[Mastrap]

I respectfully disagree. I run a business myself and we've encountered a number of occasions where it simply didn't pay anymore to support customers past.

[pheonixash]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Software-wise, Apple managed to do it all the way until the introduction of the Intel Macs, and that's about 22 years, so I'd say it's possible.

Hardware-wise, they could have just put a freakin' FireWire port on the iMac, or maybe even *gasp* a PCI slot. All their machines up to the iMac tended to be decently backward compatible with older peripherals, so this really isn't an issue.

It's also standard practice on the PC side of the fence, which is way more cost-conscious than Apple is.

Since the introduction of the iMac 333 Mhz, you've had a choice of Firewire on the iMac. That means for precisely 6 months it went without Firewire. I don't know what you're on about. Every iMac since then has had the option, and from the iMac G4(G5?) it's been standard.

[CharlesS]

Well, it was actually closer to three years, but anyway. You apparently missed the whole part about the software aspect of it and the Classic environment, which is much more germane to the point anyway since we're comparing to Vista. The FireWire thing is peripheral, but the point remains that for quite a while, Apple was selling machines that were completely incompatible with peripherals manufactured one week before the iMac's announcement. And from last year on they have deliberately disabled the support that allowed users to run any Mac software written for versions previous to OS X. Yet Mac users now seem to think the Mac is the paragon of backward compatibility, just because Vista stumbled a bit in that department, whereas overall Microsoft has been much more thorough about backward compatibility than Apple has been since the return of Steve Jobs.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Vista runs exactly the same on a MBP as XP. I noticed no real world slow down. It's use of system resources is in the same ballpark as Tiger.

Again, not in my, and others that have posted in here, and others that I have spoken with experience with Vista. Vista is very noticeable slower than XPs GUI.

Yes, you can turn off Aero Glass, you can also turn off normal Aero and use the classic Windows theme.

I might re-install it then and remove Aero.

I haven't add those type of problems with XP or Vista. I don't install crapware from untrustable sources, don't use IM apps much and stay away from porn sites or anything that throws up a million cookies, javascripts and pop ups. That's also my ethos with Mac usage. I have never used any anti-virus or spyware cleaner either because they always slow down computers. Any time I saw a strange looking file or folder on my drive I Googled the name up and found them to be harmless (back ups from software update, etc).

Again, you aren't the norm. MOST PEOPLE DO HAVE TO.

I have seen that people who are careless with the way they use software or the internet are the ones with the worst Windows and Mac installations.

#1 Ive been careless with my Mac, and never ran a virus software program NEVER a virus.
#2 People have gotten viruses just by plugging their computers into a network, or even the internet. What was that test a group did not too long ago where they plugged a XP machine in, did some simple web searching (Not porn) and got viruses within the first 2 hours of having a fresh install.

I have a cousin who thinks he's a ****ing computer genius because he twiddles and tweaks settings all day every day but all his computers run like **** because he spends 70% of his time downloading torrents and porn and another 30% running warez from who knows where. His Tiger runs like a domesticated cat that has become disabled, old and blind. His XP is a dead dog. I'm not saying you do that but many do and it's their fault their computers are crashy and sluggish.

Why would "tiger" run slow? does he have viruses?

No, it's not the consumers fault. It's MSs fault. They have too many options open from the start. And then when people go to blame MS, they blame the third party resellers.

There is a reason Windows is known for it's vulnerabilities. And it's not because of "user error" Unless you count "user error" being on the net.

[Kevin]

Vista slower than XP at start-up, shutdown, gripe users

Some accepted the slower speeds as the price of admission for getting the latest and greatest from Microsoft. Said Jon: "XP is undoubtedly quicker than Vista. I don't think there will be a way around that. You'll never get extra functionality, without some performance cost, assuming the same hardware."

Suggestions from other users, including some tagged as Microsoft Most Valuable Professionals, ranged from adding more RAM to running Vista's Performance Information and Tools control panel to diagnosing possible problems. Replies to such messages, however, typically claimed 2GB or more of memory, and said no problems were reported by the operating system.

Start-up and shutdown times were particularly grating to some users. "Takes about 10 minutes to boot, then 5 minutes after login before you can use it," said user Bengt. "If no improvement I have promised my family to return to XP. But I want Vista!"

One user had a worse tale to tell. Martin Racette wanted to know if it was normal that Vista took more than an hour to shut down and to restart.

Others, at least, kept a sense of humor. "I've compared it to a Commodore 64 loading programs from tape, but I think the Commodore was faster," said Steve Franks. "I'm currently writing this on my other PC, because nothing has happened on my Vista machine for about 15 minutes."

Users, software reviewers and some analysts have dinged Vista for its high-powered hardware requirements, and a lawsuit filed last week took that very tack.

Yeah Vista is just as fast as XP my ass.

And
Vista vs. Windows XP: Head to Head Benchmarks : Christopher Null : Yahoo! Tech
vista slower than xp, even on better computers - Ubuntu Forums

[sideus]

Building a new gaming PC for myself to replace the older one I just sold. Guess what OS I'm installing? XP

[Kevin]

I think MS believed a lot of people would run out and buy new faster hardware when Vista came out. Why should they? Esp if they aren't going to be seeing any real day to day speed increases with Vista?

Most ALL of the Windows users I know are staying with XP for the foreseeable future.

I remember when XP came out, it was poo poo'd at first too. But NOTHING like Vista has. And I REALLY wanted to like Vista.

If MS made a better OS than Apple I would jump ship just for the lower cost of owning a computer in a heartbeat. I have no loyalties to Apple. I just use what works best for what I do. And right now, that certainly isn't Windows. And Linux ... not even a contender.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Vista slower than XP at start-up, shutdown, gripe users

Some accepted the slower speeds as the price of admission for getting the latest and greatest from Microsoft. Said Jon: "XP is undoubtedly quicker than Vista. I don't think there will be a way around that. You'll never get extra functionality, without some performance cost, assuming the same hardware."

It's pretty sad to see that this accepted as gospel in the Windows camp. Every major release of OS X has been as fast or faster on the same hardware while providing plenty of new functionality.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

[
Start-up and shutdown times were particularly grating to some users. "Takes about 10 minutes to boot, then 5 minutes after login before you can use it,"

Bullshite. What computer does he have? An Cyrix 686 with a 1000RPM hard drive?

Yeah Vista is just as fast as XP my ass.

The GUI is exactly the same speed as XP in normal observable use on my MBP. What's more, Vista is using pixel shaders and transparency effects in real time.

If some idiot came around with his 400Mhz G4 and complained about the speed of Leopard would you also take his word for it without asking what his hardware was like?

What was with the benchmarks Kevin? Post some OS X versus Vista versus XP benchmarks while we're at it. OS X couldn't get live window resizing fast enough for how long? Three major revisions. It's Open GL performance is still far behind Windows' Open GL and Direct 3D.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

It's pretty sad to see that this accepted as gospel in the Windows camp. Every major release of OS X has been as fast or faster on the same hardware while providing plenty of new functionality.

10.0 and 10.1 were very slow compared to everything. 10.2 was just about getting there. 10.3 was when the GUI finally had the same snappiness (remember how we badly we wanted this) has other operating systems.

[- - e r i k - -]

And that contradicts what I say how exactly?

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

And that contradicts what I say how exactly?

Because we know how crippled and slow OS X was at the start compared to OS 9 despite bringing better technologies.

[bradoesch]

Originally Posted by pheonixash 

Since the introduction of the iMac 333 Mhz, you've had a choice of Firewire on the iMac. That means for precisely 6 months it went without Firewire. I don't know what you're on about. Every iMac since then has had the option, and from the iMac G4(G5?) it's been standard.

FireWire first appeared on the iMac DV/SE models and that was in October 1999. These iMacs were the first of the "sloat-loaders", the 333 MHz iMac was still the old style tray loader. In February 2001 all iMacs had FireWire.

[- - e r i k - -]

That is still not contradicting what I said.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

It's pretty sad to see that this accepted as gospel in the Windows camp. Every major release of OS X has been as fast or faster on the same hardware while providing plenty of new functionality.

Yes indeed it has. And I applaud it for that. A windows friend of mine recently got a first gen G4 tower for cheap on craigslist. He got it for next to nothing.. it's a dual somtehing or other. Anyhow, he was asking me if I thought him installing 10.2 instead of 10.4 would make it run faster. I told him NO WAY.

But it looks as if 10.5 isn't gonna run on it.. But yeah 10.4 is faster than 10.1. and so on.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Bullshite. What computer does he have? An Cyrix 686 with a 1000RPM hard drive?

Are you saying they are lying? I've heard this complaint myself. Now, just because YOU don't experience it, doesn't mean everyone isn't. MS has a history of being "semi compliant" with all hardware.

The GUI is exactly the same speed as XP in normal observable use on my MBP. What's more, Vista is using pixel shaders and transparency effects in real time.

Well good for YOU. That isn't the results me, and other people have gotten. (it seems like the majority say they DO see a big speed difference)

You are an exception.

If some idiot came around with his 400Mhz G4 and complained about the speed of Leopard would you also take his word for it without asking what his hardware was like?

No, because the average Mac user isn't using a 400mhz G4. Then again the average Mac user upgrades his computer more because Mac users are more "computer" oriented than most regular consumers that buy Windows. Most windows users use their computer till it's no longer supported. And rarely upgrade the OS that the computer came with.

Not that the computer I was using Vista on was 400mhz. It's a 1.4ghz machine with 1.5 gigs of RAM, and a 180gig drive. It even has firewire and a zillion USB ports. A bit above average than the AVERAGE computer user.

What was with the benchmarks Kevin? Post some OS X versus Vista versus XP benchmarks while we're at it.

I am not so anal retentive or into "the game" as you seem to be.... I have nothing to prove to myself. And I am not even sure such things exist. I do know what *I* have experienced. And it seems to mesh with the status quo that I am reading on the net. So It can't just me be. We aren't all making it up.

OS X couldn't get live window resizing fast enough for how long? Three major revisions.

Woah.. wait you are now slamming OS X for getting FASTER with each revision when Windows gets SLOWER with each revision. Is that your argument? Really?

It's Open GL performance is still far behind Windows' Open GL and Direct 3D.

You are speaking about gaming support. And since they both use the same hardware, that will be changing soon. IMHO

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Because we know how crippled and slow OS X was at the start compared to OS 9 despite bringing better technologies.

I would call crippled an exaggeration. I was running it on a 350mhz G3 with 1g of RAM and it was a bit "pokey" sometimes. Never crippled. It wasn't as snappy as OS 9 was.

Just like XP isn't as snappy as the original Windows 98 theme below it.

And Vista's GUI is even slower.

At least Apple has made their GUI FASTER over the years while improving it instead of making it SLOWER while improving it.

I'd say the first was more of a goal a company that made OSs would push for. Better+Faster. MS has made people think better+more features always = slower. That simply isn't true.

Gates even admitted that it wasn't an important part of the business once. Security was right up their with his unimportance.

I am sure he now regrets saying it.

[pheonixash]

Originally Posted by bradoesch 

FireWire first appeared on the iMac DV/SE models and that was in October 1999. These iMacs were the first of the "sloat-loaders", the 333 MHz iMac was still the old style tray loader. In February 2001 all iMacs had FireWire.

Oh yea, sorry my bad. So they went 12 months w/o the option.

Also, Vista's UI seems the same to me on my MacBook. And it restarted wayyy faster than XP.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

It's Open GL performance is still far behind Windows' Open GL and Direct 3D.

You are wrong, sir. Compare World of Warcraft in OpenGL mode on Windows and OS X.

[sek929]

10.1 was pretty damn good on my machine. The betas were damn slow, but OSX has gotten progressively faster since then.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by sek929 

10.1 was pretty damn good on my machine. The betas were damn slow, but OSX has gotten progressively faster since then.

Just like OSs SHOULD get. MS has people brainwashed into thinking newer OS = slower and thats just how it is.

MS has a lot of people thinking that doing their dance is the norm. But a lot of people don't know any better.

[driven]

Well ... Windows XP did boot faster than Windows 2000. However, some of the boot process is still taking place in the background as the desktop appears. That's ok though and doesn't bother me. For the brief month that I tried Vista (before upgrading back to XP) Vista did boot noticeably shower than XP. I didn't time it, but when I upgraded back to XP my machine felt like it had a processor upgrade. The performance difference was quite noticeable. This was on a 2.4 Ghz machine with 2GB RAM and a halfway scrappy video card.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by driven 

Well ... Windows XP did boot faster than Windows 2000. However, some of the boot process is still taking place in the background as the desktop appears.

So it doesn't really boot faster. It just tricks you into thinking it does. But being that I rarely turn off my computer, how fast it boots is pretty irrelevant to me. Unless it takes a ungodly amount of time like Vista does sometimes.

That's ok though and doesn't bother me. For the brief month that I tried Vista (before upgrading back to XP) Vista did boot noticeably shower than XP. I didn't time it, but when I upgraded back to XP my machine felt like it had a processor upgrade. The performance difference was quite noticeable. This was on a 2.4 Ghz machine with 2GB RAM and a halfway scrappy video card.

You have above average computer specs and vista runs pokey on them.

Someone that used to post here msg'd me and told me I was wrong about Mac users buying new computers more often than windows users.. that Mac users usually kept their Macs longer.. I don't think the two really contradict each other. As I still use my G3 tower I bought long ago sometimes. So Macs usually stay "relevant" longer, but it seems Mac USERS tend to upgrade quicker. And not because they HAVE to.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

And then they deliberately killed [Classic] off a few years later, thus removing any possibility of running said apps.

"Deliberately killed off"?

You're not seriously attempting to argue that porting OS 9 to Intel, or creating an entire emulation layer dedicated to running OS 9 on Intel machine, after its development had been entirely discontinued in 2002, would have been in anyway sensible, let alone financially feasible?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika 

"Deliberately killed off"?

You're not seriously attempting to argue that porting OS 9 to Intel, or creating an entire emulation layer dedicated to running OS 9 on Intel machine, after its development had been entirely discontinued in 2002, would have been in anyway sensible, let alone financially feasible?

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. But did not say as much because I wasn't sure exactly WHY Compatibility was killed. Not that I cared, I hadn't used OS 9 or "Classic" in OS X for like 2 years before Apple stopped supporting it.

Seems like they stop supporting things around the same time the users stop using them...
I don't think Vista is as big of a re-write of Windows as OS X was of MacOS.
Just think IF Vista was that big of a re-write? It would still be in development stages.
And Apple was coding for TWO different OSs. One for the PPC and one for x86 hardware..

I still have my G3 tower if I ever want to run OS 9 apps. (I have it just for a cool pinball game I play from time to time.)

[olePigeon]

My brother built a PC just for games and he got Vista for free through his TechEd thing. After having it bluescreen after trying to install it 4 times, he jumped on the net to triple check that his motherboard was supported.

Turns out that Windows Vista will Blue Screen if you have more than 2GB of RAM installed while you're trying to install the OS. So he pulled out his other stick of RAM and installed it again for the 5th time. It actually installed, but still bluescreened after the install. He then applied the patch and rebooted. It finally worked. He stuck back in his other stick of RAM.

So now he's trying to play Neverwinter Nights 2 and the game lags all to hell on a nice 6Mbit line. So we spend another couple hours trying to figure out what's wrong. We find out that Windows Vista has a feature (yes, it really is a feature) that if you play multimedia files like music or movies, then the networking stack gets pushed to the back of the process list so that the multimedia features have priority. This, of course, completely messes up your networking and increases latency.

So to play a game without lag, he has to make sure that absolutely no audio files or CDs are playing. Games that have music tracks on the CD instead of playing audio files from the in-game engine will lag in network play, so you have to disable the music in the game.

Vista is a polished turd.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by analogika 

"Deliberately killed off"?

You're not seriously attempting to argue that porting OS 9 to Intel, or creating an entire emulation layer dedicated to running OS 9 on Intel machine, after its development had been entirely discontinued in 2002, would have been in anyway sensible, let alone financially feasible?

They actually already had an emulation environment for PPC software as well as an environment for running OS 9 software for OS X.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

They actually already had an emulation environment for PPC software as well as an environment for running OS 9 software for OS X.

But not for running OS 9 on non-PPC hardware. I have no idea how much work that would be into supporting a completely dead system architecture, but I can't imagine that it would be trivial.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by analogika 

"Deliberately killed off"?

You're not seriously attempting to argue that porting OS 9 to Intel, or creating an entire emulation layer dedicated to running OS 9 on Intel machine, after its development had been entirely discontinued in 2002, would have been in anyway sensible, let alone financially feasible?

You're absolutely right, analogika. CharlesS is more than a bit out of line with that gripe. Classic was a VM that let Macs run Mac OS 9 within OS X. It was always intended as a stop-gap, never as a permanent fixture of the OS. And OS 9 was declared dead long before Apple defected to Intel. To expect Apple to go out of its way to support OS 9 - a long dead OS - on a foreign microprocessor family through emulation is asinine. People who need that kind of legacy support need true Mac hardware, plain and simple. If you're that bothered by the lack of support for Classic on Mactels, your actual beef with Apple is over the Intel defection.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by analogika 

But not for running OS 9 on non-PPC hardware. I have no idea how much work that would be into supporting a completely dead system architecture, but I can't imagine that it would be trivial.

Yeah, they had the VM part working nicely, just not the emulation part. They wouldn't have needed to do anything to OS 9, only to the virtual machine. I don't know if Rosetta would have been able to integrate with Classic, but if not, they could have used one of the various open-source PPC emulators out there such as QEMU or SheepShaver and integrated it with Classic. At the very least, they could have opened up the hooks that Classic used so that third parties could develop a Classic replacement. And lest we forget the thread topic, I'm fairly sure that Microsoft would have done something to facilitate running legacy software if they were in a similar situation.

And of course, there's more to it than this - some of you will know what I'm talking about. The rest will find out soon enough.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

People who need that kind of legacy support need true Mac hardware, plain and simple.

Wrong.

OS 9 never ran on true Mac hardware. It required a PowerPC.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

CharlesS is more than a bit out of line with that gripe.

...

People who need that kind of legacy support need true Mac hardware, plain and simple... your actual beef with Apple is over the Intel defection.

And this is an example of what I like to call "irony."

[analogika]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

And lest we forget the thread topic, I'm fairly sure that Microsoft would have done something to facilitate running legacy software if they were in a similar situation.

Probably.

On the other hand, Windows customers' backwards-compatibility requirements are what dug Microsoft into its current hole.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by analogika 

But not for running OS 9 on non-PPC hardware. I have no idea how much work that would be into supporting a completely dead system architecture, but I can't imagine that it would be trivial.

Probably nontrivial, but a better use of resources than making the Dock ugly.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Probably.

On the other hand, Windows customers' backwards-compatibility requirements are what dug Microsoft into its current hole.

Maybe, but then why are Mac users laughing at Vista for breaking some old apps? And why are people at Apple stores telling potential switchers that this kind of thing won't happen if they go Mac?

That's the thing - we're not better than they are in that regard. At all.

[Chuckit]

And hey, at least Windows allows system mods.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Maybe, but then why are Mac users laughing at Vista for breaking some old apps? And why are people at Apple stores telling potential switchers that this kind of thing won't happen if they go Mac?

That's the thing - we're not better than they are in that regard. At all.

I hope nobody's making that argument - it would be a rather weak sales point, since it's obviously not true. It's not a point I actually see anybody making except for the niner-whiners and "Real Mac™" fanatics that haven't been around long enough to remember the horror that was the PPC defection and unholy alliance with the antichrist - IBM.


At any rate, you're presenting the argument backwards: Apple supports their HARDWARE longer than Microsoft does.

I'm running the most current version of the top-of-the-line Apple operating system (yeah, there's only one, not twenty-eight, but that's really Microsoft's problem, not mine) on a machine that will be EIGHT YEARS OLD in four months - a 400MHz iMac DV. (Actually, to be honest, I boxed it at around 10.4.6 or so and put it in the basement, but it ran fabulously at that point.)

What's a good argument - and a very legitimate salespoint - is the people I see in the store who bought a perfectly fine computer a year ago that they can now throw away if they want to upgrade to Vista.

And Apple HARDWARE is definitely *far* more future-proof in that regard.

[pheonixash]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Yeah, they had the VM part working nicely, just not the emulation part. They wouldn't have needed to do anything to OS 9, only to the virtual machine. I don't know if Rosetta would have been able to integrate with Classic, but if not, they could have used one of the various open-source PPC emulators out there such as QEMU or SheepShaver and integrated it with Classic. At the very least, they could have opened up the hooks that Classic used so that third parties could develop a Classic replacement. And lest we forget the thread topic, I'm fairly sure that Microsoft would have done something to facilitate running legacy software if they were in a similar situation.

And of course, there's more to it than this - some of you will know what I'm talking about. The rest will find out soon enough.

Well goin' by that logic, Windows XP doesn't support any of the applications from the Windows 3.x days. Neither did 2000 or NT. And that was software only 5 years old. Hell XP SP2 refused to run my C++ compiler that ran perfectly with SP1 since it no longer supported 16-bit apps.

I don't think one is better than the other at legacy support, they are both adequate at supporting legacy apps. I see no point in wasting resources in developing emulation software for a handful of apps. I would much rather prefer Apple optimize their software for their current generation of computers (the Intels)

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by analogika 

I hope nobody's making that argument - it would be a rather weak sales point, since it's obviously not true.

http://forums.macnn.com/82/applicati...3/#post3380907

Not the same thing, I know, but still. The implication is that the Mac will be better that way, which is something I can't really say with confidence.

What's a good argument - and a very legitimate salespoint - is the people I see in the store who bought a perfectly fine computer a year ago that they can now throw away if they want to upgrade to Vista.

Here are Vista's recommended requirements:

Windows Vista: Recommended System Requirements

Keep in mind these are actually only recommended requirements, so it's probably possible to go lower than this and still run Vista. With that in mind:

1 GHz processor
512 MB RAM
20 GB hard drive
DirectX 9 video card with 32 MB of RAM
DVD-ROM drive
Audio Output
Internet Access

What part of that would not be either pre-installed or in the upgrade path for machines made one year ago?

Also, once again I'm not going to post the Leopard system requirements, but you can find them all over the Web and compare them to the Vista requirements. They're not much different in terms of time frame.

Another thing to think about is that PCs are usually expandable, while Macs are not unless you spend way more money than most consumers will be willing to give up for a computer. And I'd bet that Vista would let you meet those above requirements if you upgraded a component of your machine to make it fit the spec. Good luck getting around system requirements that way on a Mac, even on ones that you can upgrade. And for other things - say, if using an iPod was a very important thing to you, the usable lifespan of a USB 1.1-only Mac would have been much shorter than a PC from the same time period.

[Big Mac]

CharlesS is being a bit extreme (while I am being perfectly moderate of course), but the point he makes will probably gain additional validity very quickly given Apple's recent decisions regarding legacy support. All I know is, if 10.6 is Intel only, I will hold a sit-down protest in the lobby of 1 Infinite Loop.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

the point he makes will probably gain additional validity very quickly given Apple's recent decisions regarding legacy support.

I did say a few posts ago that there's more to this than it seems, didn't I? I won't say anything outright, but if you do a little research, you can easily figure out what I'm getting at.

[Big Mac]

I haven't really kept my ear to the ground for the latest Leopard news, but I know of two decisions to which you may be alluding:

1. Raising G4 minimum requirement to 867MHz
2. Getting rid of Classic

If there's other news around, I guess I'll just have to wait to be unpleasantly surprised.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

CharlesS is being a bit extreme (while I am being perfectly moderate of course), but the point he makes will probably gain additional validity very quickly given Apple's recent decisions regarding legacy support. All I know is, if 10.6 is Intel only, I will hold a sit-down protest in the lobby of 1 Infinite Loop.

I'm already planning a protest because my Macintosh 512K can't run Leopard! Computers should be supported forever!

[CharlesS]

You'll note that I never said such a thing.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm already planning a protest because my Macintosh 512K can't run Leopard! Computers should be supported forever!

Fine attempt at sarcasm there.

[Chuckit]

Look, all of my main Macs are still PowerPC. I have no vested interest in Apple abandoning the platform. But frankly, who knows when 10.6 is going to come out? If my old PowerBook is still supported in 2010 (a reasonable guess for 10.6), that's great — but I'm not counting on it, and wasn't even before Apple switched processor families.

[climber]

I think another point is that even if 10.6 is not supported on PowerPC hardware, it is NOT the end of the useful life of the computer. Most programs today run just fine on 10.3 or 10.4. The same will likely be the case for 10.5 for years to come.