PowerPC Support in Mac OS X 10.6 After All?

[MacsRgr8]

BTW.. 10.6 being "Snow Leopard"....

It doesn't feel right.
If Apple were to introduce a brand new 10.6, I'm pretty sure this new OS would get a name based one a new big and fierce cat. Yes, it is only an internal name, but so have been all past 10.x names.
Snow Leopard. Saber Tooth Tiger (could have been x86 version of 10.4.x)...

The name really does suggest an upgrade, and/or enhancement. Or maybe something else:
Check the banners @ WWDC:
No more Mac OS X Leopard, but OS X Leopard.
We're also getting OS X iPhone.

"Snow Leopard" could be the "slimmed down" version of OS X Leopard, not optimised... the OS on the, and dare I say it... future "non-Mac" OS X releases, i.e. tablets, iPhones, future iPods etc.

 

[Ludde]

I've been paying close attention to this and similar threads on the subject, and I'm greatly dismayed by those who believe that the presence of PPC-supporting code, in the source of MacOS X, might somehow effect — in any way — the experience of Intel-owning Macintosh community: whether it be "bloat", or "baggage", or stability problems.

It is clear that there is some disconnect in understanding afoot here. The platform-dependent parts of MacOS X are relegated to the lowest levels of abstraction, and they exist in the form of code that is guarded by C preprocessor macros, such as

#ifdef __APPLE_ALTIVEC__
#if TARGET_CPU_X86
#if TARGET_CPU_PPC

By the time MacOS X has been compiled and placed on a DVD to ship to you, all of the code guarded by TARGET_CPU_PPC has been compiled out of the way so that the code in your x86 segment of the fat binaries is uncluttered by it, unhampered by it, unimpeded by it, and uncompromised by it.

It does not weigh your system down. It does not make your system slower than it could be. All that it does is take up a tiny fraction of disk space for the PPC segment of each fat binary, and if it really concerns you then you could get off your ass and read the man page for LIPO(1) and get on with your lives.

Seriously, people. Are you going to start bitching about #if TARGET_CPU_ARM targets that exist on the OSX iPhone branch next?

There is no way in hell that Apple is going to squander good will by dropping PPC support for machines that, in my experience, run leopard just fine if they have enough RAM.

This code that we're speaking of began life on 68030, then added suppport for SPARC, PA-RISC, and x86 — and had been ported to PPC in the NeXT labs long before their inverse-acquisition of Apple. The way that this code has been made portable is very mature and clean, and your experience does not suffer one iota from the presence of code-paths that never even make it into the binaries that you run.

Do the world a favor and get a grip & a clue. Peace out.

You just gave me words to the clue that I did have, even though I don't know much about programming. Thank you.

 

[emulator]

if they want to advance, they must forge legacy support. that's what killed the real advancement in the windows world.

 

[SiliconAddict]

Good. Sorry but Apple gets too much of a free ride about dumping older OS and hardware. For all the complaints MS gets about their OS, MS's backwards support of most of their OS's is outstanding. They are still supporting Windows 2000 Pro until 2010. 10 years for an OS vs. Apple dropping support after what? Typically 3-4? Again Apple is held up to different standards. If MS behaved the same every enterprise environment in the world would converge on Redmond and go kamikaze on their sorry butts.

Personally I want to see PPC support until at least 2011-2012. 5 years MINIMUM is respectable. Anything less is a slap in the faces of those who supported Apple even after the initial announcement (6/2005) that they were moving to Intel. Apple has a metric crap ton of cash on hand. There is NO reason what so ever that they can't dip into that for co developing both Intel and PPC versions of at least the next OS if not the next 2. There are still people out there who think Apple is this lean company who is strapped for cash. They can plenty of cash to burn if needs require and in this case the need is there. Do the right thing Apple instead of doing what makes you the most money.

 

[commander.data]

Dropping Carbon instead of PPC sounds more reasonable.
OSX is a multi-platform OS, but it should be unified for development,
and independent for platforms.

Dropping Carbon should be the least reasonable option. Without carbon, the application selection on the Mac will look very bare. And if I'm not mistaken, a lot of the integrated OS apps are still Carbon or make use of Carbon including the Finder.

Apple can just as easily encourage developers to move to Cocoa, by developing compelling new features that are only accessible via Cocoa such as 64-bit GUI in Leopard. Perhaps they have another "Core" technology available, such as Core Touch, that will only be accessible via Cocoa. They should also lead by example by moving Finder and all other Apple apps to Cocoa first and make sure they are stable before cutting off Carbon, otherwise they are just making life difficult for themselves, much less developers and users.

 

[pohl]

However, if Apple is able to drop PPC support when they are working on 10.6 for performance and stability, wouldn't they be able to optimize different parts of the operating system and their software for x86-64? And if they are spending time on maintaining PPC compatibility and the testing that is involved, that means there is less time for everything else.

They need not spend any time maintaining PPC compatibility. It already exists. I would bet my first born that MacOS X is living other "secret double lives" in the labs, and that preprocessor macros for SPARC, and perhaps even Itanium, are in the source — albeit removed by whatever automated process that builds the header files that ship with Leopard.

As for optimizing, what you suggest pretty-much happens for free. All they need to do is profile on the architecture for which they want to optimize. Stripping out PPC support from the source would have no positive impact on such an effort.

 

[Mykbibby]

What if they sold two versions, one for PowerPC and one for Intel, and then announced that 10.7 will have no support for PowerPC?

 

[AdventTech67]

Keep the PPC Architecture.

The PPC Architecture from the jump was a sound computing experience. With the Introduction of the Intel chip (X86), there have been various problems, from lawsuits, to certain bad decisions. I've heard of rumors of Apple looking into the AMD chip for a couple of years folks. It's all speculation folks, but who knows?

 

[MacBooksRock]

Apple should definitely keep with PPC support. And, they should make Snow Leopard snapier and smoother, and then it would run on those 867MHz G4s, and faster, as well as on an Intel machine... Just my thoughts.

 

[tomjleeds]

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.

OK, fair point, but even then that's probably not going to be within the time-frame of the next release, and thus doesn't change the situation. Plus, if you're buying a refurbished unit, you should be prepared to not get the full luxury treatment.

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!

That's just stupid. It may not have occurred to you, but iPods, .Mac, the iTS etc are all current products. Like it or not, PPC models haven't been part of the range for nearly two years - by the time 10.6 rolls around it'll be nearly three and past that it just gets ridiculous.

Don't misjudge my point, go check out my previous post in this thread if you want to see what I think on the whole situation, but comparig dropping products which make Apple hundreds of millions of dollars per year to dropping support in new products for hardware which hasn't been on the market for years is bonkers.

 

[TwinCities Dan]

The only people who want to keep PPC support are those who still own PPC Machines.

I say just buy a new Machines. Stop being such tight wads people and get with the times. Macs are PC's with the ability to run OSX. Thats all... and in the PC world, if you own a computer for any longer than ~2 to ~3 years, your out of date. SO get with the times.

I have owned 2 Intel Machine already... a Intel iMac Core Duo, and Now a MacBook Pro. PPC is long gone, and was dead when Apple announced that they were switching to Intel... They told us in the Summer of 05! Its already the Summer of 08! So if you still are on PPC you should be happy enough with 10.5 and keep it until your PPC dies.

I vote for 10.6 to be Intel Only.

Would you be singing the same song if 10.6 turns out to be only 64-bit and you and your iMac are outta luck?

 

[Fahrwahr]

I concur with those who think this will only install on 64-bit Macs (PPC and Intel). It is the equivalent of Vista 64 or XP 64. Even the Macbook and Mac Mini have 64-bit processors now.

It's not about what Macs have 64-bit processors now; it's about when the most recent Macs with 32-bit processors were sold, and how long into the future it's reasonable for owners of such machines to expect to be supported by the latest version of Mac OS X. The Mac mini hasn't even been 64-bit for a year yet: it went Core 2 Duo on August 7, 2007, the same day that the iMac went aluminum and glass. I'm not arguing that Apple's processor support decisions should be based on the mini -- it's clear that the mini has not been a high priority for the company -- but history and loyalty are important for a company to have the reputation it needs to nurture and maintain growth.

 

[flopticalcube]

OK, fair point, but even then that's probably not going to be within the time-frame of the next release, and thus doesn't change the situation. Plus, if you're buying a refurbished unit, you should be prepared to not get the full luxury treatment.

The speculation is that 10.6 will be out by next year so its well within the time frame. I don't see why I shouldn't receive the "full luxury treatment" just because I buy a refurb. Every customer should be entitled to the same Apple experience and that includes the traditional long support of hardware.

 

[link92]

Now correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure someone thinks they know better) but don't alternate versions of Mac OS X get developed concurrently i.e., one team does 10.4 --> 10.6 while another team work on 10.3 --> 10.5. If this is true then the team that are doing 10.6 would always have planned to deliver around about this sort of time frame, with 10.5's late arrival making the gap between about 12 months.

That was true in the early days: 10.4 was the first release from a single monolithic team, and 10.5 and onwards will continue to be all from a single team making one release then moving on to the next. As far as I know, the same team does the maintenance too.

 

[King Mook Mook]

Now look I think that Apple should drop PowerPC support but I think that you are forgetting Apple was selling eMac with PowerPC processors to school's well into the end of 2006. There would be an uproar from schools if Apple just said "No upgrades for you" and walked off. It would be the equivalent of Microsoft dropping most PC's because they did not fit the high requirements of Vista.

King Mook Mook

 

[D*I*S_Frontman]

Shouldn't PPC remain a "back-up plan"?

I remember when Apple first went to PPC with the G5. We thought "wow, way better than Motorola, and much sharper design than Intel." But Intel just kept on innovating past IBM where it really matters--speed and power.

But who is to say that Intel's great run might come to an end, or that some new design at IBM leads to some massive speed breakthrough? Shouldn't PPC support remain, if only as a "Marklar"-like back-up plan? Isn't always better to have competing vendors vying for your business?

 

[TwinCities Dan]

Totally insane. They should never have released any Macs using 32-bit Intel.

This is what worries me! I am getting the feeling that the 32-bit intel will be dropped BEFORE the PPC that I upgraded from!

Not saying I won't buy a new one, but that is a lil' messed up.

Not to mention I just dropped about another grand into upgrading the thing.

My 1.83 CD MBP had a cracked screen so I sent it in to get fixed, and since I was going without it, I had them max out the RAM to 2 GB and replace the 80 GB HD with a 320 GB. It's only 2 years old!

 

[bogg]

I remember when Apple first went to PPC with the G5. We thought "wow, way better than Motorola, and much sharper design than Intel." But Intel just kept on innovating past IBM where it really matters--speed and power.

What exactly do you mean by "first went to PPC with the G5" ?

You do know that Apple had been using PPC chips for YEARS before they started using the G5 (G3, G4 and alot of earlier chips before that).

 

[theidoctor]

it isnt a matter of should they drop it but more like when should they drop it...
i would give them a years notice or something like that

 

[TwinCities Dan]

I remember when Apple first went to PPC with the G5.

Umm...What?

Apple started using the PPC 601 in 1994.

 

[TheReef]

First gen G5 user here, running Leopard great. I get all the eye candy goodies excluding iChat and Photobooth background effects.
It may be 4 years old but I'm running Leopard at full speed. I feel it could last until 10.8 if they supported PPC till then (unlikely).


Even a base level 450mhz Sawtooth (+ Ati 9000 PRO) is running it.
I sure hope Apple continues the OS support for PPC, Mac's don't get old like PC's do.

 

[0098386]

Yea, don't kill off support for my PowerBook just yet hope they keep it going.

 

[totoro]

I think that there are 2 possibilities with Snow Leopard if that is the name
1 Snow Leopard is the touch OS and there will be a tablet or announcement that is making displays or touchpad to use multitouch with. Leopard is already built with touch in mind. Coverflow, Stacks and Timemachine could be easily adapted for multitouch
OR
2 Snow Leopard will contain an update purely for Intels that will only boost performance on INTEL machines both 32 and 64 bit. There will be absolutely no reason that PPC users would need it.
In another 18 months after 10.6 there would be a true update to OS X. Built only for Intel.
It would be about 5 years after the last Gs were released and thee would be minimal complaints about upgrading.

 

[macjunkie999]

If there are different code bases for all four then I say reduce to 64 bit only on both PPC and x86.

If 64/32 are included as a group regardless, I say support PPC for 5 years after the last PPC shipped. Applecare is obligated for 3 years and any renewal of that makes 5 reasonable.

That does not necessarily say every feature need be supported, but one wonders why Apple does not for example release an OS 9.2 compatibility upgrade for awareness of things released since then. There has to be a few relatively easy things they could do.

It appears 10.4.11 is that bridge within the OSX world to prior versions of hardware, and 10.5/10.6 is a "new era" of sorts. I for one would guess 10.7 might be the Intel only OS, but it will also include several different Intel processor types support.

Apple can't seem to escape the complexity problem. Hence the iPhone. Very unified indeed.

Rocketman

for apple to drop support for 32 bit processors but at same time still support ppc would lead to an issue of older machines being support than new simply because of 64 bit , so in a sense you would have g5s being supported but new intel macs of 32 bit not being supported EVEN though they have the performance necessary to support it. so apple must support 64 bit and 32 bit on intel side and on the ppc side they dont absolutely have to support the 32 but since its not that hard to do so its really dumb and mean to the customers to drop it. I say 10.7 should drop ppc all together but 10.6 needs occur for ppc as its supposed to be a stability and performance release, apple really should have last supported be really stable.

 

[belisle]

What exactly do you mean by "first went to PPC with the G5" ?

You do know that Apple had been using PPC chips for YEARS before they started using the G5 (G3, G4 and alot of earlier chips before that).

Not only that, but the PowerPC was a joint effort between Apple, IBM and Motorola. It's not like they ditched Motorola. They ditched the 68k architecture.