[macintologist]

The first PowerPC Macs, the PowerMacs 6100/7100/8100 were released in March 1994.

The first version of Mac OS to NOT support the previous 68k processor was Mac OS 8.5 released in October 17, 1998.

So in this situation, we should see the first Intel Mac shipping, let's say by August 2006.

According to the previous timeframe, that should mean that Mac OS X major upgrades will continue to support PowerPCs, until about 2010/11ish. After then, nobody should be rightfully bitching about their old PPC Mac not being supported by Mac OS X 10.7 or whatever it will be by then.

That's a pretty long time to hold onto that PPC Mac of yours I know I'll be buying the first Intel Powerbook to replace my slowly aging rev A 867Mhz 12" PB G4.

[zerostar]

I would think the timeframe would be around the same as it is now, Mac OS 10.4 dropped support for anything without FireWire, that is Anything before 1999 so thats what 6 years?

[Eug Wanker]

Sounds about right. I was thinking 2010-2011 before Apple stops making universal binaries with PPC support.

I sure hope that I'm not still on my current iMac in 2011. That would take enormous willpower from me to refrain from upgrading in 6 years.

[Lateralus]

Eh... Maintaining Mac OS Classic on PPC as well as 68k was much more of a bitch than maintaining OS X for x86 and PPC. That is most of the reason 68k support was dropped so quickly with Classic. The OS was already a patch upon a patch upon a patch. It didn't need to be hampered with anymore patches and forced emulation.

Additionally, the number of 68k machines Apple sold before transitioning to PowerPC was far, far below the number of PowerPC/OS X capable machines that will have been sold by the time the Intel transition begins.

I wouldn't be surprised to see PPC support for a decade or more, especially if OS X will be Apple's main software platform for 20 years, as Steve has said. No reason to drop PPC support when it is so inherent throughout the core of the OS.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

No reason to drop PPC support when it is so inherent throughout the core of the OS.

But... Apple can do anything that it wants. As with the dropping of OS 9, the wishes/needs of the installed base means practically nothing to them at some point.

Also, there's the issue of licensing. I'm sure that writing for PPC requires some external licenses that have to be renewed or renegotiated. What happens if SJ gets pissed off and says "hell no!"

Again, we're living on Apple's good graces here. Anything goes.

Oh, and ...

IBL

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

OS X will be Apple's main software platform for 20 years, as Steve has said.

I wonder what radical change he expects after 20 years. It will be just OS X 10.20 Housecat or whatever. I don't see how they could come up with a whole new OS.

[Eriamjh]

Apple's typical support cycle is 5 years. Everything else everyone says is unsubstantiated BS.

[Eug Wanker]

You could always put a Pentium 4 in your G5 Power Mac I suppose.

[osxisfun]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

You could always put a Pentium 4 in your G5 Power Mac I suppose.

So apple is going to make intel pci cards for g5s?

is this from an apple person!?!?

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

You could always put a Pentium 4 in your G5 Power Mac I suppose.

My G5 will be fine for three years, when it will be time for a new machine.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by osxisfun

is this from an apple person!?!?

Yes.

This week is just getting weirder and weirder.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

You could always put a Pentium 4 in your G5 Power Mac I suppose.

Yeah, this from the guy who wrote

The fact that this is a RISK processor...

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by osxisfun

is this from an apple person!?!?

No, can't be. An Apple insider would certainly know how to spell "RISC" processor !

-t

[osxisfun]

?!!!?!??!? i am so confused...


maybe he's a brit transplant from transitive...

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

I wonder what radical change he expects after 20 years. It will be just OS X 10.20 Housecat or whatever. I don't see how they could come up with a whole new OS.

hahahahaha

[osxisfun]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Yes.

This week is just getting weirder and weirder.

maybe apple will bundle these with g5s for the next year?

[Eug Wanker]

FWIW, he's on the Apple Computer SETI@Work team.

Originally Posted by turtle777

Yeah, this from the guy who wrote ["RISK"]

No he didn't.

Originally Posted by turtle777

No, can't be. An Apple insider would certainly know how to spell "RISC" processor !

See above.

[osxisfun]

>FWIW, he's on the Apple Computer SETI@Work team. bastard is prob. using a yonah powerbook!

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

You could always put a Pentium 4 in your G5 Power Mac I suppose.

Mods, please don't lock this one until we find out more on this!!

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by osxisfun

So apple is going to make intel pci cards for g5s?

is this from an apple person!?!?

If this is true, then there will be no reason to wait until the Intel Macs come out to buy a new one...

[osxisfun]

if true, this is BIG.

no osbourne effect for the powermacs.??!

[ASIMO]

Originally Posted by osxisfun

if true, this is BIG.

no osbourne effect for the powermacs.??!

Is that the effect wherein Apple gets its head bitten off for ticking off PPC zealots?

[osxisfun]

nope adam osbourne laptop fiasco...

good one though

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

FWIW, he's on the Apple Computer SETI@Work team.

No he didn't.See above.

Oh yes, he did. TWICE !

Maybe you should read your whole link:

>On Jun 9, 2005, at 10:57 AM, Darren Means wrote:
>
>> I Can't tell you who it was that said this to me. He may have no
>> more knowledge about this than I do, but this is what I heard.
>> Apple maintained some of the rights to the chip architecture (so I
>> should have said co-owned). The fact that this is a RISK processor
>> as well as using the vaporized copper allows the Chips to run much...

>>> On Jun 9, 2005, at 9:58, Darren Means wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is my understanding that Apple owns a certain amount of the
>>>> chip architecture. The processor is mainly a risk processor and
>>>> the technology uses vaporized copper instead of aluminum.

This dumbass !

-t

[osxisfun]

did you see my brit comment.??

maybe the spell it different over there.

or he can be lieekke the reesstt of us and misspellll a lot of words....

[Scifience]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Oh yes, he did. TWICE !

Maybe you should read your whole link:

This dumbass !

-t

Yes, the guy you quoted was a dumbass.

But, the link Eug Wanker posted was not written by him:

Subject: Re: We're we the Apple x86 lab rats???
From: Daryl Shatto <email@hidden>

Darren Means != Daryl Shatto

[osxisfun]

doh!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by osxisfun

did you see my brit comment.??
maybe the spell it different over there.

Even the brits don't change the spelling of technical abbreviations.

Originally Posted by osxisfun

or he can be lieekke the reesstt of us and misspellll a lot of words....

Still, if he really WAS an Apple developer, he should know better and take better care.
To me, misspelling it twice makes him look like a moron, more than a knowledgeable source of information.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Scifience

But, the link Eug Wanker posted was not written by him:

I know. I never meant Eug. And he knows.

-t

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by turtle777

I know. I never meant Eug. And he knows.

WTF are you talking about anyway?

[chabig]

Originally Posted by finboy

But... Apple can do anything that it wants. As with the dropping of OS 9, the wishes/needs of the installed base means practically nothing to them at some point.

Apple needed to kill OS 9 to provide incentive for the developer base to move to OS X. That same need doesn't exist for the switch to Intel. Therefore I see no reason for Apple to drop PPC support anytime soon.

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

You could always put a Pentium 4 in your G5 Power Mac I suppose.

Whoa! This is good stuff, I reckon. It pains me a bit that I'll never get that dual 3.0GHz + PowerPC G5 though

Originally Posted by turtle777

I know. I never meant Eug. And he knows.

-t

Dude, you're getting all confused. Above, Scifience kindly pointed out that:

Originally Posted by Scifience

....

Darren Means != Daryl Shatto

Daryl Shatto: Apple guy
Darren Means: guy who misspelled a few words

When Scifience said the article you quoted was not written by him, he meant "him" as in Daryl, not "him" as in Eug.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Apple Pro Underwear

hahahahaha

Are you making fun of me ? You sausage.

[:XI:]

Originally Posted by osxisfun

did you see my brit comment.??

maybe the spell it different over there.

or he can be lieekke the reesstt of us and misspellll a lot of words....

Yes, we spell it RISK here. Reduced Instruction Set Komputing is all the rage on our funny British Komputers.

I'm going to compile a list of idiots on MacNN.

[King Bob On The Cob]

"Apple has maintained rights to the PPC architecture. The rights to this technology is incorporated in Apple's "Rosetta" Transitive based solution so that carbonized applications built for the PPC will work on x86 and visa-versa."
Say what?!? We'll be seeing Rosetta on the PPC soon?

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by :XI:

I'm going to compile a list of idiots on MacNN.

Make sure you check the "Intel" checkbox.

[:XI:]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

Make sure you check the "Intel" checkbox.

*rimshot*

I had to read that five times before it sank in what you were talking about.

My name will feature on this list.

[Goldfinger]

[ShotgunEd]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob

"Apple has maintained rights to the PPC architecture. The rights to this technology is incorporated in Apple's "Rosetta" Transitive based solution so that carbonized applications built for the PPC will work on x86 and visa-versa."
Say what?!? We'll be seeing Rosetta on the PPC soon?

Since we're picking this guy's grammar and spelling to pieces to dis-credit him, its vice versa.

[michaeljohn63]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

No reason to drop PPC support when it is so inherent throughout the core of the OS.

Apple wanted to drop Classic support as soon as it could without making a core segment of its users abandon the platform (print media--graphic designers, print houses, etc.) because so many of them were tied to Quark, which did a really poor, and slow, job of getting its OS X act together. The reason Apple wanted to drop classic support is at least twofold. First, it didn't want to expend any more resources to a dead platform. Second, and I would think far more importantly, to really run OS X efficiently, you needed to buy a new Mac. Apple sells Macs as its primary business (I am sure Apple recognizes that the iPod, even if it stays as popular as it is, is just a music player and won't sustain the company by itself). Apple can sell more macs if more people feel the need to buy a better computer to use new software. Apple will want to sell as many MacTels as it can. The best way to do this is to target OS X support to MacTel and away from PPC as soon as possible. Apple won't abandon us PPC users for a few years, but it will be itching to do so, and it will tout the benefits of switching from PPC to MacTel right away and often (eg. "Have you tried OS X on a MacTel? You should. You'll never go back if you do. Apple. Think Intel."

[Luca Rescigno]

So what you're saying is that the whole Intel thing is a ploy by Apple to force people away from using Classic mode? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Why would they go to such lengths to get people off Classic? People have been saying for a long time now that Classic mode will live on if only because it wouldn't make sense to kill... it's technically very easy to maintain. With the Intel switch, it won't be, so Apple will let it die. Same goes with OS X... they may as well keep supporting PPCs with OS X because there's no technical reason not to.

[Eriamjh]

Apple's wanting to drop Classic support and switch to Intel are two entirely different things. However, they are killing two birds with one stone with this switch. 2006/2007 is the perfect time frame to say goodbye to Classic.

Anyone who is still using OS9 is living in the past. Classic use just means the last machine you can buy that will support is going to be a G5. Then you can still USE it for as long as you wish. But once you buy an Mac-86 machine, no more!

[wdlove]

If true, then I think that Apple is doing the right thing. They should support the PPC for another 5 to 6 years.

[olePigeon]

OrangePC 660. 450MHz AMD K6-III, 256MB RAM.
I used to have one of these. One of the coolest gizmos ever.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by wdlove

If true, then I think that Apple is doing the right thing. They should support the PPC for another 5 to 6 years.

Market realities dictate that they would anyway. The installed base is 100% PPC right now. The installed based of x86 Macs at WWDC 2006 will be a few percent. Maybe by WWDC 2007 the installed based of x86 Macs might be 15%. By WWDC 2009, maybe 50% if Apple is lucky.

I'm just pulling numbers out of my @ss, but you get the point. It would be foolish for Apple and its developers of mainstream software to stop support of universal PPC/x86 binaries before 5+ years is up.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I'm just pulling numbers out of my @ss, but you get the point. It would be foolish for Apple and its developers of mainstream software to stop support of universal PPC/x86 binaries before 5+ years is up.

Probably why the Quark CEO left. They just got finished with Photoshopping the "Optimized for LC040" logo when Steve announced another switch.

They just can't keep up.

[michaeljohn63]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno

So what you're saying is that the whole Intel thing is a ploy by Apple to force people away from using Classic mode? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Why would they go to such lengths to get people off Classic? People have been saying for a long time now that Classic mode will live on if only because it wouldn't make sense to kill... it's technically very easy to maintain. With the Intel switch, it won't be, so Apple will let it die. Same goes with OS X... they may as well keep supporting PPCs with OS X because there's no technical reason not to.

That isn't what I was saying. I was using Classic as an example, only an example. I don't think Apple's switch to Intel has anything to do with Classic. I am simply saying Apple may have dumped Classic even sooner if it had not been afraid of losing a core group of very loyal users: print professionals. With Intel, Apple will keep supporting PPC only as long as it must do so to avoid losing loyal customers. Or, put another way, Apple will want to drop support for PPC as soon as possible in order to encourage people to move to MacTel (which, like I said, would also encourage them to buy another Mac).

[Lateralus]

No, it would mainly alienate them.

If Apple wants to encourage PowerPC holdouts to go for their Intel based systems in the future, they need to de-emphasize PowerPC support, not drop it.

[Eug Wanker]

I'd say 2011 is reasonable for a time frame to stop making universal binaries. Before 2010 is not reasonable though. Apple will still be selling PPC Macs in 2007.

[chabig]

I agree with Lateralus. There is no reason for Apple to drop support for PPC. It's not in their best interest. The move to OS X was different. Apple really needed the user base and the developer base to move to X. Not so with a CPU change. I think Apple's software will ship in Universal Binary format for years to come (in computer terms, that's 7-10 years).

Chris