[mduell]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

it will make it all the easier for the computing industry to consider this a new established precedent. A 3 year life cycle for an OS is unprecedented.

Can we define the terms support period and lifecycle for hardware and software?

A 3 year support period is exceptionally long for desktop Linux distributions; only periodic "long term support" releases get that sort of support.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Can we define the terms support period and lifecycle for hardware and software?

A 3 year support period is exceptionally long for desktop Linux distributions; only periodic "long term support" releases get that sort of support.

I would define it as:

- officially considered a current production state (e.g. the Apache group maintained versions/branches 1.x and 2.x for a while)

- software that third-party developers are expected to support


3 years in Desktop Linux is an eternity, and its users are more inclined to upgrade anyway (which is always free), but Linux server OSes obviously are good for more than 3 years. Windows is good for more than 3 years as well (witness WinXP).

Considering the high prices of Macs, I don't think that starting a new precedent of 3 years while their competition offers more is a healthy one to be flirting with.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Can we define the terms support period and lifecycle for hardware and software?

A 3 year support period is exceptionally long for desktop Linux distributions; only periodic "long term support" releases get that sort of support.

I think besson may have phrased that wrong. No version of Mac OS X has been current for more than three years. What's new here is that there's a three-year window of hardware that the OS can run on — which I don't believe is generally true of Linux.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

What's new here is that there's a three-year window of hardware that the OS can run on...

But since SL and Leopard will be sold side by side that won't be the case. The hardware window will stay 5 years.

[OreoCookie]

@Chuckit
Architectural transitions are exceptional events, during the last transition (68k to PowerPC), it took four years before old-style hardware could not run the latest OS (if I remember correctly 8.1 was the last OS to run on 68k systems), now it is (at least) three-and-a-half years. After the transition, older systems will be supported longer.

Even if it were only four years, it's still not such an unreasonable time frame as most people buy new computers every two to five years.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think besson may have phrased that wrong. No version of Mac OS X has been current for more than three years. What's new here is that there's a three-year window of hardware that the OS can run on — which I don't believe is generally true of Linux.

Yeah, the Linux window is longer.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@Chuckit
Architectural transitions are exceptional events, during the last transition (68k to PowerPC), it took four years before old-style hardware could not run the latest OS (if I remember correctly 8.1 was the last OS to run on 68k systems), now it is (at least) three-and-a-half years. After the transition, older systems will be supported longer.

Even if it were only four years, it's still not such an unreasonable time frame as most people buy new computers every two to five years.

Would you be happy if they pulled the plug after two years? Where is that line crossed?

[OreoCookie]

Anything below three is the line for me.
Right now, it looks as if at least three-and-a-half years will pass (and that's just counting machines which were sold in the last month and assuming a WWDC release of Snow Leopard), most PowerPC Macs will be older than four years. If Apple releases 10.6 later (say end of 2009), PowerPC-based Macs will be even older.

This is not so different from my old iBook G3 800, the last supported OS is Tiger and there is a sharp G4 cutoff. I've bought the machine in December 2002 (sold until April 2003), Leopard was released in October 2007 -- i. e. the support window of that particular machine was a little less than five years. If you count the last G3-based iBooks (sold until October 2003), then these machines were supported also only four years.

In any case, this is not a change in attitude by Apple nor will it mean that Intel-based Macs will be out of date after four years, it's a singular event, an exception to the rule. I doubt Apple will switch cpu architectures often.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I doubt Apple will switch cpu architectures often.

So you doubt Apple will switch to 64-bit soon?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

So you doubt Apple will switch to 64-bit soon?

x86-64 is an extension of IA32, not a completely new architecture. x86-64-capable cpus are fully backwards compatible with no impact on speed (in the sense that there is no emulation necessary like when using PowerPC apps on Intel-based Macs).

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

So you doubt Apple will switch to 64-bit soon?

I doubt that in the same way that I doubt Steve Jobs will start wearing turtlenecks and jeans soon. The future is here!

[Catfish_Man]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

If you count the last G3-based iBooks (sold until October 2003), then these machines were supported also only four years.

In any case, this is not a change in attitude by Apple nor will it mean that Intel-based Macs will be out of date after four years, it's a singular event, an exception to the rule. I doubt Apple will switch cpu architectures often.

Leopard was delayed, too. So it looks like the *planned* support window for the last gen iBooks was about 3.5 years.

[Moonray]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Yes, exactly that spirit. You prove his words true.

-

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Moonray 

Yes, exactly that spirit. You prove his words true.

Seriously, what kind of response do you expect to that kind of high school drama queen response? Oh please don't leave, we need you so!

[CharlesS]

No, the point is that the fact that it seems no discussion can go on for very long without someone throwing around stupid substance-free personal attacks like yours is making me really sick of this place. It's a statement of disgust. Nothing more, nothing less.

Seriously, what do your "You don't like something Apple is doing? You're a WHINER!" comments contribute to the discussion? Nothing except for making the thread irritating to read.

[Simon]

Oh for Christ sakes. How about both of you whiners just shut the heck up. Stop crapping in my thread with your personal baloney. Take it to PM. In here I want to get back to discussing SL.

[AppleGirl1990]

I think it's time to LOCK this thread.

[Cold Warrior]

It's salvageable. Snow Leopard and discussion about it are important.

Simon has the right idea. Let's stay on topic and impersonal. There's nothing wrong with constructive complaints. Sometimes, only the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

[lpkmckenna]

I think this my be the reason why Apple won't bother with Snow Leopard on PPC: Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard: the Ars Technica review: Page 6

Clearly, the benefits of going 64-bit on Intel are very substantial, but insignificant on PPC. That chart says it all.

[CarminPolitano]

Apple corp leaves the old behind. A computer is a machine. The simpler the machine, the less likely it is to break down. The CD people purchased a very good product and can see what it does. It will do that longer than any clone you could have purchased. It willNot, however, be doing what the new computers do. Apple doesNot pretend and lie to the people. They do it, and they do it right.

Snow Leopard is very important and I want it with a watering mouth. At this time, we doNot need new features. We need to clean out the old garbage to make clear way for a more reliable faster new. OS 10.5 has more bugs in it than any other Apple product. Simple forward motion at this point would cause Mac OS be just like Windows Vista -- crashing all the time.

There are no known viruses for the Mac. DoNot take for granted the stability and superior product that you have. Follow Apple if you can and know you have done the right thing.[/B] If you you have a CD then doNot move forward or upgrade in any way. Be happy with the dinosaur you have. Understand what is happing today. People want speed. The speed of light is reckoned and processor clocks noLonger go multiples faster. Speed isNow to be achieved via multiple processors and more ram using a wider width. Simulation of multiple wide processors accessing expansive ram using a single narrow processor with little ram will slow the system down dramatically. Understand that multiple processors operating upon the same ram at the same time requires an umpire. The whistle blowing umpire in a system with four processors could easily cause the time of one processor to be consumed. Demanding more ram than you have causes the system to crawl. A wider width alone does little more than double the required ram. I am sure that the 64 bit only Snow Leopard will take the new hardware with all of its new issues seriously.