PowerPC Support in Mac OS X 10.6 After All?

[Kinsella217]

Philosophical issue...

I have a philosophical problem with the idea that Apple (or any other computer company in a similar position) would exclude an owner from buying an OS upgrade for a machine that is still -under- -warranty- --by-- the company that makes that OS.

If Mac OS X 10.6 (in whatever form it appears) excludes PowerPC functionality -after- the last PPC computers sold as new exits it's AppleCare Protection Plan service time, I have no qualms. I do not believe this is an unreasonable expectation or a bar set too high.

 

[dukebound85]

I see - I was basing it off of Tiger and Leopard. I believe Tiger launched in October as well...

im pretty sure tiger launched in april

 

[flopticalcube]

I have a philosophical problem with the idea that Apple (or any other computer company in a similar position) would exclude an owner from buying an OS upgrade for a machine that is still -under- -warranty- --by-- the company that makes that OS.

If Mac OS X 10.6 (in whatever form it appears) excludes PowerPC functionality -after- the last PPC computers sold as new exits it's AppleCare Protection Plan service time, I have no qualms. I do not believe this is an unreasonable expectation or a bar set too high.

That could be quite a while as even last year they were still selling refurb PPC iMacs and PowerMacs and with AppleCare that would mean probably mid-2010. I have the same philosophical problem with it as you do. It just doesn't sit right with me.

 

[Saladinos]

Apple is not in the luxury position of being able to isolate loyal users or developers. PPC will stay, certainly for 10.6, possibly even 10.7.

Maintaining the two code branches is not easy, but not so difficult as to force Apple in to a premature cut of the PPC branch. Things like SSE can be supported through unibins - there's no obvious advantage to Intel users. Although there can be a strain on independent developers maintaining two branches, which is why I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of reverse-Rosetta for Intel-native applications.

Macs have always been known for long lifetimes. Apple doesn't want to go against this. Besides, the PPC hardware is fixed: Apple knows exactly which drivers need updating, and can do it all in-house rather than waiting on 3rd parties. It's a lot easier for them to maintain two branches than it is for, say, Microsoft.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I have Leopard on a Powermac G5 and PowerBook G4 and it runs fine. In fact its better than fine. 10.6 is going to be a speed and stability release so there is no reason not to expect PowerPC support.

I don't doubt that your PCC machines aren't stable, but anything that could make intel machines faster/more stable is welcome as PCC will be dropped in the near future anyway.

 

[Porco]

10.6 should support PPC. I personally think it's outrageous if the next release of OS X doesn't support what were expensive G5 macs that are perfectly capable of running it. All my macs have been able to last a good 5 years before not being able to run the latest OS - it's one the great things about the mac. Next year would just be too soon to drop G5 support IMHO.

Dropping support for G3s and early G4s like Leopard did was entirely reasonable, because those machines would start to struggle to gain any benefit from the OS upgrade. Dropping perfectly capable machines just cuts the number of people who can upgrade, and I personally believe the number of PPC users who would upgrade to 10.6 would make it financially worth Apple's while to do it. After all, it's as simple as clicking a check box right?! (joking, I know updating an OS is a lot more complicated, but still).

Apple would be silly to spurn the opportunity to sell more upgrade copies to loyal customers - a)to keep them loyal and b)assuming they will upgrade to intel machines eventually, it's an extra $129 they wouldn't have spent otherwise, isn't it? So as long as the work for the PPC machines isn't losing them money, they have a strong incentive to keep those customers happy I think.

That said, if 10.6 is the rumoured 'Snow Leopard' with only a few new features and most stuff just performance and stability, it might be Apple's way of sneaking the next real version of OS X as intel-only. That is, call it 10.6 so the PPC users don't get too annoyed, but really it's just like 10.5.xx (wherever they've got to by the 10.6 release). However, if 10.6 is just about performance and stability, it seems silly to not tweak the PPC code they're leaving those users with forever.

Hey, maybe 10.6 Snow Leopard will be PPC ONLY?

 

[Booga]

Floating ideas via rumor?

Some possibilities:
1. Apple started the rumor in the hopes of gauging reaction to such a move.
2. It could still be dropped last-minute. Heck, my understanding is that early internal builds of MacOS X 10.5 included 64-bit Carbon, too, and that feature was pulled relatively late (mostly for political reasons).

 

[tomjleeds]

Admittedly I'm pretty new to the world of Apple. Yeah, I've had iPods since they first appeared, but only bagged myself a MacBook in November last year, so I'm not exactly well-qualified to comment on the world of PPC. However, I'm going to anyway, so here goes.

Unlike what is probably just a small minority of Intel-only owners who are making themselves heard here, I don't really care either way whether PPC support is kept or dropped. Yes, if it went then people like me would probably see a very slight performance increase in certain circumstances, but at the same time I want to see Apple keep increasing their market share and it needs continued PPC support to do so, and to keep long-term customers happy.

Do I think it should continue until the 2011 some users have suggested? No. Of course PPC users shouldn't be forced out of future upgrades too early - purchases are made expecting future potential - but there's a limit. Intel machines first appeared for sale at the beginning of 2006, and there was no secret made that the entire range would become Intel-only. However, PPC machines were still part of the main product range until the end of August of that year, so as others have said I think we should be seeing PPC support in new releases until the end of August 2009, when AppleCare agreements run out for the very last of the PPC customers.

So yes, 10.6 should have PPC support IMO - especially if, as rumoured, we're looking at primarily a stability and performance release. That would nicely tie up the PPC era for Apple, leaving them free to focus on Intel machines for 10.7 or, perhaps, 11.0?

 

[irun5k]

look at Java 6

Apple has already started excluding PPC/Intel 32 bit users. Java 6 was only released for Leopard+Intel+64bit.

Loss of Power PC support will happen eventually anyway, whether it is in two years or immediately. At this point I'm not sure it is a battle worth fighting. What makes it a little worse on the Apple side is that if you stay at Leopard, a lot of software won't run when the next version is released. A lot of people always say "just don't upgrade", but if you don't, you are stuck running old unsupported versions of many apps- which is sometimes okay and sometimes not.

 

[SkippyThorson]

Spoken, no doubt, by someone who does not own a PPC system. Why should you be so quick to advocate that other users, most of whom have been loyal Apple customers for years, should be denied the benefits the latest OS? Why do you even care?

I still rock the last 1.33ghz iBook G4, and like most people, I would rather use the $1000 on something more practical to everyday life than upgrading a perfectly working machine.

 

[flopticalcube]

so as others have said I think we should be seeing PPC support in new releases until the end of August 2009, when AppleCare agreements run out for the very last of the PPC customers.

Except that people who purchased refurb'd PPC Macs as late as last year could still get AppleCare so you could see PPC Macs still under AppleCare as late as mid-2010.

 

[noodle654]

I dont see why they would just dump PPC like that. Most G5's can easily handle Leopard and run great. I still love the iBook/PB G4's. My school still has a ton of PPC computers left and they upgrade OS for every new release. I pray that they dont get rid of PPC.

 

[Jeffsters]

Ugh...

Get over it! PPC is dead and it WILL NOT be supported in 10.6. The "source" is seeing the work to support Rosetta NOTHING more. Also note that in order to test drivers etc., Apple internally has to support at least one PPC config to test Rosetta compatibility but that's all folks!

Apple will support 10.6 on Intel only. Hacking could get it to work, with issues, on PPC, but make no mistake this is an Intel release.

Given there are no "new features" it's not an issue, but since when has that stopped the Mac press from creating one! Apple has a lot of clean up work to do and a lot of PPC stuff to weed out and position the OS for the future. There is a lot of dead weight in Leopard that impacts performance and stability on Intel. THIS IS THE PURPOSE OF 10.6! To give the Intel machines an OS that is optimized for them and not dragging around a lot of PPC code.

PPC has Leopard, Intel has Snow Leopard that is nearly identical but optimized. By the time 10.7 (new features) rolls around in 2010 or so PPC will me a memory much like the 68000....some of you must remember that CPU! Anyone?

 

[OldTimey]

just buy a new Mac damn it....

ROTFLMAO

Never! PPC 4eva! You'll have to pry my powerbook g4 12 inch from cold dead hands.

Seriously though, what's it to you? Not everyone can afford a new mac. They are very expensive computers. Out-of-touch elitist! Don't give me the "Apple will be able to pool resources better if they drop PPC!" whiney stuff. Maybe they should drop iPhone development too! And stop making iPods, kill .Mac, delete the iTS, close their retail locations...all so they can make sure MacTel owners feel good about themselves, with an exclusive and discriminating OS!

 

[FF_productions]

I use a Dual Core 2.3 G5 for editing video sometimes, and it screams running Leopard, as I'm sure most G5s do. If anything, I think the G5 will be the minimum requirement for 10.6, maybe even the 1.67 ghz G4 will be the minimum.

Ok, if they don't support 10.6 for PPC, it doesn't mean that your computer will suddenly stop working for you because it feels outdated. Hell no. The G5 I use at the office should last another 5 years, because it hasn't had a change in the size of projects (no HD yet) and it has been a great workhorse since it was purchased.

 

[OldTimey]

Get over it! PPC is dead and it WILL NOT be supported in 10.6. The "source" is seeing the work to support Rosetta NOTHING more. Also note that in order to test drivers etc., Apple internally has to support at least one PPC config to test Rosetta compatibility but that's all folks!

Apple will support 10.6 on Intel only. Hacking could get it to work, with issues, on PPC, but make no mistake this is an Intel release.

Given there are no "new features" it's not an issue, but since when has that stopped the Mac press from creating one!

You are as clueless as anybody else. get over your inflated self.

 

[dukebound85]

Get over it! PPC is dead and it WILL NOT be supported in 10.6. The "source" is seeing the work to support Rosetta NOTHING more. Also note that in order to test drivers etc., Apple internally has to support at least one PPC config to test Rosetta compatibility but that's all folks!

Apple will support 10.6 on Intel only. Hacking could get it to work, with issues, on PPC, but make no mistake this is an Intel release.

Given there are no "new features" it's not an issue, but since when has that stopped the Mac press from creating one!

i love how you know this haha

it wouldnt affect me either way but my other posts explain what i think what will happen

 

[gnasher729]

IMO, it would have been a smart move to drop PPC support.

Intel is the new way to go. Either upgrade if you want a new OS, or stick with Tiger or Leopard. It's called progress people.

You call it a "smart move". I call it asking for a class action, and not one run by the usual ambulance chasing lawyers, but by some rather irate customers.

Look, this is not a game played by school children, this is business. If Apple tried to tell customers that their eight core, 2.7 GHz 64 bit computer with 16 GB of RAM and 3TB hard drive that runs rings around what most posters on MacRumors can afford is not good enough for 10.6, they will have a major problem on their hands.

 

[SkippyThorson]

Get over it! PPC is dead and it WILL NOT be supported in 10.6. The "source" is seeing the work to support Rosetta NOTHING more. Also note that in order to test drivers etc., Apple internally has to support at least one PPC config to test Rosetta compatibility but that's all folks!

Apple will support 10.6 on Intel only. Hacking could get it to work, with issues, on PPC, but make no mistake this is an Intel release.

Given there are no "new features" it's not an issue, but since when has that stopped the Mac press from creating one! Apple has a lot of clean up work to do and a lot of PPC stuff to weed out and position the OS for the future. There is a lot of dead weight in Leopard that impacts performance and stability on Intel. THIS IS THE PURPOSE OF 10.6! To give the Intel machines an OS that is optimized for them and not dragging around a lot of PPC code.

PPC has Leopard, Intel has Snow Leopard that is nearly identical but optimized. By the time 10.7 (new features) rolls around in 2010 or so PPC will me a memory much like the 68000....some of you must remember that CPU! Anyone?

"Apple will support 10.6 on Intel only." -- Well mark my words, PPC will be supported for 10.6 no doubt, and probably 10.7 as well. There is no question about it - but from a user labeled 'newbie' with a join date of '04, I'm sure your expansive knowledge would enlighten us all on how PPC is no more and no computer on the face of this green planet uses such ancient technology.

Don't spread your opinions as fact, because the only fact remaining is that they are your own unique opinions, and no one has to or will entirely agree with anyone else.

The human ego just has be one of my pet peeves.

For the record, way to put off every PPC user that is now subjected to what you spew, including myself. See below.

</retort>

You are as clueless as anybody else. get over your inflated self.

 

[Shotgun OS]

I really don't think Apple should drop PPC support. There's still too many users out there using a PPC machine to just leave out. I use my G5 iMac as my main computer, and, even though I do own an Intel Macbook, I'd still be upset they dropped the support. There shouldn't be any reason to stop supporting machines that still have much life and power in them. Yeah, I know Intel is the new way for Apple to go, but many of us want to support our G4's and G5's. The market is still too full of PPC to just drop yet. Maybe in 4-5 years most Mac users will have an Intel machine, but not just yet.

 

[Doctor Q]

Saying "Yes, with some major features supported" is tempting, just to help those for whom it matters. The question is: What will we give up if Apple spends their time on this effort?

I want Apple to list for me all their internal development projects so I can give them my personal priorities.

 

[ckurowic]

Yeah...let me go find $2,000 to replace my barley over 2 year old G4....

2 year old G4? Is there a time-warp involved??

 

[Sky Blue]

2 year old G4? Is there a time-warp involved??

Could've bought an iBook in May 06. Wouldn't cost $2000 to replace though.

 

[gnasher729]

Maintaining the two code branches is not easy, but not so difficult as to force Apple in to a premature cut of the PPC branch. Things like SSE can be supported through unibins - there's no obvious advantage to Intel users. Although there can be a strain on independent developers maintaining two branches, which is why I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of reverse-Rosetta for Intel-native applications.

Actually, maintaining compatibility to two processors is no problem at all. The original step from PPC only to PPC + Intel, that was work. Once that is done, maintaining compatibility is no problem. It actually improves code quality. If a programmer cannot write code that runs on Intel and PPC simultaneously without problems, then you seriously don't want to hire him. That kind of programmer will _never_ manage to write 64 bit code. What _does_ cost effort is maintaining compatibility with older OS versions, and that has nothing to do with the processor.

In my current code base of about a million lines of code, there are about twenty lines that distinguish between PPC and Intel. That's it.

Think of it in fractions.
1 = install DVD
1/2 = PPC
1/2 = Intel

Compared to:

1 = install DVD
1 = Intel

I checked a random application: Address Book, because it is the first in the alphabet. Size of code (Intel + PPC): 1.1 MB. Total size: 58.2 MB. For that application, PPC code is about one percent of the total package size. Feel free to check other apps. Apple probably ships more Garageband samples size wise than it ships PowerPC code.

just my 2 cents

that 2 bridges image in the WWDC invite mean this:

10.6 will be 2 complete separate builds

there will be a PPC version and a Intel version and you can buy either one or both f you like but they won't come as one disc as 10.5 did.

So for a few percent of DVD space, Apple will be creating a support nightmare for themselves. And what will they put into a family pack? Two DVDs? Another thing you probably didn't think about: Right now you can take a Time Machine backup from a G5 and put it straight onto an Intel machine when the G5 breaks down. With your suggestion, a broken down G5 would be a nightmare.

Isn't Xcode supposed to make development of both processors much easier? I think it would be pretty bad if Apple expected other software vendors to support both platforms, but they dropped it themselves.

There is more: Software vendors would be _forced_ to support an older OS version. It is much much easier for a software vendor to convince their customers to upgrade to a new OS than to a new computer. As long as I wanted to support PPC (which is very cheap indeed) I would be forced to support 10.5 (which might be much more expensive). And it certainly would discourage me from using any 10.6 features.

 

[nick9191]

hmmmn I'd much rather have a more stable leopard than PPC support, I don't think any of my PPC machines would be able to handle 10.6 as they can barely handle 10.5

Yeah my Quad G5 Powermac is really struggling along

I think OS X still runs better on PowerPC tbh.

Oh man Intel sucks.