[furi]

I couldn't help but notice the implications of the Rosetta technology, that being envitably all PowerPC systems will be at the mercy of software developers due to rosetta's inability to translate Intel x86 binaries to PowerPC. So what does this mean for the average user? Pretty much this: if a software company ceases to support their software for the PowerPC platform, all PowerPC computers will be rendered useless as they can't run that software. Bottom line: no software vendor support for PowerPC macs == your PowerPC mac was a waste of money. For example, say Microsoft decided to release the next version of Microsoft Office for mac ONLY for Intel x86, PowerPCs users would be forced to abandon their computers in favour for a new mac. Where does this cause problems? Well, considering Apple is still selling PowerPC macs, and they plan to until 2008/2009 (correct that if i'm wrong), AND the fact that lack of hardware vendor support would and could translate to lack of software vendor support AND most Apple users plan to keep their mac for a minimum of 4 years, Apple will leave a extremely significant part of their clients in the cold with their investment (in a computer) depreciating a lot faster than they would expect. This would, in turn, cause serious damage to their image of quality and consumer confidence as that level of quality and consumer confidence would have to be rebuilt over the years again.

I'm pretty mad because I invested in a 20" iMac G5 expecting it to last 5 years, but it may have a shorter life than I originally planned, making my investment not worth while. I hope soon-to-be buyers of any PowerPC mac be advised that their mac they're looking into buying will not have the same life expectancy nor value as an Intel x86 system would.

[volcano]

Get some sleep. Everything will be fine.

Apple isn't stupid - they aren't going to alienate nearly all of their customer-base just to appease their egos or push this new platform. They know Mac users are in it for the long run, and that we intend to keep our investments for a good amount of time. Apple isn't blind, the programmers aren't blind, and the software companies aren't blind. I wouldn't expect an "Intel-only" application to arrive until 2008.

[furi]

So from what you said, it would give a life expectancy for any given PowerPC mac that has been bought in 2005 or later a 3 year lifespan. That's good and all if we all like to throw away money. Good old good for company vs. good for consumer trade off.

[Chuckit]

Universal binaries imply presence of PowerPC support. Rosetta implies that some people may not update their old applications to the new format.

[furi]

I'm not talking about universal binaries. Universal binaries are fat binaries, which contain the object code for both architectures. Once a developer decides to stop development for the PowerPC, the universal binary is not universal anymore and Rosetta does not provide translation from x86 object code to PowerPC object code.

[mduell]

Apple makes creating univeral binaries easy. There's no reason not to create a universal binary unless your app does something that is inherently Intel only (say, an app to edit the EFI bootloader).

I doubt Apple will continue selling PPC Macs into 2008. They have a contract with Freescale for G4s into 2008, but as far as I know that is for replacement/service parts.

I think your estimate that the average Mac buyer intends to keep it for a minimum of 4 years is high. Many people are on 1-2 or 3 year cycles.

It's mostly up to the developers to be "nice" to the PPC Mac owners and create universal binaries instead of Intel only; Apple has very little to do with it. A developer choosing to only produce Intel binaries is no different than a developer who decided to stop producing Mac apps a month ago. If the developer doesn't see enough value in supporting PPC Macs, they'll drop them. It is up to PPC Mac owners to buy enough software to remain attractive.

Emulation is hard (at least, doing it with reasonable performance), but if there are enough Intel-only binaries and PPC users who want to run them, someone will write a reverse Rosetta. You make it sound as if you won't be able to run any software if developers switch to Intel only binaries; every piece of software available today/you own today will still run forever.

You should buy a computer based on the value proposition available today, not some future expectation.

[Nerozwei]

Originally Posted by furi

Well, considering Apple is still selling PowerPC macs, and they plan to until 2008/2009 (correct that if i'm wrong)

The keynote noted that they'd have the transition to Intel done this year.

As for your other worries... I'd not worry about it because of the installed base of PPC machines out there and the fact that Apple has made it easy to create universal binaries (if you're using xcode).

[toddtmw]

Originally Posted by Nerozwei

...Apple has made it easy to create universal binaries (if you're using xcode).

That's the key, isn't it?

I've been e-mailing developers and posting in ther forums asking about this.

Some of the smaller, open-source devlopers are talking about maintaining two separate versions of their binaries. One stated they wanted to do this to keep the size of the binaries small, another had this to say:

When will a Universal Binary be ready?
Not for a while, because the opensource libraries [my app] needs use a build system which usually does not support building Universal Binaries.

However, what might be done quickly is a x86-only [app], natively built on an Intel Mac. I have remote access to one, I'll let you know if/when I can make it work.

So, the devlopers that either can't or don't want to build Universal Binaries will have to maintain two versions. How long will they do this? No one can say for sure. But, I'd bet it will be a while. And remember, just because they stop releasing new versions for PowerPC, the old version will still work!

Those of us that have been with Apple for a while have already been through this before during the transition from 680x0 processors to PowerPC processors. Back, then, the PowerPC processor had a 68000 processor encoded in microcode to assist with the emulation and it was still slow. It was even worse back then, because most of the OS was not PowerPC native. That transition was pretty painful. (They called apps that work on both platforms Fat Binaries back then.) But I don't really remember a lot of apps abandoning the 680x0 platform before people were ready. Yes, there were apps that came out that just needed the processing power of PowerPC, but that was expected.

I jumped on the bandwagon to get an iNtel iMac because my G4/400 is really really old. I'm hoping that Rosetta will still be faster than my old Mac. My biggest concern is the stuff that won't work under Rosetta.

When Apple switched to PowerPC, the new processor was actually MORE compatible than what they were switching from. (They emulated a 68000, so older apps that wouldn't work correctly on the 68030 and 68040 ran fine under emulation.) It sounds like Rosetta is decent when it works, but the list of conditions where it doesn't work is pretty long, but also very technical. So, it's hard to tell. The one thing on the list of things that doesn't work that concerns me the most is anything that installs a preference pane. This rules out the Logitech Control Center I use with my wireless keyboard and mouse.

I'm thinking it's going to be a while until those of use with iNtel iMacs on order are completely happy, but in the long run, it will get better.

-Todd

[jasong]

Actually my PowerPC Mac exploded when Steve intro'd the new iMac. Apple really means to devalue our investments, and fast. I've also heard that for those whose Macs manage not to explode, Apple is dropping all technical support immediately. PowerPC AppleCare - Gone. Apple's web site will do a check for which system you are using and refuse to run on PowerPC Macs. If you call Apple, once they do the serial number check to confirm PowerPC inside, they will hang up on you.

Face it dude, you computer is worthless and not even the dumbest noob on Craig's List would buy it now.

[Fdanna]

I'm quite sure that Apple's master plan isn't to screw its customers. The VPs at Apple probably aren't sitting in a room plotting how they can make the Macnn boards light up like a Christmas tree with irate posts. The fact remains that Apple was backed into a corner by using the PowerPC chips and the only reasonable way out was a processor change. Intel does seem to be the most logical choice given it's enormous resources.

If Apple maybe had more than 3-4% of the market maybe they could have convinced IBM to build G5s for laptops, but this was not in their PowerPC roadmap. So we are...

Obsolescence is a fact of life, be it with computers or any other electronic gadget. Without obsolescence you stagnate progress. Is it frustrating for people sometimes, certainly. Would I be pissed if I just bought an iMac after the last revision, oh boy yes.

PowerPC Macs will be very useful and valuable for as much as they serve your needs. If you're a technophile and you simply must have the latest and greatest, then yeah, you'll be wishing you didn't just buy that PowerPC machine. We're talking about a loss of powerPC apps 2 years from now. Do you realize how long a period 2 years is with a computer? Even if they were still making the apps, your computer wouldn't be able to run them well anyway! You'd have to buy a faster PowerPC machine!

[Fdanna]

Originally Posted by jasong

Actually my PowerPC Mac exploded when Steve intro'd the new iMac. Apple really means to devalue our investments, and fast. I've also heard that for those whose Macs manage not to explode, Apple is dropping all technical support immediately. PowerPC AppleCare - Gone. Apple's web site will do a check for which system you are using and refuse to run on PowerPC Macs. If you call Apple, once they do the serial number check to confirm PowerPC inside, they will hang up on you.

Face it dude, you computer is worthless and not even the dumbest noob on Craig's List would buy it now.

One man's trash is another man's treasure :-)

[tooki]

Originally Posted by furi

I couldn't help but notice the implications of the Rosetta technology, that being envitably all PowerPC systems will be at the mercy of software developers due to rosetta's inability to translate Intel x86 binaries to PowerPC. ...

I'm pretty mad because I invested in a 20" iMac G5 expecting it to last 5 years, but it may have a shorter life than I originally planned, making my investment not worth while. I hope soon-to-be buyers of any PowerPC mac be advised that their mac they're looking into buying will not have the same life expectancy nor value as an Intel x86 system would.

1. A computer is never an investment. Investments (hopefully) increase in value. A computer loses value, and extremely quickly at that. Computers are expenses.

2. It's gonna be a VERY long time before developers drop PPC support. Why? Because developers aren't developing for the computers that are available for sale, they're developing for the computers that have already been sold. There are millions upon millions of OS X-capable PowerPC Macs out there, and it's going to be years and years before even half of them have been replaced with Intel Macs. By the time developers start dropping PPC support, it won't be because of PPC's installed base, it'll be because the application is so resource-hungry that no 5-year-old Mac could run it anyway. (If this sounds familiar, it's because we went through the same thing with the 68K->PPC transition, where the first PPC-only apps tended to just be those where no 68K Mac was fast enough to run it anyway.)

toddtmw says the 68K->PPC transition was "painful" -- I cannot disagree more. For one thing, it was FAST emulation (for emulation). Achieving >50%-of-native speed is a remarkable achievement. toddtmw is dead wrong about the emulation provided: the Power Macs emulated a 68LC040 (no FPU, though 3rd-party software could fix this if necessary), which could run 99% of the programs out there, and it did so seamlessly. VERY few apps didn't run under emulation.


Apple made that transition nearly seamless, and I expect this one to go off just as smoothly, if not more so, since OS X is better equipped to handle it.

It's going to be years and years before PPC apps start to disappear (not counting those that simply require more horsepower than any PPC Mac can provide). Don't worry about it.

tooki

P.S. This didn't belong in iMac -- it's not an iMac specific topic, it's all about applications.

[furi]

You guys are missing the point. In addition to consumers, companies who purchase PowerPC macs are at a serious loss solely because in 2-3 years the hardware vendor will stop supporting (I'm not talking about Apple Care either) their hardware and the software vendors will follow suite. This ripple effect will hurt the any given company's year end net profit because depreciation will be much higher than any other system out there. For example, a company who just bought 20 iMacs will have their net profit decrease by at most 20,000 per year, not because their system won't work after 2-3 years, but because the support (in the form of big fixes, security updates, from the hardware and software vendors will disappear. Having a computer for 2 years only in a business environment is very uneconomical.

That being said, "obsolescence is a fact of life" (Fdanna), but obsolescence is relative. Everything is going to be obsolete eventually, it's just the degree and the time frame which it will take place. In this case, the product in question will have a life relatively shorter than their counterparts (Intel Mac or PCs). In the case of PCs, the life is of a PowerPC Mac significantly shorter than the life of its PC/Windows counterpart. Infact, programs that were made for Windows 95 still run on Windows XP (software legacy support, not to be mixed up with hardware legacy support). This is definitely a contributing factor for the reason why corporations choose PCs over Macs. Even though TCO of the hardware (server and client) is much lower, the TCO of the software outweighes the difference.

[furi]

Computers, just like anything in the world, IS an investment. The return may or may not be in the form of money, but certianly it's in the form of efficiency and convenience.

If you believe that this should be in another group, then by all means, move it.

[Mallrat]

i agree with 2008 assesment before they drop support... by then you'll want a new computer.

[ndptal85]

Originally Posted by furi

You guys are missing the point. In addition to consumers, companies who purchase PowerPC macs are at a serious loss solely because in 2-3 years the hardware vendor will stop supporting (I'm not talking about Apple Care either) their hardware and the software vendors will follow suite. This ripple effect will hurt the any given company's year end net profit because depreciation will be much higher than any other system out there. For example, a company who just bought 20 iMacs will have their net profit decrease by at most 20,000 per year, not because their system won't work after 2-3 years, but because the support (in the form of big fixes, security updates, from the hardware and software vendors will disappear. Having a computer for 2 years only in a business environment is very uneconomical.

That being said, "obsolescence is a fact of life" (Fdanna), but obsolescence is relative. Everything is going to be obsolete eventually, it's just the degree and the time frame which it will take place. In this case, the product in question will have a life relatively shorter than their counterparts (Intel Mac or PCs). In the case of PCs, the life is of a PowerPC Mac significantly shorter than the life of its PC/Windows counterpart. Infact, programs that were made for Windows 95 still run on Windows XP (software legacy support, not to be mixed up with hardware legacy support). This is definitely a contributing factor for the reason why corporations choose PCs over Macs. Even though TCO of the hardware (server and client) is much lower, the TCO of the software outweighes the difference.

Uh dude, companies are usually on a 3 year computer replacement schedule anyway. You need to lay off the crack pipe.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by toddtmw

It sounds like Rosetta is decent when it works, but the list of conditions where it doesn't work is pretty long, but also very technical. So, it's hard to tell. The one thing on the list of things that doesn't work that concerns me the most is anything that installs a preference pane. This rules out the Logitech Control Center I use with my wireless keyboard and mouse.

Basically, the reason is that Rosetta can't translate just a plug-in. It has to translate the whole program. If a program is running natively, as a universal binary, its plug-ins also have to be native. Preference panes and screensaver modules are plug-ins for System Preferences and the screensaver engine. I agree that's the limitation that will affect the most people. It still shouldn't be that bad, though.

[eevyl]

If you want to be on the bleeding edge of software, you'll have to buy new hardware every bunch of years no matter what, if the hardware switches technologies or not.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by furi

You guys are missing the point. In addition to consumers, companies who purchase PowerPC macs are at a serious loss solely because in 2-3 years the hardware vendor will stop supporting (I'm not talking about Apple Care either) their hardware and the software vendors will follow suite. This ripple effect will hurt the any given company's year end net profit because depreciation will be much higher than any other system out there. For example, a company who just bought 20 iMacs will have their net profit decrease by at most 20,000 per year, not because their system won't work after 2-3 years, but because the support (in the form of big fixes, security updates, from the hardware and software vendors will disappear. Having a computer for 2 years only in a business environment is very uneconomical.

How many corporations have significant Mac installed bases? Not many.
Of those, how many are depreciating and replacing their desktop computers on longer than a 3 year schedule? Very few.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by toddtmw

So, the devlopers that either can't or don't want to build Universal Binaries will have to maintain two versions.

Everyone can build universal binaries. If you are using custom build tools you can still merge the two binaries together manually afterwards. The size increase is negligible.

[Chinasaur]

Furi,

You're spreading FUD. This is a non-issue you are attempting to escalate to hysterical proportions.

The machines aren't out yet and you are acting as if suddenly, overnight, all PPC machines will be obsolete and irrelevant.

Relax. Since you didn't go through the last processor upgrade, you have NO experience and are making incorrect assumptions.

Relax some more and step away from the keyboard.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by furi

For example, say Microsoft decided to release the next version of Microsoft Office for mac ONLY for Intel x86, PowerPCs users would be forced to abandon their computers in favour for a new mac.

The old Office version doesn't stop working the second a new one is released, does it? So nobody will be forced to abandon their computers.

And software makers will make PowerPC-compatible software for years, because the user-base with PowerPC is large (remember that currently practically 100% of all Mac users are on PowerPC).

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by furi

In the case of PCs, the life is of a PowerPC Mac significantly shorter than the life of its PC/Windows counterpart. Infact, programs that were made for Windows 95 still run on Windows XP (software legacy support, not to be mixed up with hardware legacy support).

I thought this was about you wanting forward compatibility. Now all of a sudden you're talking about backward compatibility?

[furi]

I was never talking about forward capability. Read carefully next time.

[furi]

Originally Posted by Chinasaur

Furi,

You're spreading FUD. This is a non-issue you are attempting to escalate to hysterical proportions.

The machines aren't out yet and you are acting as if suddenly, overnight, all PPC machines will be obsolete and irrelevant.

Relax. Since you didn't go through the last processor upgrade, you have NO experience and are making incorrect assumptions.

Relax some more and step away from the keyboard.

Thanks for reading my mind. I always wanted to hire a psychic to see what the fuss is about. I'm glad though that I didn't have to pay their outrageous fees to have a conjecturer telling me what I'm thinking. I'm sure your psychic skills helped you out when you decided to take what I said and blow it out of proportion.

It's good to inform people of the potential troubles in the future than hope for the best because afterall psychics aren't what they seem and this world isn't perfect.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by furi

I was never talking about forward capability. Read carefully next time.

I have carefully reread, and it still looks like that. You were complaining that new Intel Macs can run old PowerPC-only software, but old PowerPC Macs won't be able to run new x86-only software. Maybe your original post needs to be reworded to reflect what you actually meant, because it certainly reads as concern over being compatible with future software.

Intel Macs are in fact backward-compatible with software compiled for the old models, so if that's what you were concerned about, set your mind at ease.

[furi]

Originally Posted by furi

I couldn't help but notice the implications of the Rosetta technology, that being envitably all PowerPC systems will be at the mercy of software developers due to rosetta's inability to translate Intel x86 binaries to PowerPC.

I think that first line was straight forward. From there, I just dumbed it down. Binaries compiled specifically for x86 will not work on PowerPC at this point in time. I did not meantion about the inverse because the inverse is what Rosetta is about: translating PowerPC instructions to x86. Universal binaries are grouping together of the PowerPC binary with the x86 binary.

[new newton]

Worrying about Mac developers not wanting to sell software to the vast majority of the installed base is nothing. I'm worried about being able to buy gas for my car. I've heard about this hydrogen technology that's supposed to power cars in a couple of decades. Anyone who's purchased a car recently is screwed, and it's my mission to tell them that.

[Chuckit]

So you are talking about forward compatibility.

By the way, we have always been at the mercy of software developers as far as receiving software is concerned. I don't see anything but FUD in your posts. No concrete facts or useful data. Just "o noes, a developer could consciously decide to drop support for my system someday."

[Salty]

You know what... I hardly imagine many developers will be making a killer app but won't be able to make it a Universal Binary. I imagine anyone talented enough to really really make me want their software, will also be fully capable of actually using Xcode well enough to make both PPC and Intel Macs run the app just fine.
As well, Rosette is designed to help the Intel chips understand the PPC apps, not the other way around, it wouldn't make sense to. The counter aspect of Rosette is the concept of a UB, new apps that can run will be made UB, new apps that actually need something only the intel chips offer, well too bad, happens all the time. Lots of people had 8 meg graphics cards when QE came out. We lived. Anyway no dev in their right mind is going to nix PPC support just for the sake of fun since that would mean they'd lose money.

[Millennium]

This happened before, with the transition from the 68K architecture to the PPC architecture. Within a year, many of the commercial companies stopped producing the FAT binaries, and simply sold two versions. Within another year, most of them stopped supporting 68K altogether.

Frankly, I think this will happen again, at least on the commercial side. In fact, it may happen even faster this time. It doesn't matter how easy Universal Binaries are to make; software companies don't want to support two architectures any longer than they absolutely have to, and there are good reasons for that, and not all of them can be fixed with a couple of magical compiler switches. "Losing money" will be irrelevant as soon as the last PPC Mac ceases production, as they know that everyone in their customer base will be upgrading eventually anyway, and even among those who don't continue with Macs, most of them will switch to Windows, so the companies still don't lose in the long run.

That said, this time we've got Open-Source on our side, and it's fairly likely that they won't stop supporting PPC; they appreciate elegant and clean technology, and they don't have a lot of the overhead that companies have. Even if they do abandon PPC, though, we who plan to stick with it can get the source to such apps and compile them ourselves. So as long as you're willing to deal with Open-Source, you may be fine for a good long while yet.

[ghporter]

Not having the latest, bleeding edge software for PPC machines is not going to be a major issue; what will be there will be what's done when a software house decides to focus entirely on the newer platform. And this is bad how? It's the stuff we all know and are happy with (for the most part).

On the other hand, Microsoft has several times slipped their "drop dead" date for support of Windows 98. It seems that there's still a demand for support for this petrified operating system. That implies that it's possible that consumer demand can cause even enormous software companies to change their plans and provide support-and maybe even new software-for older platforms and products.

Finally, as Millennium points out Open Source makes the Mac/PPC software world extremely large. Not only will there be support for existing Open Source products, but NEW Open Source products for the PPC platform will indeed keep coming. Hint: a lot of coders like to stick with what they have and know.

Deep breaths are in order here. The world is NOT coming to an end, and neither is PPC software for OS X. Not soon anyway, and not entirely in any case.

And now I must address the lifespan of computer hardware. It's in MONTHS in some cases. Months. Many companies plan for a 3-5 year replacement cycle for their computers. Even the Air Force replaces desktop computers on a 5-year cycle, and (despite what some people might think) I had to deal with ancient EVERYTHING when I was on active duty, including computers.

[production_coordinator]

Estimations from my 20 years on the platform:

1) You won't see significant (x86 Only) applications until 2009.
2) Current Macs will be supported for at least 4-5 years (which is fine for most users)

As you can still find OS 9 (and it's been years since the last .1 upgrade to that OS) support in 2006, you will still find PPC support in 2015+

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by furi

I couldn't help but notice the implications of the Rosetta technology, that being envitably all PowerPC systems will be at the mercy of software developers due to rosetta's inability to translate Intel x86 binaries to PowerPC.

It would be programming/business suicide to develop a x86 only program at this point... unless it's a niche market at this point in time as the percentage of shipping OS X x86 systems is <1% of the Mac community.

Apple is shipping one comsumer computer and one pro portable.

The people jumping on these systems are:
1) Programmers (the people that need to start coding for OS X)
2) Early adopters (people that want the latest greatest even if it means road-bumps ahead)

Originally Posted by furi

So what does this mean for the average user? Pretty much this: if a software company ceases to support their software for the PowerPC platform, all PowerPC computers will be rendered useless as they can't run that software.

Give business and programmers credit. They know how to A) take care of their customers and B) make a buck. Abandoning the MAJORITY of mac users PPC Macs for the minority [/b]x86 Macs[/b] is foolish at best.

I've went through the 68K to PPC transition... and the OS 9 to OS X transition. Neither transition caused catastrophic devaluing of systems.

Originally Posted by furi

Bottom line: no software vendor support for PowerPC macs == your PowerPC mac was a waste of money.

Guess what... software developers don't support most old computer systems. In 4-5 years, your computer will be considered old... so regardless of the CPU, it would have not been supported. The x86 may change that a bit, but a current system will still be a solid system for 4-5 years.

Originally Posted by furi

For example, say Microsoft decided to release the next version of Microsoft Office for mac ONLY for Intel x86, PowerPCs users would be forced to abandon their computers in favour for a new mac.

1) Microsoft isn't going to abandon PPC anytime soon. and if they do in 4-5 years... guess what... who cares... Word 2004 (and the next version) will get you through until your computer is obsolete.

2) You are never Forced to abandon your system. Ask Newton users.

Originally Posted by furi

Where does this cause problems? Well, considering Apple is still selling PowerPC macs, and they plan to until 2008/2009 (correct that if i'm wrong)

Wrong... at the end of 2006, Apple will only be selling x86 systems.

Originally Posted by furi

, AND the fact that lack of hardware vendor support would and could translate to lack of software vendor support

This is where you lost me... so you think EVERY developer is throwing away their PPC systems and only buying x86 systems? The market doesn't turn on a dime... as much as your post suggests... it takes years for developers to transition... and the x86 one shouldn't be nearly as horrible as you make it out to be.

Originally Posted by furi

AND most Apple users plan to keep their mac for a minimum of 4 years

Wait... you just said there was a lack of hardware support... then you went on to say that most Mac users keep their systems for 4 years... which is it?

Originally Posted by furi

, Apple will leave a extremely significant part of their clients in the cold with their investment (in a computer) depreciating a lot faster than they would expect.

1) a computer is never an investment.
2) Apple isn't leaving anyone out in the cold (they told us months ago that we were switching)
3) Apple has a "transition path" it's not like just last week they abandoned all support for anything PPC.

Originally Posted by furi

This would, in turn, cause serious damage to their image of quality and consumer confidence as that level of quality and consumer confidence would have to be rebuilt over the years again.

Wrong, wrong, wrong...

Apple will take care of their people for 3-5 years. Very rarely do they abandon users within this timeframe. Usually it happens in waves...

GUESS: OS 10.5 will only work on G4, G5 and x86 systems, OS 10.6 will only work on G5 and x86 systems... OS 10.7 will be x86 only. And by 10.7... with an average OS update at >18 months... that places us at x86 only in roughly 5-6 years (and guess what. OS 10.4 doesn't run on 6 year old systems.)

Originally Posted by furi

I'm pretty mad because I invested in a 20" iMac G5 expecting it to last 5 years, but it may have a shorter life than I originally planned, making my investment not worth while. I hope soon-to-be buyers of any PowerPC mac be advised that their mac they're looking into buying will not have the same life expectancy nor value as an Intel x86 system would.

Ha ha... Apple isn't Dell. If Apple came out 5 months ago and said "we will have a x86 mac in 5 months." guess what would have happened to iMac (and many other) sales. They would have tanked.

Apple needs to sell what they have... when they have it. I purchased an iBook 4 months ago, and when the MacBook mini or whatever comes out... I'll still be using my G4 iMac. And when the revision 2 MacBook comes out... I'll still be using my G4 iBook. It's not going to lose value IMHO, because until the applications aren't supported... I can still use it. To be honest, I can use it even after the applications aren't supported.

[Eriamjh]

Expect Apple to drop support of PPC apps around the 5-year mark. For us, that means about 2010 or 2011.

As for developers dropping PPC support and not selling Universal Binaries or PPC versions, unless Apple sales of iMac PCs skyrocket dwarfing the PPCs already sold, they are seriously limiting their market potential for sales to Intel-Only Macs.

If you are afraid, then upgrade now, before the rest of the Mac-using world realizes what is happening. If you are afraid of jumping in, buy a PPC and an Intel Mac and you'll be set no matter what.

If you can't afford it, then buy a windows PC.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by furi

Bottom line: no software vendor support for PowerPC macs == your PowerPC mac was a waste of money.

Originally Posted by furi

Computers, just like anything in the world, IS [sic] an investment. The return may or may not be in the form of money, but certianly it's in the form of efficiency and convenience.

You're contradicting yourself, Furi. It will be a long time before software vendors drop support for PowerPC Macs. And when they do, the machine you bought today may be worth very little, but didn't you get your money's worth out of it in the form of efficiency and convenience? So you can't logically say that your purchase was a waste of money.

Chris

[analogika]

Originally Posted by furi

You guys are missing the point. In addition to consumers, companies who purchase PowerPC macs are at a serious loss solely because in 2-3 years the hardware vendor will stop supporting (I'm not talking about Apple Care either) their hardware and the software vendors will follow suite. This ripple effect will hurt the any given company's year end net profit because depreciation will be much higher than any other system out there. For example, a company who just bought 20 iMacs will have their net profit decrease by at most 20,000 per year, not because their system won't work after 2-3 years, but because the support (in the form of big fixes, security updates, from the hardware and software vendors will disappear. Having a computer for 2 years only in a business environment is very uneconomical.

a) Apple's system software has always been installable onto computers about five years old at the most (Tiger cuts off at iMac DV 400s, released in Oct. '99, while not installing onto the 350-MHz non-DV model released at the same time. Everything newer is supported.) at the time of software release. I see no reason why this would change.

b) Old computers don't just cease to run just because they're not updated to the very latest software. Companies will typically wait at least six months to a year after release of new software before upgrading, anyway. So assuming an OS cutoff at five years after release of the machine, corporate upgrades can occur up to six years from now on these first Intel machines.

c) No large company I know uses systems on a large scale that are much older than two or three years. Small companies, yeah, but those are still running fine on OS 9 or whatever the machine came with, so no problems with lack of support there, either.

d) Nothing is changing any more than it always has. Quit whining.

[Todd Madson]

Interesting. My six year old G4/400 is running Tiger 10.44 and is still a useable machine
despite the fact that most people would walk away from a 400 mhz machine. But it's
not my main machine anymore and that role is a rotating one.

Obsolete? Certainly. Useless? No. Not as useful as the G5 dual I have but I certainly
envision a day when my not-even-a-year-old Powermac dual is sitting in the basement
with its elder brethren. Computers performance and features is a moving target. It's
not a family heirloom (although that G5 case still impresses me).

So far your machine runs all applications and is likely to be able to run everything
for the next two years, probably closer to three. By then it will be time to look at
other options. My own plans typically are to keep a machine for at least half a
decade and I've still got machines that date from the 1980s. Things will be
supplanted eventually and the sooner you realize it the better.

You bought a G5 iMac expecting it to last 5 years - it very likely will do this if
it doesn't explode or get stolen.