way Intel multicore and G5 multicore processors communicate, some of which are relevant to GrandCentral, which is the only real feature you're aiming at with that line.

You've reversed cause (Apple didn't) with effect (G5 can't).

No, sorry. G5 Macs cannot as of now make use of those features. Inevitably, this is the result of Apple's decision not to waste resources developing PPC facsimiles of them. It's not a question of cause and effect. No one denies it would have been conceptually possible for the past year of development to have unfolded differently, but the bottom line is that the systems can't make use of the work that has already been done. If wishes were horses and all, but they're not.

Apple decided not to write a PPC version of 10.6. Not because the features couldn't be supported on PPC, but because Apple decided not to.

Some of the features could not be supported on PPC, but generally, yes, this is correct. The same thing has been true of every time support for any computer hardware has been dropped. There is almost always a way to proceed that would maintain compatibility, but as always, it comes down to a calculation of utility.

Even if no graphics card on a PowerMac G5 was suitable for GPGPU use, all Apple would need to do is to write a G5 driver for one modern card, and sell that card as an "OpenCL Accelerator". (That would be decidedly un-Apple, but it could be done.)

Only for the PCIe PowerMacs, at astronomical cost and abysmally low sales volumes, which actually does sound rather Apple-like.

 

[Eric S.]

Obsolescence sucks, but there is little to be done about it when Apple says, "It's time..."

It's one thing if if there is a technological imperative, but it's another thing if "it's time" for Apple to enhance its profits.

 

[r0k]

Whenever Apple releases updates for 10.5, it also releases updates for 10.4. I expect that when 10.6 comes out, updates for 10.5 will continue for another couple of years. This means my 3+ year old Mini G4 can hang on running 10.5.x for another couple of years before updates stop working.

Not a problem really... All our "main" machines are core duo based. I guess this does hurt resale value if I do decide to sell off the G4. Maybe now is a better time to sell than 2 years from now.

 

[MikeTheC]

Hey folks...

Actually, I couldn't be happier about Apple finally starting to abandon the PPC architecture. While I understand and can appreciate the benefits of a multidisciplinary approach to code writing, debugging and optimization, I believe it's more appropriate at this point for Apple to focus on one hardware platform range.

Who wants to deal with PPC any more at this stage of the game anyhow?

Hopefully later this year I'll snag a MacBook (I'm still stuck with a PPC G4-based Mac mini at this time) and I promise you, I won't be looking back.

 

[Dokter_Mac]

Hopefully later this year I'll snag a MacBook (I'm still stuck with a PPC G4-based Mac mini at this time) and I promise you, I won't be looking back.

Hypothetical... Ask yourself the question what you would do if your new MacBook would not support your old PPC software?

More hypothetical. What would you do if Apple decided to remove Rosetta? Let's say starting from may 2009.

Because: "Who wants to deal with PPC any more at this stage of the game anyhow?"

 

[Dokter_Mac]

Not particularly. If Snow Leopard code doesn't contain any further optimization for the G5, there's little point in having it, apart from a collection of incidental bits and pieces.

Common. There will be several new things in SL. For instance a fully Cocoa based new Finder.
I'm also talking about the last PowerMacs sold during the Intel switch. Not just a G5 processor or any G5 based Mac. Dual cores PowerMacs which could benefit a lot from the new technologies that will be introduced in SL.

iBooks sold into early 2004 are Leopard-incompatible (three years of updates).

Not true. Check your sources. The iBooks sold during that period had 10.3 installed. They are running 10.4.11 just fine. And if you bought the 933 Mhz+ version you can run Leopard just fine. It's even offical supported by Apple in case of a 933 Mhz+ iBook from that period.

Early G3 PowerBooks, sold deep into 1998, were never able to run OS X at all (introduced in 1999).

That was only the case for the very first (then called) Macintosh PowerBook G3. The following PowerBooks G3 (starting from May 1998), and even any G3 based Mac released after this first Macintosh PowerBook G3, are capable of running OS X! These machines are almost 11 years old. A PowerBooks G3 from 11 years old is able to run 10.2.8 (which is a very good OS and in fact the first realy stable and relatively fast version from OS X).
Don't forget that the PowerBook you are talking about was the first G3 based PowerBook introduced in November 1997! You can safely consider this first PowerBook G3 as a prototype. With a systembus from 50Mhz, NO graphics card and very slow RAM (60ns versus 10ns in the next PowerBook G3) it's just physically not possible to run OS X on such hardware .

The first public beta from OS X was launched in september 2000 (not 1999)!!! OS X 10.0 (the first non beta version) aka Cheetah was launched in March 2001!!!!

If Leopard is the last OS for G5s, then it will have gotten at least 3-4 years of OS updates and at least a few years of application software beyond that. Even if all new software produced in 2010 and onward doesn't support the G5 at all, being one version out of date is rarely a problem. You get a few years of solid use beyond that. We're talking 2012 or later here, and the machines will be six years old and counting--more than a good life.

The last PowerMacs G5's had Tiger (I believe 10.4.2 later 10.4.4) installed. The first Mac Pro's too (I believe 10.4.7).
For instance:
-The very first eMacs (April 2002) had 10.1.4 and 9.2.2 installed. They are capable of running the same OS X version as the first "Intel" Mac Pro's! That's 5 OS versions (from 9.2.2 up to 10.4.11)!!!
- The very first iMac G3 (August 1998) came with 8.1 or 8.5. They are capable of running 10.3.9! Let's count again. First major update back then was 8.6, second major update was OS 9,..., all the way up to 10.3.9! Are you counting?

And of course 10.5 will have security, JAVA, Quicktime, etc. updates after the release of SL aka 10.6 for a couple of years to come. Just like you can see in Tiger right now. But don't expect any major Leopard OS updates once 10.6 is launched. Just like Tiger is stalled at version 10.4.11 or Panther at version 10.3.9 or Jaguar at version 10.2.8, etc.

Read the thread title again: "More Evidence Apple is Shifting Towards Intel-Only Software Releases?"
Yes, the title ends with a question sign. Apple, like with Leopard, will increase the requirements for their new OS aka 10.6. I believe that's only normal.
But not supporting the last PowerMacs is a very huge jump. It would be in the same order like releasing Leopard for G5's only and skipping all the G4's?!
If this happens I will certainly buy a quality German clone of Mac (PearC), which is legal in Europe and for a third (or more) of the price .

 

[matticus008]

Common. There will be several new things in SL. For instance a fully Cocoa based new Finder.

"Common"...what? Getting a new Finder justifies millions in extra R&D for a handful of 3-4 year old computers? That's rather silly. It doesn't appear to be all that revolutionary at the moment.

Dual cores PowerMacs which could benefit a lot from the new technologies that will be introduced in SL.

None of them can as is. They don't support OpenCL and many of them couldn't even if you could use a regular PC card, they wouldn't benefit from all the cleaning and tuning of the Intel code, and GrandCentral flat-out doesn't work, with no evidence that it was ever even planned to attempt its development for PPC (with the physical and feature set differences in the instruction sets and design of the interconnects, it's not clear that there would be any appreciable efficiency improvement over simply assigning whole threads to individual cores). I'm not seeing anywhere for PowerMacs, multi-core or otherwise, to go.

Not true. Check your sources. The iBooks sold during that period had 10.3 installed. They are running 10.4.11 just fine.

Yeah, that's Tiger--one OS update. Check your own sources. The base iBooks sold until May 2004 do not support the installation of Leopard, released less than three and a half years later.

it's just physically not possible to run OS X on such hardware

That wasn't the issue. You said it was unprecedented. It most certainly is not, and having been supplied with just a handful of recent examples, you stampeded off to Google. It changes nothing. It is not unprecedented to pull support after a few years. Those of us who have been with Apple for 20+ years know that backwards compatibility is not exactly a priority for new products.

The first public beta from OS X was launched in september 2000

Yes, you're correct. My memory is off by a year on that.

The very first eMacs (April 2002) had 10.1.4 and 9.2.2 installed. They are capable of running the same OS X version as the first "Intel" Mac Pro's! That's 5 OS versions (from 9.2.2 up to 10.4.11)

A list of exceptions and row after row of exclamation marks doesn't change anything. Some products have enjoyed a very long life. People who bought Mac Pros after the Intel switch was announced are not among them. It's not unprecedented and isn't even surprising. They're getting three to four years of OS updates, six or more years of application updates, and a decade of solid usability. It's not a bad life, and it's probably a moot point for most workstation owners anyway, since they upgrade far more frequently than that.

But not supporting the last PowerMacs is a very huge jump. It would be in the same order like releasing Leopard for G5's only and skipping all the G4's?!

No, it would be like releasing Leopard and only supporting some systems more than three years old, which is pretty much what happened, except that they covered all hardware at least four years back for Leopard and would be moving up the goalposts a year or so for Snow Leopard.

Is it more aggressive than last time? Absolutely. But is it worth the development costs and labor to include support for a small number of worthwhile machines on a dead-end platform? Signs point to "no". It's not like they're going to stop working or start performing worse. I know plenty of people in graphics and design using CS2 in Rosetta on Mac Pros, even today. The performance upgrade of Snow Leopard would certainly be less than upgrading to CS4, which they can do today--no professional user is going to stay exactly up to date on software and let their computer languish unreplaced--most skip versions of pricey software because of the incremental nature of improvements.

When there's something that requires 10.6 that simply blows away the next-oldest version running on 10.5, those computers are going to be five years old or more. It is neither as shocking nor as earth-shattering as you're dramatically playing it up to be.

 

[MikeTheC]

Hypothetical... Ask yourself the question what you would do if your new MacBook would not support your old PPC software?

More hypothetical. What would you do if Apple decided to remove Rosetta? Let's say starting from may 2009.

Because: "Who wants to deal with PPC any more at this stage of the game anyhow?"

Well, let's see...

Of the software I use on my Mac, I can really only think of one title which is not Universal Binary. While it would kind of annoy me to have to give up that app, the reality is that it's dated and is heading towards eventual uselessness anyhow. This, I believe, pretty much answers your entire challenge to me. Fundamentally, neither loss of Rosetta itself nor loss of other ancillary PPC support would actually affect me.

I'm assuming that's not the case for you?

 

[Sehnsucht]

This is the only area where Microsoft owns Apple. Backwards support.

Just as an example, Microsoft only a couple of months ago dropped support for Windows 3.1 on embedded machines, 16 years after they released it. XP will get support until 2012, 11 years after they released it. Apple are dropping support for PPC barely 3 years after they switched to Intel.

Apple will never gain any momentum in businesses with support like this.

Sorry, just had a total "WTF" moment. Who the F**K still uses Windows 3.1?!? I can remember wasting hours playing SimCity, Rodent's Revenge, and Neko on an old beige box with 3.1, but that was back in a previous century. At the age of 6. What practical use does an ancient-ass OS made by Microsoft have in the year two thousand and nine?

 

[cb31]

Sorry, just had a total "WTF" moment. Who the F**K still uses Windows 3.1?!? I can remember wasting hours playing SimCity, Rodent's Revenge, and Neko on an old beige box with 3.1, but that was back in a previous century. At the age of 6. What practical use does an ancient-ass OS made by Microsoft have in the year two thousand and nine?

It was on embedded machines, not desktops. I guess there must be some old devices still hanging around and running nicely. Occasionally I see the train ticket machines broken and they've got some kind of french version of MS-DOS on them, bizarre.

 

[Sander]

Sorry, just had a total "WTF" moment. Who the F**K still uses Windows 3.1?!? I can remember wasting hours playing SimCity, Rodent's Revenge, and Neko on an old beige box with 3.1, but that was back in a previous century. At the age of 6. What practical use does an ancient-ass OS made by Microsoft have in the year two thousand and nine?

We were talking about businesses, who rarely invest in systems so they can play SimCity on them

Most businesses see their software systems as a means to an end. If it works, don't meddle with it. The system is tested in a certain specific configuration, and then left alone to do its work. I believe a large chunk of the "big iron" market (big IBM systems, for instance) solely exists because it's cheaper to just replace the hardware with something identical, than to port the software so it can run on a current Linux config (taking into account the risks involved).

I would not reccommend Apple for a business either, if only because Apple may decide to stop making servers and focus on consumer electronics, and you'll have no second source.

 

[leRiCl]

I hope they don't drop Core Duo on snow leopard... My macbook is only 2.5 years old and its still ~70% as fast as the latest macbook, remembering intel said core 2 duo would only be ~20% faster than the previous generation at same ghz...

:/ the only time my macbook is slow (but still usable) is when Im using VM Fusion to do .net stuff .... and I can fix that by buying 1 more gb of ram. I've used this computer since end of junior high school and I really love it. It was with me when I was cramming for those final exams... ahh memories....

It'll only be 6 months to a year after SL is out that I'll find software updates I need would require the new OS... But I guess even if its dropped I'd still get 2 or so more years use out of this, which is pretty good.

 

[matticus008]

I hope they don't drop Core Duo on snow leopard...

Why would they?

 

[Tallest Skil]

Why would they?

The Core line is 32-bit. Snow Leopard is 64-bit.