Snow Leopard to drop PowerPC support?

PowerPC users, your days could be numbered. According to an alleged screenshot of Snow Leopard's system requirements, only Intel CPUs will get to take a ride on the 10.6 train as of now. The grab comes from an early version of the OS seeded to developers at WWDC this week, though given that Jobsy said we're a year out from an actual release, these things could change. Still, it's not looking promising for those of you who've stood by your older models -- but Apple shutting out legacy users doesn't come as a real shock, does it?

[Via Mac Rumors; Thanks, Kiwi616]

[Ralph @ Jun 11th 2008 2:00PM]

Old news.

[CUBSWILLWIN @ Jun 11th 2008 4:30PM]

Pie>PowerPC

[AKBlade13 @ Jun 11th 2008 2:00PM]

When 2010 hits, that's when the platforms should sift, earliest, late 2009.

AKBlade13

[AKBlade13 @ Jun 11th 2008 2:01PM]

I mean shift not sift.

[bohsocks @ Jun 11th 2008 2:27PM]

Why do people put their name as a "signature" for comments when their name (hyperlinked, blue, and sexy) is mere pixels away?

Moreover.... why do people use signatures on comments period?


BOHSOCKS


BOHSOCKS


BOHSOCKS







(bohsocks)

[Ghen @ Jun 11th 2008 3:01PM]

Boh:

Many people on the internet prefer to 'sign' anything they write regardless of the user name specifications of whatever medium on which they are typing. Its a method of respect to the person(s) to which its addressed. Usually I find its more common for users outside the United States to hold up more formality in typing as well as users who are older but still new to the internet since they grew up writing formal "snail mail" letters.

Its not elitist, its a form of respect. While it may be uncommon to see on the internet, its certainly welcome!

[me @ Jun 11th 2008 3:55PM]

@bohsocks.. lol good one.

ME
ME
and finally,
ME
oh, i forgot,
ME

[loosely_coupled @ Jun 12th 2008 12:39AM]

Snow Leopard just has the existing Leopard feature set anyways..

Of all possible things they could add to the OS, optimization and new performance libraries are the most platform-dependent. Taking time to write and optimize this new parallel processing foundation is probably difficult enough by itself - it would surely be a waste of resources to make a POWER implementation.

Overall, I'm really glad that ANY operating system producer is doing a feature freeze and focusing solely on optimization and efficiency. I have been a windows user for a long time, but my next computer will be a Mac . The Mac Pro is already a screaming machine, i can only imagine a future model with 2 Nehalem quad-core processors and a whole new set of parallel processing libraries, not to mention a GPGPU/CUDA implementation for offloading threads to the GPU. Awesome!

[Naughty Bunnies @ Jun 11th 2008 2:01PM]

If I remember it right, Stevo said this on WWDC, or at least he didn't mention PowerPC then.

[legacydevice @ Jun 11th 2008 2:02PM]

Par for the course.

[electronicat @ Jun 11th 2008 7:03PM]

That's the way I see it. I knew I would have to upgrade eventually, but at least this gives me something of a timeline. Got a whole year and then some to save up for a new Mac (that MIGHT be enough time).

[Todd @ Jun 11th 2008 2:02PM]

Forced obsolescence, mandatory upgrade, i haz it.

[Zak @ Jun 11th 2008 2:11PM]

The last G5-based Mac was made almost 3 years ago. By the time 10.6 is released it'll be about 4 years. 4 years of full legacy support is fine. 10.5 and all its upgrades will continue to work fine on G5s for years and years to come, because Apple isn't going to stop supporting Leopard as soon as 10.6 comes out. It's more likely that Apple will continue to release periodic 10.5 updates for Intel and PPC, increasing legacy support past 5 years.

In fact, the OS support will very likely continue past the point where most G5 Macs begin to suffer component failures. I really don't see how this is a problem... at all.

[Todd @ Jun 11th 2008 2:23PM]

still haz it

[Andrew @ Jun 11th 2008 2:26PM]

The whole point of releasing a new OS is to move the technology forward right?

Why would a new OS have to support 3+ year old hardware - makes no sense (unless you're Microsoft). Your PowerPC will continue to work just like it does today on OSX 10.5 - If you want all the advanced features of a new OS you will need hardware to match. (and no you don't NEED to buy a new computer, the one you have now works just fine right?)

This is the equivalent of getting pissed off that Sony PS3 software doesn't run on my old PS2.

[kal326 @ Jun 11th 2008 2:43PM]

Yeah I was a little irked about the requirements jump from Tiger to Leopard. I got a free G4 300 something Mhz tower that ran Tiger just fine. Leopard comes out and now you need a 700 to 800Mhz G4/G5 just to run it. On top of that it will NOT allow you to install it on a machine that does not met the requirements.

So even if Apple doesn't out right kill PPC support in 10.6, they could just make it so that only the very very last series of G5 machines could run it effectively killing of PPC support without actually taking the PR hit of out right doing so.

Granted single proc G5 1.6Ghz perform noticeably slower under Leopard it might not be so bad to just kill off PPC support.

[PeterF @ Jun 11th 2008 2:46PM]

@Zak
Obviously you dont see a problem with this, look at all your posts. You are a blind apple fanboy.

[PeterF @ Jun 11th 2008 2:47PM]

@Andrew
Then why does everyone complain that vista doesn't work well on old computers? They complain that it doesn't work well, but it works fine on new computers and the only time it has problems is with old ones!

[Reid @ Jun 11th 2008 2:54PM]

Nice jab at Apple with the last line, but it really is a bit of a shock IMO. Apple does tend to be more aggressive with shifting users off legacy hardware than (say) Microsoft, but the timeframe typically is still quite generous, say 5 years. People still bitch, but 5 years is 5 years.

In this case, the Intel Mac Pro came out less than 2 years ago. If Snow Leopard is out next summer, it'll not run on computers bought a mere 3 years ago. Sure, Leopard will still be supported and run just fine, but this is quite aggressive even for Apple. If you think this is "typical Apple," you're kidding yourself.

[Geir E @ Jun 11th 2008 2:57PM]

PeterF: If they dropped it I wouldn't be bothered. Just as I wouldn't run Vista on a 3-4 year old PC I wouldn't run Leopard nor snow leopard on an 3-4 year old mac.

My laptop was top end about 3 years ago. Now it suffers just to run the software I use in the upgraded versions that have come since I bought it. That's life. And before you badmouth apple laptops, it is an Acer Travelmate 8006. with a 2ghz intel pentium-m processor. centrino certified.

[Zak @ Jun 11th 2008 3:33PM]

peterf: Your post does nothing to contradict anything I said. If you want to call me a blind fanboy, don't you think you should present some evidence that proves me wrong to back it up? Or do you think calling me names is good enough?

[gad get @ Jun 11th 2008 4:52PM]

@ PeterF

It's actually quite a different situation, because why does Vista not work well on old-ish computers? It needs at least a gig, but in practice more like 2 gigs of RAM to run smoothly, for one thing (no joke, I use Vista Home Premium on a desktop with 2 GB of memory). And you definitely want a decent CPU and GPU. Even a lot of newer computers in the mid-range don't come with 2 GB of RAM, BTW, so it's not just a problem for older computers.

[Matt @ Jun 11th 2008 4:54PM]

I agree with @Zak. I am one of those people who purchased a Dual G5 Power Mac in the summer of 2005, knowing full well that Apple would be switching over to Intel soon. Frankly I'm surprised that I'll have gotten over three years of compatible system upgrades out of Apple!

My system still runs great and is very speedy (after adding more RAM and storage space). It should continue to work just fine for at least the next couple years. Then, if I really need to have the latest updates (let's face it, no one needs it but boy do we want it), I'll get a new computer and give this one to my parents.

And the cycle of computers continues. Go Apple!

[Vammo @ Jun 11th 2008 5:37PM]

At home I have a the original old beige g3 that *barely* was able to hand the original 10.0 install and it *still* runs....It feels like I'm using it underwater with some of the delays but that's only when I start opening up all my adobe apps at once.

IAt work I have a PPC g5 that i bought *after* the Intels came out because I wanted to make sure I could run all my old software.

And, just for shits and giggles, I have a Intel MBP so I can prove to everyone how big a fan boy I am (because my nano is too small for people to notice).

I also have a birthmark shaped like an apple on my butt which means I was destined for apple fanboyism...it wasn't a choice, I was born this way.

Sincerely,
Vince

[ericdano @ Jun 11th 2008 2:04PM]

Apple last made PowerPC computers when? And this release, as Steve Jobs said, isn't a features release. So, basically, PowerPC users can continue to use their computers until 10.7, which.....who knows when that hits.

That is why Apple is on the cutting edge, unlike Vista. Apple drops legacy code every couple of years......unlike Vista......

[Mark Anderson @ Jun 11th 2008 2:06PM]

Dear God, are you serious?

[Nohone @ Jun 11th 2008 2:14PM]

So 3rd party companies do not have drivers available for Vista at release, but do make them available shortly after, and people (the Apple people) condemns Microsoft for not supporting legacy hardware.

Rumors circulate that Apple will cut off support for their own hardware, and it is good because it stays on the cutting edge?

Which is it, it is good to get rid of legacy support, or it is bad to get rid of legacy support, or it is because it involves Microsoft so they are damned if they do, damned if they don't?

And for the record, no I am not a Mac user but I will be within the next few hours - UPS is delivering my Mac Mini today.

[Zak @ Jun 11th 2008 2:22PM]

Apple is not cutting off support. There's a difference between needing an Intel machine to run 10.6 and ending all support for PPC machines. Just like how Apple still supports 10.4 right now, Apple will continue to support 10.5 on Intel and PPC machines long after 10.6 is released, well past the point where the newest PPC-based Mac is over 5 years old.

This is a non-issue as far as that goes, and it's good that Apple is forcing the issue. It's not premature in any way.

[sinai @ Jun 11th 2008 2:25PM]

so doesn't this essentially make snow leopard a $2000 service pack?

[Noah Wood @ Jun 11th 2008 2:38PM]

@ sinai
I don't know where you're buying OS X, but man you're getting ripped off…

[Andrew @ Jun 11th 2008 2:41PM]

Ending legacy support is definitely a good thing - If I am paying for a new Intel Mac and $139 for the new OS then I want it to run as stable and fast as possible on my new hardware. I don't want a bloated piece of crap (Vista) with half of the promised advancements stripped out (WinFS) just because it has to support 4+ year old hardware.

I still have a PowerPC Mac and I will be happy to run OSX 10.5 on it for years to come - its a great OS - at the same time I totally understand why a new modern OS wouldn't run on old hardware.

and no you dont NEED a new computer or spend money at all just becuase theres a new OS out - there's not shut off date for old OS, your current computer will continue to work just fine.

[d @ Jun 11th 2008 2:45PM]

nophone - completely unrelated, but congrats on the mac

[Nohone @ Jun 11th 2008 2:49PM]

@Zak

Microsoft decided that they wanted their users to have the best experience possible, which means a video card that has been made within the past 6 years (my ATI 9800 works with glass, and there are older cards that work). They did not cut off support with the basic version of their OS, and still support the older OS (XP). So what is the difference between Microsoft and Apple?

In a different post you say 4 years of support is fine. When is the cut-off by your standards? Whenever Apple tells you? But if Microsoft doesn't "support" something that is > 4 years, then that is not acceptable and Apple makes a commercial about it?

[Nohone @ Jun 11th 2008 3:05PM]

@d

No offence intended towards you, but that is exactly why I have resisted getting a Mac for so long. A wedding, a child, etc. those are the things you congratulate people over. It is a computer, a tool to get things done and maybe some entertainment, not some extension of my being. When I got my iPhone (which is still broken, BTW) every Mac user used that same word – congratulations, like I was someone better now. I got it because it had a good web browser. I am still not sure if I am thrilled about having one (I needed to get it for software testing), but it will not be used to define who I am - an attitude that many Mac users seem to take on.

[PM1 @ Jun 11th 2008 3:39PM]

Ok, I'm a Mac user, but what you just said there makes no sense at all. Think about it, how can PPC users upgrade to 10.7, if 10.6 is getting a performance revision which will lead it into 10.7, which HAS that performance upgrades. According to what you said, Apple will have to sell what...an un-optimized version of 10.7 to PPC users, and an optimized version to Intel users...which beats the whole purpose of Universal Binary to begin with.

[Zak @ Jun 11th 2008 3:42PM]

nohome: Let's be clear about something. When I say 4 years, that means "4 years after the last one was physically made". That means 10.6 won't support hardware that hasn't been sold in 4 years. However, and this is important, it does NOT mean that Apple is discontinuing support for PPC Macs. As I said before, Apple will continue to support 10.5 long into the future, both on Intel and PPC Macs. Apple still supports 10.4 right now, for example.

Additionally, 10.5 will continue to work on G5 Macs even after support for 10.5 is finally ended which will be years from now. We're looking at at least 8 years total from the time the last PPC Mac was made until support for 10.5 stops, and even then 10.5 will continue to work fine. There's no reason PPC Macs running 10.5 won't be running fine in 2013 aside from hardware failure. See? There's no problem here.

Also, I never mentioned Microsoft, and nothing I've said has anything to do with them.

[Skeezle @ Jun 11th 2008 4:12PM]

@ Nohone

condolences on the Windows use...

[Nohone @ Jun 11th 2008 4:39PM]

@Zak

I understand what you are saying perfectly. When I say support, I do not mean the "if you have hardware or software problems [as long as you are under warranty], that you can't call up and get support", I am using the sense of new software being produced for it. Apple has a history of not supporting their old hardware through new software. As I said before on Engadget, I bought my GF a iPod Touch for Christmas. She plugged it into her PPC Mac Book using 10.2 (I think it is 10.2, I know it is OS X) and it does not work because iTunes will not install on it, and an update for iTunes is necessary for the Touch. Now imagine if Zune did not work on XP because Microsoft thought it was out of date. You don't think people, both XP users and haters, would say, oh, that is OK, XP was released 7 years ago, and they should not have to "support" that version?Yes, you need a SP, but a free SP, not a new version of the OS. And the same happens here, it is OK for Apple to stop supporting, through new software, their old hardware. When Microsoft (actually, 3rd parties) do not have new drivers for old (more than 4 years) hardware, and all hell breaks loose.

I made a comparison between how people treat Windows and how Mac is given a free pass. You challenged that, and so while you did not mention Windows, I continued with it - the main point of my argument. If you wish to challenge a point I make, you cannot decide to change the argument mid-stream.



@Skeezle:
Grow up.

[ANON @ Jun 11th 2008 5:49PM]

@nohone:
the only reason he made a big deal about you becoming a Mac user, is because you set yourself up in the previous comment. If you don't want to be congratulated, why are you announcing to the users on engadget that you will shortly be a first time Mac owner? lame.

[Seth Porter @ Jun 11th 2008 2:04PM]

Everyone says that this isn't an upgrade to add new features, just to improve performance and stability. So do you think we will have to pay for it? If it isn't going to add any new features, Apple is going to be hard pressed to charge $129 for it like they do for leopard.

[Mark Anderson @ Jun 11th 2008 2:07PM]

Well since it's got 'service pack' written all over it then, yes, it should be.

[Zadillo @ Jun 11th 2008 2:08PM]

It will still probably be a paid upgrade, but presumably more people will get it next time they buy a new Mac, and current 10.5 users might feel less compelled to buy it at retail, except for those who might benefit from some of the performance capabilities, etc.

[ddub @ Jun 11th 2008 2:08PM]

yes you will...... unlike vista.......

[Ryan @ Jun 11th 2008 2:08PM]

This is for the "developers preview" and not an actual OS release so obviously they want all their developers on intel since they will be designing applications that take advantage of the Intel processors. As for when the actual OS comes out I am 110% positive it will support PowerPC as well as Intel processors. There is no way in hell Apple would leave out that many of its customers since so many people still own PowerPC machines (myself included).

[Dustin @ Jun 11th 2008 2:12PM]

You do know this is Apple we're talking about, right? ;)

[KJ @ Jun 11th 2008 2:22PM]

You sir are living in a windows world. The transition began in Mid '05. This release isn't supposed to drop until Late '09 I think Steve/Apple thinks 4 years of cutting edge OS support for an end user computer is fine enough.

Really it's the primary advantage that Mac has over Windows (It's not VISTA people) After 3-5 years they expect you to update and don't get too nostalgic about your cheap ass. Mac's are expensive relative to the market, if you wanted to save money buy a PC. I already have seen problems where iPod classics wouldn't run without OS X 10.4.x+ Which while silly when considered is just fine in the Mac world.

As a windows developer I am jealous of the Mac Segment, you get to demand that everyone is above a certain level which is relatively high, and there isn't that stigma of abandoning users and forcing them to upgrade if they fall below the line. It's really nice when you think about it. Now if we could just get their total market share above 5%...

[Dave B @ Jun 11th 2008 3:32PM]

@KJ

Good points and something I was just talking about here at work. As a web designer/ developer dealing with IE6 headaches is absolutely ridiculous in this day and age when CSS is so much more advanced than what IE6 ever could handle. Yet it's still at the top of the list in popularity, and it shows just how backwards it is for technology companies to hold back simply because their user base can't handle change.

But such is the life of a company that wanted to hold such a large market share, they got stuck with all the burdens to keep the public happy. I hope Apple keeps their market share low for that one reason alone: politics start to get in the way.

[LJKelley @ Jun 11th 2008 11:07PM]

You are NEVER gonna get people to completely upgrade every 4 years. Most people are slow on technology and when they learn a system wanto keep for a long time. My mother in law for example had Windows 95 Compaq and almost 10 years later upgraded to Windows XP on a Toshiba Laptop. Spending $1000 is a big chunk of change and if the web works fine for them in IE6 (though I have her upgraded to IE7) they don't see a reason to change.

Get over it, it is life and unless you would rather not have the large userbase and ignore the dollars (because yes she does buy things online) then feel free to ignore them.

And Microsoft is damned if they do and damned if they don't. Vista was one of those moments, they did it for security and stability. The UAC isn't exactly needed, but as a long time Vista user now its amazing to see application be rewritten to conform to proper security standards and no longer need UAC permissions to run. So I think Vista is the best that could have happened for Windows and Windows 7 will build on that and be probably well praised.

[Dave B @ Jun 11th 2008 2:09PM]

But seriously, at some point moving forward at least allows for much better file sizes and performance than trying to make those people holding onto a G3 iBook happy. At that same point I'm sure Apple keeps its resources "efficient" aka minimal so having a team appointed to legacy hardware isn't worth the time/money.

With that, Leopard's not a bad place to stop and if Snow Leopard is only a performance boost, then by time the next 'feature-rich' OS comes out most people will be in upgrade mode anyhow. Of course, I'm in the camp of upgrading every 3-4 years, so sorry to those G5 tower owners. :-/

[vagvoba @ Jun 11th 2008 3:19PM]

This transition is less about file size and more about code optimizations.

Dropping PPC sounds totally logical for Snow Leopard considering that optimizing multithreaded execution and taking full advantage of the CPU and GPU features are extremely hardware dependent tasks thus it has to be done separately for each platform.

If Apple kept PPC support, it would take twice as long to make all the necessary optimizations in the code (compared to an x86-only version). Since the share of PPC in the installed base will be almost ZERO by 2009 (and rapidly dropping afterwards), it's simply doesn't make sense to delay the whole OS for the sake of PPC support.