[zerostar]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

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

Called the know what your getting into tower? or an older G5 that would run 10.5 just fine and be less money? Plenty of options unless you had to have the latest and greatest and now are gonna cry when its finally dropped.
I knew intel was coming out, I stuck with my 2.0G5 for about 4 years, which for me is way too long usually. I upgraded to a C2D 2.8GHz and am pleasantly surprised at the speed, and I knew it was the future,m I heard about intel in early 2005 for christ sake, and rumors long before that!

As I said, this is all rumor anyway, I don't see PPC dropped yet, but they have been very aggressive in the past so who knows.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

Called the know what your getting into tower? or an older G5 that would run 10.5 just fine and be less money? Plenty of options unless you had to have the latest and greatest and now are gonna cry when its finally dropped.

The word "finally" there seems to imply that it's been a long time, which it hasn't.

Originally Posted by zerostar 

I knew intel was coming out, I stuck with my 2.0G5 for about 4 years, which for me is way too long usually. I upgraded to a C2D 2.8GHz and am pleasantly surprised at the speed, and I knew it was the future,m I heard about intel in early 2005 for christ sake, and rumors long before that!

So? I've heard about Nahalem for a long time now. Does that mean if I buy a new Mac now, I should expect them to have dropped support for it by the time Snow Leopard comes out?

That's what I'm saying. Apple has traditionally offered five years or more support, at least for its high-end systems. For instance, the newest PowerBook that can't run 10.5 is from 2002. The newest that can't run Tiger is from 2000. That's pretty reasonable, and I expected the horizon for PowerPC to work out something like that. Instead we're getting cut off after two years and change. It's not like I'm asking them to support my Power Mac 9600.

[zerostar]

I really don't think it will be dropped yet, as I said before, so for now i'll just sit back and wait and see what happens.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That's what I'm saying. Apple has traditionally offered five years or more support, at least for its high-end systems.

Oh give it a rest already. As has already been pointed out in this thread your G5 will see support until at least 2011.

And here's another piece of advice. Why don't we wait until Apple developes SL and states what the official release dates are. Right now we know hardly anything. It's more than premature to go all crazy about supposed lack of PPC support now.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Oh give it a rest already. As has already been pointed out in this thread your G5 will see support until at least 2011.

And here's another piece of advice. Why don't we wait until Apple developes SL and states what the official release dates are. Right now we know hardly anything. It's more than premature to go all crazy about supposed lack of PPC support now.

Why should he give it a rest? When a new OS has come out, Apple has abandoned all development efforts on their old OS code branches except for backporting security fixes. In other words, once SL is out, Leopard will be pretty much considered the end-of-the-road. Apple will no longer be devoting resources to Leopard at this point - if things break, they break, you will be told to upgrade... Software will eventually start to require 10.6 or later, etc. If you want to run new software, 10.5 will eventually be phased out as an option to do so starting precisely when SL hits the market.

If Apple decides to properly support and backport some pieces of SL to Leopard, than this parallel development probably wouldn't be a big deal to people like Chuckit and myself (not to speak for you, Chuckit), but until we hear otherwise I'm going to assume that Apple will treat SL just as it has treated all its other OSes in the past. A 3 year life cycle for an operating system is unacceptable, period.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Oh give it a rest already. As has already been pointed out in this thread your G5 will see support until at least 2011.

As has also been pointed out in this thread, you and I clearly have different ideas of what support is. I'm referring to up-to-date versions of software such as OS X running on my computer, whereas you're apparently talking about moral support and backrubs or something.

Originally Posted by Simon 

And here's another piece of advice. Why don't we wait until Apple developes SL and states what the official release dates are. Right now we know hardly anything. It's more than premature to go all crazy about supposed lack of PPC support now.

I think it's better to shut the door before the horses get out. We already know Apple is planning to cut support, so it's better to try and change their minds before they write it in stone.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Oh give it a rest already. As has already been pointed out in this thread your G5 will see support until at least 2011.

By NEW OS RELEASES, not by the spare parts shipping department!

My January 2000 iMac DV ran the very latest OS version up until October 2007, when 10.5 was released.

A high-end machine bought in 2006 should be able to run the LATEST software upgrade/updates until 2011 - at least, that has pretty much always been the case for any system software Apple has released.

If this actually does pan out (and I don't see system requirements at this stage as necessarily indicative of final release), then that would mean his machine's software support is cut off after less than 3 years.

HOWEVER: Snow Leopard isn't actually going to bring new functionality. So they're going to optimize the HELL out of the existing system functionality, and lay the groundwork for future system functionality, which won't show up until 10.7, probably three years from now - at which point these last G5 machines will be five years old.

IOW: G5 owners wouldn't benefit from a compatible release of 10.6 anyway, since the system is already heavily optimized for PPC, while any new frameworks won't bring new functionality until after the G5 is reasonably obsoleted.

IOW: Probably not that big a deal.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

As has also been pointed out in this thread, you and I clearly have different ideas of what support is. I'm referring to up-to-date versions of software such as OS X running on my computer, whereas you're apparently talking about moral support and backrubs or something.

Check out my sig and count how many G4s I have. Many of them are still on Tiger and that works just fine. Apple releases security updates for them and they all still do what they used to do. When SL gets some fancy C2D improvements will that be relevant to the G4s? No. Will I feel like I'm missing out on something? Nope.

If you are asking for Apple to basically only add new code if it's supported by every piece of hardware they sold in the last five years, well then I'm really glad you're not running Apple.

Apple has made many mistakes in the past. The Intel switch was not one of them. This endless whining about the switch and everything it brings with it is really getting old though. I understand people don't like to see their hardware become obsolete (and I understand if SL irks them for that reason), but should Apple change their update cycle because of that? Certainly not.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Check out my sig and count how many G4s I have. Many of them are still on Tiger and that works just fine.

Yeah, if I had 13 Macs including several from the past year, I wouldn't mind if a couple of them were gimped either. But can you try to remember what it's like for us folk who can't afford to spend $10000 a year on computers but still don't want to be left in the dust?

Originally Posted by Simon 

Apple releases security updates for them and they all still do what they used to do. When SL gets some fancy C2D improvements will that be relevant to the G4s? No. Will I feel like I'm missing out on something? Nope.

When some huge bug is only fixed in Snow Leopard (and yes, that has happened and will happen again) and you can't run the current version of any of your programs, then will you feel like you're missing out on something?

Originally Posted by Simon 

If you are asking for Apple to basically only add new code if it's supported by every piece of hardware they sold in the last five years, well then I'm really glad you're not running Apple.

I'm not asking any such thing. I'm asking for major OS upgrades to work on hardware released in the past two years.

Originally Posted by Simon 

Apple has made many mistakes in the past. The Intel switch was not one of them. This endless whining about the switch and everything it brings with it is really getting old though. I understand people don't like to see their hardware become obsolete (and I understand if SL irks them for that reason), but should Apple change their update cycle because of that? Certainly not.

I'm not complaining about the Intel switch or Apple's update cycle. My reason for not getting an Intel Mac yet is mainly financial — I can't responsibly spend thousands of dollars on a computer every year. What I'm complaining about is Apple prematurely cutting customers off.

[OreoCookie]

I think the switch to Intel is different from evolutionary upgrades of an architecture. Perhaps some of the new features require a certain cpu architecture (e. g. some security features that may depend on the presence of an EFI bios) would require that these things had to be written from scratch for another architecture.

Apple's approach to backwards compatibility was always one of `if we don't need to cut off support, then we don't.' Sure, some versions had systems checks to see whether your system was `fast enough'.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I think the switch to Intel is different from evolutionary upgrades of an architecture. Perhaps some of the new features require a certain cpu architecture (e. g. some security features that may depend on the presence of an EFI bios) would require that these things had to be written from scratch for another architecture.

If certain hardware can't support a feature, that's fine. Apple's done that before and I didn't really mind. For instance, some Macs (including mine) weren't supported by Quartz Extreme. But that just meant they defaulted to the original Quartz compositor — they weren't completely cut off.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Apple's approach to backwards compatibility was always one of `if we don't need to cut off support, then we don't.' Sure, some versions had systems checks to see whether your system was `fast enough'.

Exactly. That's why this irks me.

[Arkham_c]

It seems unreasonable for a machine that is still under AppleCare to not be supported. While I can appreciate Apple's desire to minimize its QA resource cost (and really, that's 90% of what drives a company to drop support for old hardware), it seems premature. If a machine is released in August 2006, it ought to run with any OS released through August of 2010. That's 4 years of upgrades, and it should be reasonable for most users.

Who knows though -- this is all speculation at this point. Apple could come out with a G5 trade-in program or something, we just don't know what the plan is yet.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by analogika 

By NEW OS RELEASES, not by the spare parts shipping department!

My January 2000 iMac DV ran the very latest OS version up until October 2007, when 10.5 was released.

A high-end machine bought in 2006 should be able to run the LATEST software upgrade/updates until 2011 - at least, that has pretty much always been the case for any system software Apple has released.

If this actually does pan out (and I don't see system requirements at this stage as necessarily indicative of final release), then that would mean his machine's software support is cut off after less than 3 years.

HOWEVER: Snow Leopard isn't actually going to bring new functionality. So they're going to optimize the HELL out of the existing system functionality, and lay the groundwork for future system functionality, which won't show up until 10.7, probably three years from now - at which point these last G5 machines will be five years old.

IOW: G5 owners wouldn't benefit from a compatible release of 10.6 anyway, since the system is already heavily optimized for PPC, while any new frameworks won't bring new functionality until after the G5 is reasonably obsoleted.

IOW: Probably not that big a deal.

There will be things in SL that will benefit PPC owners though, such as Exchange support in the various Apple messaging stuff, and possibly ZFS, if they decide to make this available for SL Client as well as Server. I'd imagine that they'll toss in some other stuff too...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Check out my sig and count how many G4s I have. Many of them are still on Tiger and that works just fine. Apple releases security updates for them and they all still do what they used to do. When SL gets some fancy C2D improvements will that be relevant to the G4s? No. Will I feel like I'm missing out on something? Nope.

If you are asking for Apple to basically only add new code if it's supported by every piece of hardware they sold in the last five years, well then I'm really glad you're not running Apple.

Apple has made many mistakes in the past. The Intel switch was not one of them. This endless whining about the switch and everything it brings with it is really getting old though. I understand people don't like to see their hardware become obsolete (and I understand if SL irks them for that reason), but should Apple change their update cycle because of that? Certainly not.

There are holes in your arguments.

1) What about all third party software? If they are using frameworks laid out in 10.5 or 10.6, eventually OS requirements will rise. Since 10.5 is being abandoned, it will only be a matter of time before developers stop supporting Leopard. With this dramatic change in Apple's support roadmap/strategy, this will accelerate this process and set new expectations. 3 years is not an acceptable life cycle for an OS - period.

2) Nobody is asking 100% Apple support of every piece of hardware in the last 5 years. What Apple did with Quartz Extreme was acceptable, I didn't bitch about that. Shutting the door entirely on PPC owners this soon is entirely different. Let's get real, we all know Apple is going to shift their resources to SL once it comes out and leave Leopard completely in the dust.

3) We aren't whining about the switch to Intel, and this is not "everything that it comes with". Unix is a hardware independent design, as you know. There is no written rule that a transition to focusing on Intel optimizations means abandoning the most basic support (i.e. getting the thing to boot) for PPC. If their objective is simply to provide a highly optimized Intel build, why not ship SL with two DVDs - one with Universal Binaries and the other with Intel only code? Sure this adds confusion, but the alternative requires me to shell out for a new machine if I want to run an operating system that is properly supported.

4) Apple change their update cycle? That's exactly what they are doing here...

How many switches has Apple forced their customers through in recent years? The switch to obtain Universal Binaries of your apps if you run an Intel Mac, the switch to 64 bit computing, etc. Apple is asking a lot of their customers, and really pushing the envelope here.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by 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.")

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

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 Chuckit 

I'm not asking any such thing. I'm asking for major OS upgrades to work on hardware released in the past two years.

There is not a single Mac that will have a two year life span with full software support (features, bug fixes, and security releases). Not one. Nearly all (~99%) Macs less than three years old will be supported by Snow Leopard on release day.

Originally Posted by Simon 

Why don't we wait until Apple developes SL and states what the official release dates are. Right now we know hardly anything. It's more than premature to go all crazy about supposed lack of PPC support now.

It seems very strange to take a product which used to support something, drop support for that something in the development version, and then restore support for release. Possible, but strange.

Originally Posted by Arkham_c 

It seems unreasonable for a machine that is still under AppleCare to not be supported.

Very few machines that are under AppleCare will be unsupported when Snow Leopard is released. I'd estimate at tens of thousands, because we're only talking about a few months worth of PowerMac/Xserve sales (from a time when the Intel switch was looming, so people were only buying if they absolutely had to or wanted to get PPC).

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by mduell 

There is not a single Mac that will have a two year life span with full software support (features, bug fixes, and security releases). Not one.

Huh? My PowerBook went that long with full software support.

Originally Posted by mduell 

Nearly all (~99%) Macs less than three years old will be supported by Snow Leopard on release day.

I think that's a pretty high estimate (Macs sold since August 2006 outnumber Macs sold from January till then 99 to 1?), but even if so, good for them. I'm not upset about the ones that are supported.

[osiris24x]

Apple has no plans on abandoning PPC users anytime soon. My understanding is that they'll continue to develop and support 10.5 and Snow Leopard side by side for some time. The idea is that eventually everybody will be migrated over, and in the mean time us Intel users can enjoy the benefits of a faster, more stable OS because it isn't bogged down with legacy support code.

This is an incredibly smart move on Apple's part. They're doing the one thing that Microsoft refused to do which is to stop applying band-aids and features, and instead focus on code cleanup and optimization.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by osiris24x 

Apple has no plans on abandoning PPC users anytime soon. My understanding is that they'll continue to develop and support 10.5 and Snow Leopard side by side for some time. The idea is that eventually everybody will be migrated over, and in the mean time us Intel users can enjoy the benefits of a faster, more stable OS because it isn't bogged down with legacy support code.

This is an incredibly smart move on Apple's part. They're doing the one thing that Microsoft refused to do which is to stop applying band-aids and features, and instead focus on code cleanup and optimization.

What is your source for the parallel development thing? That's great news if true, but at face value I find it hard to believe, no offense...

Let's not give Apple too much applause for applying code cleanup and optimization though, they've had plenty of years to do this... How many years have we had to suffer through a crappy performing Finder, for instance? This is long overdue and should have occurred much sooner, if not on an ongoing basis.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by osiris24x 

Apple has no plans on abandoning PPC users anytime soon. My understanding is that they'll continue to develop and support 10.5 and Snow Leopard side by side for some time.

$100 says there are bugs fixed and API introduced in Snow Leopard that are never released in Leopard. (In particular, I'm betting they'll fix a bunch of the silly issues with Objective-C garbage collection that make it positively dangerous in 10.5.)

Originally Posted by osiris24x 

The idea is that eventually everybody will be migrated over, and in the mean time us Intel users can enjoy the benefits of a faster, more stable OS because it isn't bogged down with legacy support code.

This is an incredibly smart move on Apple's part. They're doing the one thing that Microsoft refused to do which is to stop applying band-aids and features, and instead focus on code cleanup and optimization.

You're right. That is smart. I would just argue that PPC is not legacy yet.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Huh? My PowerBook went that long with full software support

Sorry, I meant to go back and edit that part of my post and I forgot about it. What I meant to say was no Mac is going to be supported with the latest OS for less than 2 years, and most (>99%, below) will be supported for at least 3.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think that's a pretty high estimate (Macs sold since August 2006 outnumber Macs sold from January till then 99 to 1?), but even if so, good for them. I'm not upset about the ones that are supported.

The estimated release date for Snow Leopard is a year from now; that's June 2009. Apple sells about 2 million Macs a quarter, for a total of about 24m Macs over the June 2006-June 2009 span. By June 2006, all of the Mac lines had migrated to Intel except for the PowerMac/Xserve. In two months, I'd estimate those lines sold no more than a quarter million units (pretty generous; only ~200k total desktop sales a month, mostly minis and iMacs), arriving at the 99% figure.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

$100 says there are bugs fixed and API introduced in Snow Leopard that are never released in Leopard.

Of course there will be; Apple has already announced QuickTime X, OpenCL, and Grand Central.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Just because there was another architecture doesn't mean it wasn't "the future."

Uhm. Yes. Apple explicitly said so.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

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.

Apple was selling G5 towers for people needing legacy support. Specifically people who still were running Classic. The tower were hidden away in the Apple Store and never advertised. Buying one thinking it was "the future" made you wilfully ignorant.

There really is no excuse for buying a G5 Mac post Intel launch believing that Apple would support it forever. It was a band-aid, nothing more.

And yes there is precedent. The time between the launch of PPC and the first OS (8.5) to not support the previous architecture (68k) was ~4 years. The time now will be ~3.5 years. Is it that much of a difference?

Sadly some things need to be sacrificed in the name of progress. Transitional periods are never easy, but Apple is making it as painless as possible. For us that went through the 68k -> PPC switch, there's no comparison. Things are much better this time around.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

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).

Ya so when SL comes out with all that extra stuff for PPC to set it up for the next 5 years PPC will be even more extinct.

Sure Apple could somehow spend lots of time so it spits out some tasks to PPC video cards but by then there will be so few PPC's left and Apple wants them to upgrade anyway.

You're gonna have to get over it if you want the latest and the greatest. The worst thing you are missing will be some speed improvements on a 3+ year old machine.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Apple was selling G5 towers for people needing legacy support. Specifically people who still were running Classic. The tower were hidden away in the Apple Store and never advertised.

That was the only kind of tower Apple was selling. I'm looking at the archive of store.apple.com from July 2006 and the Power Mac G5 occupied the same position the Mac Pro does now.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

There really is no excuse for buying a G5 Mac post Intel launch believing that Apple would support it forever.

Not forever. Just as long as any other system they were selling.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

And yes there is precedent. The time between the launch of PPC and the first OS (8.5) to not support the previous architecture (68k) was ~4 years. The time now will be ~3.5 years. Is it that much of a difference?

I can see that 3.5 to 4 is not that much of a difference, but 3.5 years after August 2006 would be in 2010.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Transitional periods are never easy, but Apple is making it as painless as possible.

No, it's entirely possible for them to offer five years of support. It would probably only be this one last version they'd need to build for PowerPC. They've simply chosen not to, and that sucks for me and many other Mac users.

[0157988944]

Look, an Intel only Snow Leopard only makes sense. All of the new features in 10.6 depend on multi-core processors to enhance them, which most PPCs are not. So you wouldn't see a difference anyway, and would be all pissed off that you paid $129 for nothing.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

Look, an Intel only Snow Leopard only makes sense. All of the new features in 10.6 depend on multi-core processors to enhance them, which most PPCs are not. So you wouldn't see a difference anyway, and would be all pissed off that you paid $129 for nothing.

Uh…the G5 was dual-core.

Also, not all of the new features in 10.6 depend on multicore processors.

[0157988944]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

Look, an Intel only Snow Leopard only makes sense. All of the new features in 10.6 depend on multi-core processors to enhance them, which most PPCs are not. So you wouldn't see a difference anyway, and would be all pissed off that you paid $129 for nothing.

I know that not all do, but if you have a PowerPC Mac, you just won't see much improvement over 10.5, and most definitely no new end user features.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Apple was selling G5 towers for people needing legacy support. Specifically people who still were running Classic. The tower were hidden away in the Apple Store and never advertised. Buying one thinking it was "the future" made you wilfully ignorant.

It sounds like you're confusing them with the last dual-1.25 G4 towers, which were sold concurrently with the G5 towers, and *were* sold only for legacy support, for BOOTING into OS 9.

The G5 towers were completely regular high-end Apple products until the day the Mac Pros came out; then they were immediately phased out. They had their completely regular place on the Apple site, and were still marketed as the top machines - they weren't advertised because all the pro users absolutely requiring PPC machines were buying the last-of-breed like crazy, while all those who didn't were waiting for the Mac Pros anyway.

[CharlesS]

You people who buy a $2500 Power Mac and then expect it to still work with the latest software two years later like a $400 Dell amuse me. It's a completely different class of machine - you can't expect a $2500 computer to last as long as a $400 one. If longevity is what you need, then just pony up the extra -$2100 and shut up. it's irony, genius

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm asking for major OS upgrades to work on hardware released in the past two years.

What are you actually trying to argue here? That's a given. When SL gets released sometime in 2009 it will run on every Mac released since 2007. There is no doubt about that.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If their objective is simply to provide a highly optimized Intel build, why not ship SL with two DVDs - one with Universal Binaries and the other with Intel only code?

So quite obviously you haven't understood what SL is about. Apple will ship two DVDs. One is Leopard (for PPC), the other one is SL (for Intel).

How many switches has Apple forced their customers through in recent years? The switch to obtain Universal Binaries of your apps if you run an Intel Mac, the switch to 64 bit computing, etc. Apple is asking a lot of their customers, and really pushing the envelope here.

Cry me a river. Really. What a lame attempt.

Thanks to the Intel switch Mac users have some of the fastest computers you can buy. Thanks to UBs we could migrate gradually rather than having to switch platforms in one go (and with MS and Adobe we know how long that would have taken). Apple was considered to have done a fabulous job with the Intel switch. Saying it was too rough on customers is a complete and utter distortion of reality.

Pushing the envelope is what the Mac should be all about. If I wanted to play catch up I'd be on Windows. If I wanted to run 10 year old hardware I'd use DSL (I actually do that).

Apple is making Leopard on Intel more stable and increasing its performance. Both are good things. They are also in the process of revamping the underlying frameworks to make sure we get lean high performance solutions on Macs as well as iPhones. That's a good thing too. They are polishing an already feature-rich OS. That is also a good thing.

You cannot optimize for C2D and then release a PPC version of that. As long as Apple continues to release bug fixes and security updates for Leopard (which they will just as they do now for Tiger), PPC users (to which I also belong BTW) will be good for a whole while (as I already mentioned that will be roughly 2011ish). This premature whining is a knee-jerk reaction and quite typical for Mac boards. Fortunately Leopard's/SL's success will eventually shut that up.

[angelmb]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Thanks to the Intel switch Mac users have some of the fastest computers you can buy. Thanks to UBs we could migrate gradually rather than having to switch platforms in one go (and with MS and Adobe we know how long that would have taken). Apple was considered to have done a fabulous job with the Intel switch. Saying it was too rough on customers is a complete and utter distortion of reality.

Pushing the envelope is what the Mac should be all about. If I wanted to play catch up I'd be on Windows. If I wanted to run 10 year old hardware I'd use DSL (I actually do that).

Apple is making Leopard on Intel more stable and increasing its performance. Both are good things. They are also in the process of revamping the underlying frameworks to make sure we get lean high performance solutions on Macs as well as iPhones. That's a good thing too. They are polishing an already feature-rich OS. That is also a good thing.

You cannot optimize for C2D and then release a PPC version of that. As long as Apple continues to release bug fixes and security updates for Leopard (which they will just as they do now for Tiger), PPC users (to which I also belong BTW) will be good for a whole while (as I already mentioned that will be roughly 2011ish). This premature whining is a knee-jerk reaction and quite typical for Mac boards. Fortunately Leopard's/SL's success will eventually shut that up.

Well put. Like it or not -and this comes from someone who bought a 1,25 MDD to keep a Mac OS 9 bootable Mac as main computer- once Apple made the move to intel, the only time to buy a PowerPC Mac was on a day with no 'y' in it.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

You people who buy a $2500 Power Mac and then expect it to still work with the latest software two years later like a $400 Dell amuse me. It's a completely different class of machine - you can't expect a $2500 computer to last as long as a $400 one. If longevity is what you need, then just pony up the extra -$2100 and shut up. it's irony, genius

[Keda]

Once the Intel switch was announced by Apple, we all knew that support for PPC would stop one day. Any informed consumer who bought a PPC Mac after the announcement (particularly those who bought PMs in summer 06) had to know that those machines would likely have a shorter "supported" life span than the new Intel models.

Here is my question to the PPC folks who are unhappy with the 10.6 announcement:

What is an acceptable amount of time for Apple fully support (i.e. fully compatible w/new OS versions and features) HW?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

What, you don't do sarcasm?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Keda 

Once the Intel switch was announced by Apple, we all knew that support for PPC would stop one day. Any informed consumer who bought a PPC Mac after the announcement (particularly those who bought PMs in summer 06) had to know that those machines would likely have a shorter "supported" life span than the new Intel models.

Here is my question to the PPC folks who are unhappy with the 10.6 announcement:

What is an acceptable amount of time for Apple fully support (i.e. fully compatible w/new OS versions and features) HW?

Five years.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Five years.

So do I understand correctly, you think Apple should wait till August 2011 before they start adding Intel-only code to the OS?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Simon 

So do I understand correctly, you think Apple should wait till August 2011 before they start adding Intel-only code to the OS?

No one has said that. It's OK to have features that is targeted at certain hardware. There was G4- and G5-specific code back when the G3 was still in circulation. What isn't OK is removing access to all features for recent hardware. Any optimizations that absolutely require Intel won't work on PowerPC — fine. That still doesn't justify cutting off all the bug fixes and non-Intel-specific features.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

There really is no excuse for buying a G5 Mac post Intel launch believing that Apple would support it forever. It was a band-aid, nothing more.

The minute the Intel Macs were announced PPC became a dead architecture, and I advised all my friends who asked me to buy Intel machines. Not exactly a Mensa test, that one.

[besson3c]

If Apple continues to properly support Leopard once it once it comes out, and I'm not missing anything except for the code optimizations that were designed for Intel Macs, fine. I do hope they backport the Exchange stuff to Leopard at this time though.

Parallel development I'm cool with, declaring Leopard (and therefore PPC) the end of the line I'm not.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Keda 

Once the Intel switch was announced by Apple, we all knew that support for PPC would stop one day. Any informed consumer who bought a PPC Mac after the announcement (particularly those who bought PMs in summer 06) had to know that those machines would likely have a shorter "supported" life span than the new Intel models.

Why is that logical to assume? I figured Apple would cut off PowerPC after the same amount of time they normally take to cut off old high-end hardware. They even promoted the crap out of Universal Binaries and how they mean that everybody's Mac can be supported. What was supposed to be the tip-off? I even remember that Big Mac was being pessimistic that this would happen when Apple switched to Intel and everybody was like, "Oh, don't be silly. PowerPC will go the way of the dinosaur eventually, but Apple will give it a normal, decent lifespan."

Originally Posted by Keda 

Here is my question to the PPC folks who are unhappy with the 10.6 announcement:

What is an acceptable amount of time for Apple fully support (i.e. fully compatible w/new OS versions and features) HW?

Five years. I already showed that this is the normal lifespan for Apple hardware. For those who haven't been keeping score at home, this is less than three years.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If Apple continues to properly support Leopard once it once it comes out, and I'm not missing anything except for the code optimizations that were designed for Intel Macs, fine. I do hope they backport the Exchange stuff to Leopard at this time though.

Parallel development I'm cool with, declaring Leopard (and therefore PPC) the end of the line I'm not.

They're still supporting 10.4, so I don't think they will stop supporting 10.5. I think this is my cue to finaly get an Intel Mac, tho.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

They're still supporting 10.4

They sure aren't. Security patches do not count as full support. Just about none of the bug fixes and APIs (Core Animation, Objective-C 2.0, QTKit, etc.) from Leopard have made it into Tiger. Only security patches.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

They sure aren't. Security patches do not count as full support. Just about none of the bug fixes and APIs (Core Animation, Objective-C 2.0, QTKit, etc.) from Leopard have made it into Tiger. Only security patches.

Ahh: different definitions.

I wouldn't expect any of the goodies from 10.6 to be popped into 10.5, then.

[Keda]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Why is that logical to assume? I figured Apple would cut off PowerPC after the same amount of time they normally take to cut off old high-end hardware. They even promoted the crap out of Universal Binaries and how they mean that everybody's Mac can be supported. What was supposed to be the tip-off? I even remember that Big Mac was being pessimistic that this would happen when Apple switched to Intel and everybody was like, "Oh, don't be silly. PowerPC will go the way of the dinosaur eventually, but Apple will give it a normal, decent lifespan."

Five years. I already showed that this is the normal lifespan for Apple hardware. For those who haven't been keeping score at home, this is less than three years.

I was in the market for a new Mac when the Intel switch was announced. As soon as I heard the news, I stopped even considering a PPC. Why? Because I've seen the computer world operate for a while now. A major architecture switch like this never ends well for the old technology. It was a judgement call, but I think it was the obvious choice at the time.

I wonder how much PPC backlash will actually occur? I think it will have a lot to do with how Apple's preeminent marketing department positions the move. If the update is presented as an extension of Leopard, as the name implies, then I the complaints will be limited. Apple's will likely describe the update as an addition that that takes advantage of Intel HW, and cannot be replicated on PPC.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

They sure aren't. Security patches do not count as full support. Just about none of the bug fixes and APIs (Core Animation, Objective-C 2.0, QTKit, etc.) from Leopard have made it into Tiger. Only security patches.

Well, they won't backport major features such as Core Animation and Objective-C 2.0 to Tiger, so they may not back port things like OpenCL or Grand Central to Leopard.

OpenCL may have endian issues or other things that could make it too demanding of resources to back port to Leopard. Likewise there may be enough differences in the specifics in the implementation of dual cores between G5s and Core 2 Duos that devoting the time and energy to fully develop Grand Central for the G5 for something that's only going to be useful for a shorter period of time than Intels doesn't make any sense, either.

Perhaps Exchange Support will make it to Leopard, as that doesn't seem to be tied to a specific implementation of a chipset or architechture.

And to be fair, Tiger has not "just" gotten security updates and bug fixes only. What do you call QuickTime updates? There have been security only and bug fix releases, but also ones that add functionality, like iTunes movie rentals. Tiger has been getting new versions of iTunes. Tiger also got Safari 3.0 and early indications are that Tiger will likely get Safari 4.0 as well if the developer previews available on ADC are to be believed. These, and Exchange Support, are examples of things that could easily be done by "just clicking the box in XCode."

Yes, multi core G5s could probably benefit from OpenCL and Grand Central, but the length of time that PPCs are going to be viable will be limited by the effort that Apple would have to put into implementing them on PPC.

Honestly, what would you do in Apple's place? Let's say that it takes x time to develop Grand Central for the Intel Core architecture, and it takes 2x time to develop it for PPC because there are enough differences that "just clicking the checkbox in XCode" won't cut it (and if you think that it's "just a matter of clicking the checkbox" for something like this then I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you). Knowing that PPCs would only have a "useful" life of 1.5 to 2 years vs. Intels, would you seriously say, "Well, we have to do it because we promised 5 years of support." If you go that way, I'd say that's a bad business decision. Two years in the computer industry is a long time, and if Apple delayed something like this because of trying to support a dead end architecture there is a very good chance that Apple will be surpassed by competitors.

Yes it sucks, but that's life.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Keda 

I wonder how much PPC backlash will actually occur?

There will be a lot less when Snow Leopard is actually released in summer or fall 2009 because the time will be longer.

And to use Chuckit's gauge of AppleCare: If the last PPC Mac was sold in August 2006, then come August 2009 AppleCare will have expired on the vast majority of those machines. If it comes out in June or July, then there will only be one or two months left on them.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

You people who buy a $2500 Power Mac and then expect it to still work with the latest software two years later like a $400 Dell amuse me. It's a completely different class of machine - you can't expect a $2500 computer to last as long as a $400 one. If longevity is what you need, then just pony up the extra -$2100 and shut up.

Actually that's a very reasonable statement, despite your attempt at absurdity. Users with higher performance needs buy high end/high priced computers and upgrade more often to stay on the leading edge of what's available. Users with low performance needs can keep the same low end machine for a long time.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Why is that logical to assume? I figured Apple would cut off PowerPC after the same amount of time they normally take to cut off old high-end hardware. They even promoted the crap out of Universal Binaries and how they mean that everybody's Mac can be supported. What was supposed to be the tip-off? I even remember that Big Mac was being pessimistic that this would happen when Apple switched to Intel and everybody was like, "Oh, don't be silly. PowerPC will go the way of the dinosaur eventually, but Apple will give it a normal, decent lifespan."

Five years. I already showed that this is the normal lifespan for Apple hardware. For those who haven't been keeping score at home, this is less than three years.

Any old high-end hardware comparisons you're making are when the old was replaced with very similar new hardware. With a more significant change in the new hardware, I'm not at all surprised to see the support period reduced to 3 years. 3 years is the normal lifespan for a computer (look at how the corporate accounting and logistics departments handle them), despite a few Apple fanboys who claim Apple's hardware remains useful longer.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, it's entirely possible for them to offer five years of support. It would probably only be this one last version they'd need to build for PowerPC. They've simply chosen not to, and that sucks for me and many other Mac users.

Developing a PPC version would detract resources from the Intel version, resulting in a longer release schedule, higher cost, less features, and or lower quality. I hardly think it's reasonable to put the effort into supporting the 1% rather than the 99%.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Not forever. Just as long as any other system they were selling

That doesn't make any sense. Following that logic, they should dump Core Duo support when they dump G5 support; otherwise they'll have supported the G5s for 6 months less than Core Duo no matter when they do it. It's so much easier to support x86 and x64 than it is to support x64 and ppc64 that it makes sense for them to support x86/x64 and dump ppc.

[Arkham_c]

Originally Posted by analogika 

The G5 towers were completely regular high-end Apple products until the day the Mac Pros came out; then they were immediately phased out. They had their completely regular place on the Apple site, and were still marketed as the top machines - they weren't advertised because all the pro users absolutely requiring PPC machines were buying the last-of-breed like crazy, while all those who didn't were waiting for the Mac Pros anyway.

I actually remember when the Mac Pros came out, there was a strong aftermarket for used G5 towers. I sold my G5 tower for about $500 less than I paid for it, almost 2 years after purchase. I used the money towards my Mac Pro. The reason for the aftermarket push was that Photoshop wasn't native on the Mac Pros, and all the graphics guys wanted their machines at full native speed.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Arkham_c 

I actually remember when the Mac Pros came out, there was a strong aftermarket for used G5 towers. I sold my G5 tower for about $500 less than I paid for it, almost 2 years after purchase. I used the money towards my Mac Pro. The reason for the aftermarket push was that Photoshop wasn't native on the Mac Pros, and all the graphics guys wanted their machines at full native speed.

Well...you won in that deal.

[Arkham_c]

Originally Posted by Keda 

I
I wonder how much PPC backlash will actually occur?

It's not random mistake that Apple is floating the idea now. If the PPC users have 14 months to get used to the idea, they are far less likely to be upset about it when it occurs.