[- - e r i k - -]

Looks like all apps are getting a full version upgrade, or at least a point upgrade. I can't wait to see what's new in PhotoBooth 3.0 and Stickies 7.0





One notable exception appears to be Dictionary, who regressed from 2.0.2 to 2.0

[Simon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Does that imply you expect the Mac Pros to ship with and OS that supports ZFS support?

OS X Server has always been a BTO option for the MP. Why should that change with SL?

[moonmonkey]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Looks like all apps are getting a full version upgrade, or at least a point upgrade. I can't wait to see what's new in PhotoBooth 3.0 and Stickies 7.0





One notable exception appears to be Dictionary, who regressed from 2.0.2 to 2.0

The app file sizes are much smaller, is the PPC code removed? it looks like it to me.
The question is this done by the installer app, or the OS is intel only?

[TETENAL]

Why would it say "Application (Universal)" when the PPC code is removed?

[Peter]

does Snow Leopard run on PPC? anyone know?

[- - e r i k - -]

Judging by all the universal apps I'd say it's a given.

[Simon]

Nope. Not a given at all. Check out the requirements of the SL Dev Preview.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Nope. Not a given at all. Check out the requirements of the SL Dev Preview.

Hmmm. His Steveness is going to get an angry email from me.

[- - e r i k - -]

I see. Very interesting.

Focused development is good. But platform redundancy is also good. I'm guessing they are pushing the legacy PPC support on the backburner like the Intel builds were pre-switch.

[angelmb]

No Snow for me either, damn the Global Warming !!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Hmmm. His Steveness is going to get an angry email from me.

Likewise. That is really annoying.

[Simon]

Let's see. SL will be released to the public roughly around WWDC 2009. Leopard will continue to run fine and be supported on PPC Macs. Support from Apple for Leopard will start decreasing when SL's successor 10.7 comes to the market. At an 18 month update cycle that would be sometime during the end of 2010. The last Power Mac G5 shipped August 2006. So that makes a minimum lifetime of over 4 years. For a pro machine that does sound somewhat short, but I wouldn't consider it outrageous.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

I have a G5 and I don't think this is a big deal at all. My PPC is rather old and the current intels are rather cheap. 10.6 is performance improvements but no new features so users on PPC with 10.5 just won't take advantage of all the multicore stuff they don't have anyway.

By the time 10.6 ships PPC will be that much older. You people are just going to have to upgrade if you want the latest and greatest.

[TheoCryst]

Hmm, that surprises me a little. I expected at least one more version to support PPC, but I understand the desire to make the OS lean and mean.

Still both 32-bit and 64-bit though. I suppose that's something.

[Chuckit]

Would you be equally OK if all current Macs were arbitrarily cut off? After all, they'll all be "that much older" then as well, and new Macs are apparently pretty cheap (if you have $3000 sitting in your couch, I guess).

People were making it out to be crazy talk that Apple would cut off Core Duo support, but Core Duos were sold concurrently with the G5. All this pooh-poohing seems to be purely "let them eat cake" from people who aren't harmed by this decision.

[rickey939]

Sweet!

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Would you be equally OK if all current Macs were arbitrarily cut off? After all, they'll all be "that much older" then as well, and new Macs are apparently pretty cheap (if you have $3000 sitting in your couch, I guess).

If snow leopard is all about writing software for Multicore intel CPU's and taking advantage of intel instructions and modern day video cards to set up a backbone for 10.7 (at least 2 years off) I am not sure what logic makes one EXPECT PPC support.

It makes no sense to me.

[Peter]

we don't know what the dealio is.
They might keep 10.5 updated.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Peter 

we don't know what the dealio is.
They might keep 10.5 updated.

With what? If 10.6 adds no new features what could the update in 10.5?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

If snow leopard is all about writing software for Multicore intel CPU's and taking advantage of intel instructions and modern day video cards to set up a backbone for 10.7 (at least 2 years off) I am not sure what logic makes one EXPECT PPC support.

It makes no sense to me.

Let's see if these improvements could apply to the PPC. Multicore CPU optimizations? Yep, multicore PPCs were being sold concurrently with the Core Duo (and the Core Solo, which is single-core but still supported!). Decent video cards? Those were actually more common in Macs before the Intel switch brought us integrated graphics (and again, this should disqualify Core Solo Macs if it were relevant, since they all have the craptastic GMA 950).

[mduell]

With an OS update so focused on capabilites for developers instead of features for end users, perhaps Apple is trying to get devs to move to Snow Leopard only apps as fast as possible.

Originally Posted by Simon 

I guess they have just come to the conclusion that regular desktop users will be OK with HFS+ while servers/workstations could profit from ZFS.

Originally Posted by Simon 

OS X Server has always been a BTO option for the MP. Why should that change with SL?

So the stock Mac Pro is a "regular desktop" and only becomes a "workstation" when you BTO OS X Server? I don't think so, but that's what your two quotes imply. ZFS support should be included in the base Mac Pro package, IMO.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

People were making it out to be crazy talk that Apple would cut off Core Duo support, but Core Duos were sold concurrently with the G5. All this pooh-poohing seems to be purely "let them eat cake" from people who aren't harmed by this decision.

Harm? What harm? I have both PPC and Intel computers. I don't see what harm this is to let my PPC computers continue running Leopard (and Tiger in the case of an aging iBook), while my newer computers get SL. They don't get LESS useful (save for aging) because they can't upgrade to the next OS X.

[Chuckit]

There are two possibilities here: Either Snow Leopard is worth having or it isn't. If the former, then PowerPC users are justified in being unhappy that they are arbitrarily not allowed to use it. If the latter, then Apple's pretty silly to be making it at all.

BTW: You're an Intel Mac owner, so you are among those who I predicted wouldn't care.

[- - e r i k - -]

I also tend to upgrade my hardware when common sense dictates.

[Chuckit]

Huh? I don't see how common sense dictates that Power Mac G5 owners need to upgrade their late-2006 machines — certainly not any more than it dictates that Intel Mac owners upgrade their early-2006 machines. (Unless by "common sense," you mean "random whimsy on Apple's part.")

[- - e r i k - -]

Common sense is that if Snow Leopard is THAT important to you, then you upgrade. Your old hardware is no less useful just because you can't upgrade to the latest and greatest.

[Randman]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Common sense is that if Snow Leopard is THAT important to you, then you upgrade. Your old hardware is no less useful just because you can't upgrade to the latest and greatest.

Never let common sense get in the way of a good QQ.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Common sense is that if Snow Leopard is THAT important to you, then you upgrade.

Well, duh. It's also common sense to get away if somebody's punching you in the face, but that isn't really a justification for face-punching. The point isn't that there's no humanly possible way anybody could ever run Snow Leopard — the point is that obsoleting computers for no good reason is an incredibly dickish thing and Apple shouldn't do it.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Your old hardware is no less useful just because you can't upgrade to the latest and greatest.

Actually, yes, it is less useful to me. Right now I have the ability to install pretty much any Mac software I have a need for. That's useful. For this reason, computers naturally become less useful as they get older. You don't see a lot of people still using Macintosh 128ks — they couldn't run anything modern. That's fine. If you own a computer, you just have to accept that this happens. The problem here is that Apple has decided to effectively triple the rate my computer is aging at.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Well, duh. It's also common sense to get away if somebody's punching you in the face, but that isn't really a justification for face-punching. The point isn't that there's no humanly possible way anybody could ever run Snow Leopard — the point is that obsoleting computers for no good reason is an incredibly dickish thing and Apple shouldn't do it.

Yes, I am sure there is absolutely NO good reason for a decision like this and Apple is just doing it to be dicks

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Actually, yes, it is less useful to me. Right now I have the ability to install pretty much any Mac software I have a need for. That's useful. For this reason, computers naturally become less useful as they get older. You don't see a lot of people still using Macintosh 128ks — they couldn't run anything modern. That's fine. If you own a computer, you just have to accept that this happens. The problem here is that Apple has decided to effectively triple the rate my computer is aging at.

No, your system will still be useful for ALL the things you bought it for. Expecting indefinite upgrades is unrealistic and frankly incredibly selfish. You wanting to stretch the lifespan of your purchase is understandable, but you are being way overdramatic about the implications of Apple releasing an OS upgrade that won't support your system.

Your current apps will continue working fine. Future apps will most likely continue to work fine. If they don't, take that up with the vendors of those apps that you need, and explain to THEM why they should continue supporting your system.

Like Apple, I am sure any such decisions will be made on rational grounds from a technological and financial point of view.

[AppleGirl1990]

You guys have it all wrong. SL will have new features! But it's MAINLY focused on tweaks, fixes and speed enhancements.

Do you really think Apple would release a new operating system with NO NEW FEATURES?
Not in this lifetime! I know you live on the planet Zork, but do visit earth when you get a chance.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Yes, I am sure there is absolutely NO good reason for a decision like this and Apple is just doing it to be dicks

I guess it is kind of mysterious. I mean, Apple already has the OS working on PowerPC with years and years of debugging and optimizations. What possible motivation could Apple have to drop support for PowerPC and force people to spend thousands of dollars on new Apple hardware? Oh, I know, it must have been too difficult to get the OS running on the architecture it was designed for and has run on for nearly a decade. That's got to be it.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

No, your system will still be useful for ALL the things you bought it for.

You don't even have the foggiest clue what I bought it for. I most certainly did not buy it just to run the software that was out at the precise moment of purchase.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Expecting indefinite upgrades is unrealistic and frankly incredibly selfish. You wanting to stretch the lifespan of your purchase is understandable, but you are being way overdramatic about the implications of Apple releasing an OS upgrade that won't support your system.

I don't expect indefinite upgrades. I just expect upgrades for a reasonable amount of time when it doesn't require an unreasonable amount of work. Less time than it takes AppleCare to expire is not reasonable.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

If they don't, take that up with the vendors of those apps that you need, and explain to THEM why they should continue supporting your system.

That's precisely what I'm doing with Apple. Because like it or not, third-party vendors take their cues from Apple. If Apple says I'm not worth their time, I'm not worth anyone's time.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I guess it is kind of mysterious. I mean, Apple already has the OS working on PowerPC with years and years of debugging and optimizations. What possible motivation could Apple have to drop support for PowerPC and force people to spend thousands of dollars on new Apple hardware? Oh, I know, it must have been too difficult to get the OS running on the architecture it was designed for and has run on for nearly a decade. That's got to be it.

I suspect the reason is cost analysis: Apple will spend more money on developing and debugging 10.6 for PPC than they'll make at $129 a pop.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I guess it is kind of mysterious. I mean, Apple already has the OS working on PowerPC with years and years of debugging and optimizations. What possible motivation could Apple have to drop support for PowerPC and force people to spend thousands of dollars on new Apple hardware? Oh, I know, it must have been too difficult to get the OS running on the architecture it was designed for and has run on for nearly a decade. That's got to be it.

I'm sure that YOUR cost/benefit analysis is much better than Apple's. They really should hire you to make decisions for them!

[Chuckit]

Why was that not true of any other version?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

I'm sure that YOUR cost/benefit analysis is much better than Apple's. They really should hire you to make decisions for them!

Hey, my cost/benefit analysis agrees that this is good for Apple in the short term. They force half their userbase to buy new computers — mad profit for them. It's just that it's bad for me, and that's what I care about somewhat more. Does that make sense?

[besson3c]

This is one perk of open source software: no corporations to chart out planned obsolescence roadmaps, and the option to fork off support to a willing party. It would be nice if the hacker community was successfully able to get SL to work on PPC machines without a hitch (and I'm not saying that OS X being closed precludes this possibility). As it stands, I suspect that if the hacker community was able to get SL to work under PPC, it would be a pretty ugly hack with warts that would be difficult to install, perhaps something like XPostFacto. Since the kernel is open, I'm sure that somebody will get SL to boot, it's all of the other components that I'm sure will be a bear. Of course, it is likely that Apple will try to circumvent attempts to retrofit SL for PPC machines too...

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Why was that not true of any other version?

Because a majority of the installed user base was PPC. However, with the ever increasing sales of Intel machines, there are a lot of Intel Macs out there. And, by the time 10.6 is released (which Apple is now saying is at least 12 months from now, so no January 2009 release date) the majority of Macs will be Intel based machines.

Truth be told, if Snow Leopard is released in 4Q09, I won't complain much. By then my G5 will be almost five years old, so I will have gotten my money's worth out of it.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This is one perk of open source software: no corporations to chart out planned obsolescence roadmaps, and the option to fork off support to a willing party. It would be nice if the hacker community was successfully able to get SL to work on PPC machines without a hitch (and I'm not saying that OS X being closed precludes this possibility). As it stands, I suspect that if the hacker community was able to get SL to work under PPC, it would be a pretty ugly hack with warts that would be difficult to install, perhaps something like XPostFacto. Since the kernel is open, I'm sure that somebody will get SL to boot, it's all of the other components that I'm sure will be a bear. Of course, it is likely that Apple will try to circumvent attempts to retrofit SL for PPC machines too...

If there's no PPC code in there, you will never be able to do more than compile the kernel and get it running. No Aqua, etc.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

If there's no PPC code in there, you will never be able to do more than compile the kernel and get it running. No Aqua, etc.

True. I was thinking that stuff would Universal and Apple simply wouldn't expend resources in working with PPC, perhaps locking them out of the initial install, but I guess that it would make far more sense to recompile everything as Intel only.

So much for that idea.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Common sense is that if Snow Leopard is THAT important to you, then you upgrade. Your old hardware is no less useful just because you can't upgrade to the latest and greatest.

QFT. Thank you.

Some people really need to calm down. If SL is basically a stability/performance update for Leopard Intels, PPC users won't be affected by it. This will change at the earliest when SL's successor is launched and Apple starts to wind down support for Leopard. That will be roughly 2011.

The day the PPC got cut off was coming. Everybody knows that. Just like some day Apple won't support the C2D I'm on now. If you need SL you'll have to dump that G5. If you need you're G5, you'll have to pass up on SL. And if you can't cope with the fact that sometimes you just can't have it all, well then I guess you'll just need to grow up.

[DarkStarRed]

Being on a iMac G5, I'm not worried at all!
This spells good things to come for UI & OS with 64bit & ZFS (SUN was looking for Apple to build the inter face)
so it'll be interesting to see it, plus better security for wireless or hardwired computers.

It's really the Dev's that will be looking at this to see what they can do "better" even for Businesses also that & to see what QT-X & the new Quartz engine brings.

[AppleGirl1990]

Additionally, Apple hasn't sold PPC computers in a long time. So why is everyone so shocked?
I welcome you SL. Hear my roar!

[bluedog]

Wow, has anyone else gotten the implication of "Snow Leopard" not having new features but simply improving on performance and security. This means Apple can give it to us for FREE rather than charging $9.99 or whatever sum they wish because without new functionality they don't need the fee for their 'accounting' and proper tax purposes.

--
"FREE", THE SNOWLEOPARD!

[besson3c]

I've never understood why people feel compelled to apologize for Apple for these sorts of things. If you are a PowerPC owner, from a customer's point of view this sucks, period. The Apple PR routine does not change this fact.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I've never understood why people feel compelled to apologize for Apple for these sorts of things. If you are a PowerPC owner, from a customer's point of view this sucks, period. The Apple PR routine does not change this fact.

Who's apologizing? If 10.6 comes out 4Q09, then Apple will have supported my machine for almost six years. That's more than adequate for me.

[- - e r i k - -]

Heh. The apologist card is only surpassed by the race card in terms of clichédness on the 'NN.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Some people really need to calm down. If SL is basically a stability/performance update for Leopard Intels, PPC users won't be affected by it.

It isn't. Read up on it.

Originally Posted by Simon 

The day the PPC got cut off was coming. Everybody knows that. Just like some day Apple won't support the C2D I'm on now.

And if Apple sticks to this schedule, that should be sometime next year. A two-year lifespan for a high-end machine is horrible value. Like I said in the post Erik was replying to, I understand that computers naturally get less useful as they get older and they aren't able to support new software. It's just that this is too soon. It isn't that my computer isn't powerful enough or that it's so old it's obscure — Apple just decided to drop support for me in order to pinch a few pennies.

Originally Posted by Simon 

If you need SL you'll have to dump that G5. If you need you're G5, you'll have to pass up on SL. And if you can't cope with the fact that sometimes you just can't have it all, well then I guess you'll just need to grow up.

Oh, sure, I can dump my computer. But without ponying up thousands of dollars on top of that, that will just mean I can't run any software at all. (Note that being officially obsolete is going to make PPC Macs' value take a nosedive.)

Originally Posted by AppleGirl1990 

Additionally, Apple hasn't sold PPC computers in a long time.

August 2006. That's when Apple was still selling PPC computers. Less than two years ago. That's newer than many Intel Macs.

[besson3c]

How long ago was it when the last G5 and G4 laptops were put out to pasture? Hardware life cycle replacements are different than software life cycle replacement schedules...

I just did a Google search for "first Intel Mac" and the first thing that came up was this:

AppleInsider | First Intel Macs on track for January

If Jan. 2006 was the timeframe when these particular Macs were moved to Intel, that means that the software will have been supported on these machines for about 3.5 years. This is actually pretty bad as far as OS support goes, and also fairly unprecedented. Find me another OS that only runs on hardware available within the last 3.5 years...

Where the "apologist" label comes in is people defending this from Apple's perspective, saying that this allows them to focus their resources, etc. This is all absolutely true, but where we start talking past each other is in looking at it from the customer's vs. Apple's perspective. Whether the software life cycle is 3.5 years or 6.5 years, the customer is almost always going to be unhappy about their software becoming unserviceable. When it's within a timeframe that pushes the envelope, not only do they have a legitimate complaint, but one that is supported by historical precedence and a much stronger rational, logistic argument.

[zerostar]

Has it been officially stated SL is intel only? I don't think it has but I may be wrong... My only PPC mac is a 1.5GHz Powerbook. Leopard doesn't even run well on that machine so it stays with Tiger. SL will run fine on my 2.8 iMac C2D. I have no problem running most software on my 10.4 machine so I guess I just don't get it... And who would buy a PPC machine 8 months after the first intels came out? That was what a year and 1/2 after intel switch was announced? Why would you do that unless you knew it wasn't the future?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

Has it been officially stated SL is intel only? I don't think it has but I may be wrong... My only PPC mac is a 1.5GHz Powerbook. Leopard doesn't even run well on that machine so it stays with Tiger. SL will run fine on my 2.8 iMac C2D. I have no problem running most software on my 10.4 machine so I guess I just don't get it... And who would buy a PPC machine 8 months after the first intels came out? That was what a year and 1/2 after intel switch was announced? Why would you do that unless you knew it wasn't the future?

Yeah, they should have bought that other tower Apple was selling. What was it called again?

Just because there was another architecture doesn't mean it wasn't "the future." If Apple was selling the machine, it seems like a reasonable expectation that Apple intended to support it for a reasonable amount of time. Sure, it would be become obsolete someday, but so will all computers. Apple did the whole "universal binary" thing and pretended like it would continue to support its current customers, so I think you can excuse them for believing that.