PowerPC Support in Mac OS X 10.6 After All?

[Stella]

The screams of 'drop PPC' are too early. G5s are still very capable machines and should be supported for several more years to come.

There are still too many PPC machines for Apple to drop. Apple would be facing a publicity nightmare.

Support may be dropped in 10.7.... more like 10.8.

 

[belisle]

I'm kind of curious where all this talk of 3 years of support and/or AppleCare comes into OS decisions. I don't think there are any statements in the warranty, OS X license agreement or AppleCare support that guarantees that the computer must be supported by any OS released in that period.

Where does it come in? Common sense. Apple has never dropped OS support for a major (any?) piece of Mac hardware this soon. Doing it while the machine is still under warranty takes a level of gall that only Steve Jobs would attempt. After all, "This is life in the technology lane."

That said, I'd take a few-hundred-dollar credit to the Apple Store as compensation if I were a G5 owner.

 

[tbohlsennswssrg]

In my honest opinion dropping PPC support in 10.6 is influenced by the following factors:

a) When they release it
b) How many more features
c) People's Budgets to buy new intel Macs (Cost)
d) Stability in this new Operating System

ALL of the above

 

[mr.steevo]

If they drop PPC support, what am I going to do with my PowerBook G5?

I thought those weren't coming out until next Tuesday.

s.

 

[ltldrummerboy]

OK, lets assume that 10.6 changes all the Apple apps to Cocoa (Finder, etc.) and drops PPC support. Let's also assume that it's basically an optimized Intel-only Leopard. If apps created in "Snow Leopard" will still run on PPC Leopard, would all you iBook and Power Mac users out there have a problem with not having it? It's not like they'd be adding Core Animation or anything groundbreaking. Snow Leopard is Intel-only wicked-fast optimized OS X. Weigh in.

 

[kenaustus]

My little reality check:

Apple maintained an Intel version of OS X from 10.0 so it would be a bit queer that they can't keep PPC versions going for the 5 years Steve J mentioned.

PPC users were pretty good to Apple in the area of buying the new OS X new cats when they came out. At $129 a pop this loyalty brought in a fair chunk of change to Apple - especially considering the cost of goods sold per OS X box. I don't think that Apple will be willing to give up THAT revenue for a while yet.

Looking at the PPC base and their upgrade patterns (which Apple will know very well) I would find it hard to believe that PPC OS X upgrade revenues don't pay for the costs of maintaining PPC as part of OS X. Those revenues probably pay that cost many times over.

Leaving PPC users hanging and angry would be bad karma, which Steve J would probably like to avoid after the Vista screw up.

I can see Apple adding Intel only features in a limited manner, but believe that they will still have some form of Snow Leopard to sell to PPC users. That's good for cash inflow, profits and karma.

Good for me too.

 

[koobcamuk]

There are no PowerPC Macs in my house, so I could care less about it.

Would be nice for PowerPC users, but I'm not gonna complain if they drop it.

Couldn't care less!

I think the only PPC that could handle it would be G5 Power Mac anyway. My G4 PB 12" runs 10.5.3 just fine, but I wouldn't upgrade further.

 

[Amdahl]

OK, lets assume...Snow Leopard is Intel-only wicked-fast optimized OS X. Weigh in.

Sounds like you should get it for free. 10.5.4.

 

[Will_reed]

Well for the time being I only have a Powerbook G4 so if they just decided to drop PPC I wouldn't be very thrilled.

 

[commander.data]

Where does it come in? Common sense. Apple has never dropped OS support for a major (any?) piece of Mac hardware this soon. Doing it while the machine is still under warranty takes a level of gall that only Steve Jobs would attempt. After all, "This is life in the technology lane."

That said, I'd take a few-hundred-dollar credit to the Apple Store as compensation if I were a G5 owner.

It's not like it's never happened before. The last time that I can find that there was were short support periods were ironically in another architectural transition, albeit smaller, between the PowerPC 603e/604e and the G3.

For example, the Twentieth Anniversary Macintosh was sold until March 1998, yet did not support OS X 10.0 when it was released in March 2001, so the last buyers had exactly a 3 year period. It didn't receive support to the end of the Mac OS line either since it only supported up to OS 9.1 and not OS 9.2 released on July 2001. Admittedly, the Anniversary Mac was kind of a novelty, but it was priced as high as $10,000 USD, so you'd think they would get better support.

An area that you'd think would get good support would be servers. Yet the Workgroup Server 9650 was sold until February 1998, and it didn't support the Mac OS X Server 1.0 aka Rhapsody released just a year later in March 1999. It also didn't support OS X 10.0. Admittedly, OS 8.6 was actually released after Rhapsody, so the 9650 could be said to still be supported, but being only a year old, you'd think it would be able to run Apple's next-gen server OS in Rhapsody, but it couldn't. Neither did it support Mac OS to the end either, being limited to OS 9.1.

So when faced with a CPU architectural transition, Apple has cut support short, even having as little as 1 year's grace, in the case of servers and Rhapsody. I'm not saying I like it, but it could happen since it has happened before.

 

[Jeffsters]

"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.

LOL....I'll check in here tonight and look for your apology.

I know what I am talking about...here's another tid bit for ya! Layers and Slices...doesn't mean anything now but will after tomorrow, if you're a developer anyway. ;-)

And for the record I have my fair share of PPC machines....only difference between you and I is I understand the implications and the real impact not FUD or ignorance.

 

[chrismcdowell25]

PPC Support

I would think Apple is for sure going to support PPC. They have been all about universal binaries lately. OS X will run on multiple platforms at the kernel level for sure. The iPhone runs an ARM processor which I believe is very similar to PPC architecture. There are still PPC processor developments coming out such as the cell chip and Power 5 processors. I don't really think Apple is going to switch back to PPC but I am sure their code base is still going to be portable to multiple platforms for a considerable time longer. At least so that they have options in the future and do not have to play catch up. They need to be able to run OS X on their mobile platform which at this time is not an x86 device. I think it would therefore not be too much of a problem for them to keep PPC support for a short while more since their API's and kernel will be running on multiple hardware platforms anyways. I think major developers will start dropping PPC before Apple such as Adobe with their next rewrite of their CS line and when the demand for PPC application support has died off a bit then Apple will cut their ties for their OS releases but still keep internal builds portable. PPC is still a very large portion of their business and their developers business. That is a lot of money to leave on the table at this time and I don't think that is money they would be happy to leave behind. I think there is allot more optimization that Apple can do to their code to gain speed improvements on both PPC and x86 that would not have as much of an impact on their business.

 

[Jeffsters]

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.

Drop Carbon? Ok...bye Office? Bye Adobe Creative Suite? Yeah, and while they're at it let's drop Rosetta too!

 

[echeck]

Couldn't care less!

Ha! That is a huge pet peeve of mine. It's couldn't, people!

I think all this discussion is moot because there is no way Apple will drop PPC support in 10.6. If they do then I'll eat my socks, but I just don't think it will happen.

I only have one PPC left in the house, but it could definitely handle 10.6. I'm only running Tiger on it right now because I haven't forked out for Leopard just yet (Father's Day ).

My dual G5 is a great machine, even if it is three years old and needs a new superdrive.

 

[Jeffsters]

I would think Apple is for sure going to support PPC. They have been all about universal binaries lately....PPC is still a very large portion of their business and their developers business. That is a lot of money to leave on the table at this time and I don't think that is money they would be happy to leave behind. I think there is allot more optimization that Apple can do to their code to gain speed improvements on both PPC and x86 that would not have as much of an impact on their business.

Last post and I'm going to bed!

1. Universal binaries are not an issue or a factor here.
2. PPC is not a large portion of Apple's business and their future is Intel.
3. Apple optimize is not as easy as people here make it sound. The time ahs come where it's easier to do something on Intel that requires a total rewrite to get the same performance etc., for the same feature on PPC. It's a drag and has meant things just don't get done in time or dropped because Apple can't get acceptable performance or stability.
4. Apple has to not only support the OS on two CPUs but also all the developer tools, code, documentation etc.
5. For those that think it's no big deal and no drain to have the PPC code do not understand #3.
6. And one more time...there are NO NEW FEATURES!!!! If you have 10.5 on a PPC and 10.6 on an Intel they will have the SAME features. So what is the issue here?

Again, I will look in here tomorrow and see who's eating crow...

 

[Jeffsters]

I think all this discussion is moot because there is no way Apple will drop PPC support in 10.6. If they do then I'll eat my socks...

Looking forward to pics tomorrow!

Nite!

 

[chrismcdowell25]

Last post and I'm going to bed!

1. Universal binaries are not an issue or a factor here.
2. PPC is not a large portion of Apple's business and their future is Intel.
3. Apple optimize is not as easy as people here make it sound. The time ahs come where it's easier to do something on Intel that requires a total rewrite to get the same performance etc., for the same feature on PPC. It's a drag and has meant things just don't get done in time or dropped because Apple can't get acceptable performance or stability.
4. Apple has to not only support the OS on two CPUs but also all the developer tools, code, documentation etc.
5. For those that think it's no big deal and no drain to have the PPC code do not understand #3.
6. And one more time...there are NO NEW FEATURES!!!! If you have 10.5 on a PPC and 10.6 on an Intel they will have the SAME features. So what is the issue here?

Again, I will look in here tomorrow and see who's eating crow...

If they were to drop support for PPC on the desktop and laptops they would still have to support the iPhone. The iPhone is not an x86 device and they are still going to have to make all their base code and API's portable to other architectures since the iPhone runs the full OS X. I think Apple would be smart to keep their API's portable to other platforms because of the options that could present themselves in the future. Graphic accelerated code like nvidia's CUDA are technologies where platform portable code would be a great option to be able to support. From what I have heard OS X is built on layers of their technologies. Core Audio, Video, Animation, Cocoa, Carbon, Aqua... All of these API's have to be portable to other platforms to work with the product apple sells today. the iPhone is not x86 and portable code will have to be supported in the future as the iPhone does use these technologies. If they are supporting code on multiple platforms I do not see why they would drop support for PPC as it is still a capable and possibly future option platform. (Cell and future Power PC chips are being created for the future and im sure apple would not abandon those options.) Their code will run on more than just Intel until the iPhone and everything they sell that runs OS X is x86 and they decide to deadlock themselves into one platform. Until then their API's and code will have to be portable.

 

[macjunkie999]

I owned several Macs with a 6502 Apple ][e Compatibility card and 1 Mac with a Pentium PC Compatibility card. So Apple has historically supported older Apple machines and even Windows as best they could during big transitions.

Some of those decisions were made when Steve Jobs was NOT at Apple however, so who knows.

OH, I should mention, some of these Macs and Compatibility cards are actually STILL functional and to some extent can even get on the internet, albeit quite slowly.

I really need to clean out my attic though! LOL

I TOTALLY forgot about that neat card but even so that was when apple was experimenting with the possibility of hardware assisted multi-platform emulation, such as the dos compatibility card. As for steve jobs, he is of the mindset NO LEGACY QUICK FAST CUT, upgrades are a bug ect ect. (first imac dumping all old ports and floppy (yes i know internally adb existed but it was not official)

 

[belisle]

I'm not saying I like it, but it could happen since it has happened before.

I stand corrected. I could argue over the meaning of "major" or suggest that "mainstream" is the correct word, but I'll just admit that it has happened before. I'm fine with a life cycle of "exactly three years", since I was agreeing with others who went at it from the 3-year AppleCare angle.

However, to do a little nitpicking, the Workgroup Server 9650 was supported to Mac OS 9.1, no? So both examples were exactly 3 years, even though the server didn't get Mac OS X. AppleShare IP's last version included Mac OS 9. I don't count Mac OS X Server 1.0 as a real release, since it was effectively the precursor to Mac OS X Public Beta. (Did anybody use it for production?)

Wasn't 9.2 basically an update that consisted primarily of Classic bug fixes? If so, it doesn't concern me that a machine that can't run Mac OS X wasn't included in it. But you could probably make a case that Snow Leopard is like 9.1->9.2.

The thing about Mac OS 9 -> Mac OS X is that it was a totally different code base. That's not looking to be the case here with 10.5->10.6. Unless Steve has some compelling explanation if he announces EOL for PPC support before August 2009, I won't be convinced. ("We don't value our high-end customers who waited so long while we saved the Mac Pro for last" will be all I'll hear.)

 

[belisle]

The time ahs come where it's easier to do something on Intel that requires a total rewrite to get the same performance etc., for the same feature on PPC.

By and large, "total rewrite" for multiple architectures is false. The vast majority of the code is already written.

4. Apple has to not only support the OS on two CPUs but also all the developer tools, code, documentation etc. ...
6. And one more time...there are NO NEW FEATURES!!!! If you have 10.5 on a PPC and 10.6 on an Intel they will have the SAME features. So what is the issue here?

You talk like you have a vested interest in dropping PPC support. Why? If there are no new features and it's just a bug-fix/optimization release, then they could release 10.6 including PPC support, do nothing to help the PPCs along over 10.5, and nobody would notice.

 

[macjunkie999]

Well in a perfect world Apple would allow the users to decide when PPC support should be dropped. This could be done simply by Apple watching the user base of various oses until such drops to less than 10% of the total user base.

 

[knightlie]

Fact of the matter is you don't NEED to run 10.6, you only want. There's a big difference between a want and a need. You may WANT a big nice house, a fast shiny car, a trip to some exotic land, but you don't NEED those things. You need to eat, have a roof over your head, and have a Mac, clearly you already have those, everything else is purely wants, not required things.

Yeah, and when people come on here saying they only have 10.5 and can't run such-and-such an app, you'll be the first to tell them they're living in the past. I would guess that you are Intel-only, in which case supporting PPC does NOT affect you, or any other Intel-Mac owner, in the slightest.

Dumping two-year-old machines is far too early, especially when those machines are perfectly capable of running Leopard (as reported in this thread). I have a 1st Gen Intel iMac which is 32-bit - should Apple drop support for me after 18 months just to switch to 64-bit?

But then again, I think every 10.6 rumour we've heard is total BS, including dropping PPC support.

 

[theappleguy]

But then again, I think every 10.6 rumour we've heard is total BS, including dropping PPC support.

This report suggests that you might be correct: Only minor updates at WWDC that will be compatible with PPC Macs (though it doesn't make any comment on whether 10.6 will be Intel only when it does come out).

 

[RatGeek]

I haven't upgraded any of my PPC machines to Leopard - although I may upgrade the PB G4, which my partner uses.

That would be it though, if "Snow Leopard" is Intel only, so be it. I rather it be optimised for my Intel machines.

Why not release a big PPC update for Leopard at the same time, with the security features?

 

[gnasher729]

I see it happening like this.

10.5 dropped G3

10.6 will drop G4

and 10.7 will eliminate all PPC code.

Does that make you guys happy?

It doesn't make sense. Dropping G3 gave certain advantages: With G3 gone, all supported PowerPC processors have Altivec available, so Apple can do certain optimizations without having to maintain alternative code in case the processor has no Altivec. Dropping G4 support doesn't gain anything. Any 32 bit code that runs on a G5 runs just as fine on a G4.

The truth is that there are quite a few people posting here who don't have the slightest clue about software development who don't understand the (positive) implications of being forced to write portable software. The cost of maintaining PowerPC compatibility is probably not zero, but actually negative. And I think Steve Jobs plans that MacOS X will be here longer than Intel x86.