Don't think so. The newer drivers are just internal updates that have not been released in public builds for 10.5.
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.
PowerPC Support in Mac OS X 10.6 After All?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Don't think so. The newer drivers are just internal updates that have not been released in public builds for 10.5.
What are you talking about? My dual core G5 is still better at many tasks than my brand new 2.4 penryn BlackBook, and they both run Leopard.
My dual core g5 is also amazing. It handles handbrake and what not just as well as my intel / amd machines. I love it!
Mac OS-VI: No Intel support?!
As long as Apple satisfactorily supports existing Power users and it is economically feasible then they should support Power in 10.6. It would be no different than Apple supporting the last Intel boxes when the next big thing comes down the line. If Apple drops Power support totally in 10.6 then that's prerogative. I won't like it but Apple will do whatever makes Apple money. Apple is not in the charity business.
I am all for technology and progress. If Intel, AMD, IBM or whoever comes up with a better architecture in a few years then I will go for it.
Perhaps for Mac OS-VI we'll see Apple dumping Intel in favor of the next new kid on the block?
As long as Apple satisfactorily supports existing Power users and it is economically feasible then they should support Power in 10.6. It would be no different than Apple supporting the last Intel boxes when the next big thing comes down the line. If Apple drops Power support totally in 10.6 then that's prerogative. I won't like it but Apple will do whatever makes Apple money. Apple is not in the charity business.
I am all for technology and progress. If Intel, AMD, IBM or whoever comes up with a better architecture in a few years then I will go for it.
Perhaps for Mac OS-VI we'll see Apple dumping Intel in favor of the next new kid on the block?
As long as Apple satisfactorily supports existing Power users and it is economically feasible then they should support Power in 10.6. It would be no different than Apple supporting the last Intel boxes when the next big thing comes down the line. If Apple drops Power support totally in 10.6 then that's prerogative. I won't like it but Apple will do whatever makes Apple money. Apple is not in the charity business.
I am all for technology and progress. If Intel, AMD, IBM or whoever comes up with a better architecture in a few years then I will go for it.
Perhaps for Mac OS-VI we'll see Apple dumping Intel in favor of the next new kid on the block?
Two nitpicks:
- Power and PowerPC are two different architectures. And while similar, they aren't compatible.
- MacOS VI? Are in the 80s again?
They really should work on Intel ONLY.
By the time its next year it will have been 3 years since the last PPC machines have been sold...
Thats the average life-cycle of a computer anyway...
By the time its next year it will have been 3 years since the last PPC machines have been sold...
Thats the average life-cycle of a computer anyway...
Is it? Three years sounds short to me. "The average desktop PC has a functional lifespan of roughly two to five years." (about.com). Leopard will run on a machine as old as five years, thats without a hack. I built my PC six years ago, it can run Vista comfortably.
To be fair, none of this reasoning takes into account an architectural change, or the small and different market-share of Macs compared to the average computer.
If anything I'd say Macs are used for far longer in many cases, especially the book publishing industry where machines are rarely upgraded. But mostly I think this comes down to most people not wanting their Macs to play the latest games, which are a large driving force behind PC hardware.
Obviously I can't find a comparison which looks at architecture shifts, but my point wasn't meant to be what was best for Apple but rather what people expect (what I was responding to was of that nature, anyway).
What is feasible for Apple aside (because to be honest none of us know what issues it causes for Apple internally, or the exact details of their PPC OSX revenue), I think to keep their userbase happy two more years of OSX on PPC would be the most acceptable.
Who says? I haven't seen anyone giving any good reason why PowerPC wouldn't be supported. Plenty of reasons from fanbois who have no experience developing software, but nothing of any substance. There are plenty of real reasons why not supporting PowerPC would be one huge and costly mistake.
Nobody works "on Intel". Programmers don't write Intel code. They write C, C++, Objective-C, Perl, Ruby; they write Cocoa or Carbon code; they use CoreGraphics or OpenGL or put things together with Interface Builder. They work on all these things; they don't work "on Intel".
Can't say you're wrong, BUT dropping PowerPC support after 3 years, would give a very bad signal to businesses that are finally warming up to using macs. They require far longer support than 3 years. Mostly 5.
Fortunately, if they do drop it, Apple might just get away with it. If they don't include any new features, then Leopard and Snow Leopard would technically still be the same platform... With 2 years between 10.6 and 10.7 that would make 5 years of PowerPC support after the last one was sold.
I for one still <3 my G4 laptops the most. Much longer battery life (even after 4 years it beats my MBP 2.33), much cooler (as in temperature, not style) and just as good for most users.
I am a bit puzzled by the notion that Apple will drop PPC compatibility in SL due to "resources".
Has anybody heard that Apple is short of developer resources? I certainly have not... And a Developer Preview certainly is not a clear indicator.
It is clear, however, that Apple is phasing out PPC in time and that Apple is focusing on the enterprise. This and Apple's history indicates a more gradual transition rather than anything abrupt.
Enterprises look for continuity in support and compatibility and don't care about geeky discussions related to architectural changes in the platform. They look for usability and cost of ownership.
While large/specialty enterprises typically pull business-critical hardware when support agreements or leases are up and high-end users get the fastest boxes available, most businesses continue to use computers as long as the OS and applications are properly supported.
And that makes sense. Not only are the late generation Powerbook & PowerMac G5 still very viable machines, there are tons of them out there.
IMHO, Snow Leopard (& iPhone 2.0) appears to be aimed straight at the enterprise and will still support late-gen PPC's
Has anybody heard that Apple is short of developer resources? I certainly have not... And a Developer Preview certainly is not a clear indicator.
It is clear, however, that Apple is phasing out PPC in time and that Apple is focusing on the enterprise. This and Apple's history indicates a more gradual transition rather than anything abrupt.
Enterprises look for continuity in support and compatibility and don't care about geeky discussions related to architectural changes in the platform. They look for usability and cost of ownership.
While large/specialty enterprises typically pull business-critical hardware when support agreements or leases are up and high-end users get the fastest boxes available, most businesses continue to use computers as long as the OS and applications are properly supported.
And that makes sense. Not only are the late generation Powerbook & PowerMac G5 still very viable machines, there are tons of them out there.
IMHO, Snow Leopard (& iPhone 2.0) appears to be aimed straight at the enterprise and will still support late-gen PPC's
At the very least, not drop security/bug fixes for a while but full feature support would be the best scenario for Power users. My machine has quite a bit of life left in it.
My dual G5 2.7 seems to run Leo quite well. It's not a sub 2 GHz machine and has two sockets
That should be independent of architecture. If Apple continues its usual practice, Leopard will get security updates until 10.7 is released.
That doesn't matter to Apple, which no longer wants to spend the resources to develop and test new releases on PPC and wants its customers to pay for new HW.
Dump PPC. Give us a thinner, more stabile system that really kicks butt with multi-core processor machines
Not quite 3 years. August 2006 since the last of the G5s sold, so a few months yet before we hit 3 years.
OS XI should be the Intel-only release imo. Dropping PPC is too big a turning point on the past to be just a point release. But that's exactly what they did with OS 8.5 dropping support for 68k Macs without waiting for OS 9. And that was three years after the last 68K sold, so there's precedence there.
I've just loaded 10.5.6 on a G4 867MHz Quicksilver from 2001 I just acquired. What's that, almost 8 years old? 867 is the minimum config allowed by the 10.5 installer, and it's fine. I've seen Leopard loaded and working on a B&W G3 with the installer hacked so the 867 cut-off is arbitrary. And I have to say the G4 design still looks more modern than most computers sold today so deserves to still have the most modern OS on them.
I've owned Macs since the Mac Plus in 1986. I've seen a number of these kinds of transitions, and frankly I fail to see why Apple should feel obligated, at this late date, to support such a legacy platform. While Apple may not stay with x86 forever, I sure don't see it going back to what we presently know as the good 'ole PPC platform. In my estimation, by the next time Apple makes some kind of CPU platform transition, everything they've ever supported prior to x86 will by then be nothing more than a distant memory.
If anything, Apple should practice good open-ended coding techniques and stay abreast of all the as-of-today high-end CPUs and CPU developments. However, what Apple needs to focus on is doing one thing and doing it very well. You can't have that happen (at least as easily) with divided attention and divided loyalties.
Hopefully, sometime in the next few months I'll be the proud owner of a brand new MacBook. I'll be very happy to have transitioned fully to x86. My main system at the moment is an Ubuntu 8.10/WinVista dual-boot PC, since I just can't deal with using this 1.5GHz Mac mini for multimedia and even modern web browsing tasks. The jump in performance between a 1.5GHz G4 and a 2.4GHz Athlon couldn't be more amazing to me.
RISC had its time in the sun. In certain respects, it may be technically better or more efficient, but Intel's x86 32 bit and 64 bit systems have simply beaten it out in sheer horsepower. In my mind, this argument is long-since over.
If anything, Apple should practice good open-ended coding techniques and stay abreast of all the as-of-today high-end CPUs and CPU developments. However, what Apple needs to focus on is doing one thing and doing it very well. You can't have that happen (at least as easily) with divided attention and divided loyalties.
Hopefully, sometime in the next few months I'll be the proud owner of a brand new MacBook. I'll be very happy to have transitioned fully to x86. My main system at the moment is an Ubuntu 8.10/WinVista dual-boot PC, since I just can't deal with using this 1.5GHz Mac mini for multimedia and even modern web browsing tasks. The jump in performance between a 1.5GHz G4 and a 2.4GHz Athlon couldn't be more amazing to me.
RISC had its time in the sun. In certain respects, it may be technically better or more efficient, but Intel's x86 32 bit and 64 bit systems have simply beaten it out in sheer horsepower. In my mind, this argument is long-since over.
Holy Old Threads, Batman!
You are correct. RISC won. All modern x86 systems are RISC-based.
You are correct. RISC won. All modern x86 systems are RISC-based.
Your point? 10+ year old Pentiums are still supported on the windows side. And considering I'm typing this on a 6 year old processor right now that does absolutely everything i need it to do, I see no need to drop support for it, we have the technology!