I dont think Steve Jobs has the heart to raise PowerPC with his own two hands and then delete it with a click of a mouse.

You want what's better for your product. At the time the G5s were going in the Powermac and Imac, you couldn't get them inside the Ibook or Powerbook, where as with Intel, dual core cpus for the laptops.

Of all the ways to drop PPC support, this is really the best. There aren't any new features in Snow Leopard for the PPC users to complain about not having (except Intel optimization, which would be useless to them anyways).
And since 10.7 probably wont be released until late 2010/early 2011, that makes the time difference from last PPC Mac deprecated to first OS with new features 6 years. Acceptable, considering Apple's past history.

When you think about it... G5s were useless in iBooks / PowerBooks because they generated too much heat and they used too much power. Apple ALWAYS try to have more than 5 hours of battery life.

Snow Leopard still has PPC binaries in it, I don't see why people would think it's getting dropped.

Because they believe everithing they read.

I remember that each year near MacWolrd Expo people insisted that Apple would close beause bankruptcy.

I believe that PPC is going to be dropped because the Developers Preview only works on intels. Hehe Meowy, do u own a iMac G4? I have one that I modded into a hackintosh. The half dome case is big enough to house GA-945GCM-S2L. It rules!!! (plus, its touch screen)

I've not read anywhere about Steve Jobs saying Intel only.

Personally with the last G5s being sold in 2006 I doubt he will abandon PowerPC that quickly. Tiger worked on G3s Leopard works on a large number of G4s, and I reckon Snow Leopard will work on G5s. 10.7 no doubt will be Intel only.

Look @ this Sorry Intel Fan Boys, But PPC Is Going To Be Supported.

I knew it!!! Hehe!!! I had a chance to use a Mac Pro case but I used a powermac g4 one instead because i like g4s more

It'd be nice if the PPC were to be supported in the next OS release. I bought a G5 just as they were going out of production. It works fine. Tiger works great. Very stable. Very nice. No problems at all. If the next release of Snow Leopard works on the PPC, that'd be good news cuz it would mean that most of the mainstream apps will still work on it and be released for at least 2-3 more years to come. It's difficlt to see how Snow Leopard couldn't support the G5. I mean, the cutoff for a lot of memory intensive graphics apps still being released is still at the 64-bit G5. And they still work like a charm. If Snow Leopard comes in a 64 bit flavor, it'd only work better on the G5, wouldn't you think? Because the OS will finally be optimized for a chip was is native 64 bit and in many cases, dual core--a technology which Snow Leopard addresses. So Apple, if yer reading this, please continue to support the G5. If you come out with a 64 bit version of Snow Leopard, I will buy because I think it will work great.

If Apple does decide to drop support for the PPC, it'll be a business/political decision, not a functional one. Apple could easily support the PPC in Snow Leopard if it chose to. All these pro-Intel people should realize that's why Apple initially stopped using your chip after the LISA in the 80s. Because Intel was truly never made for versatile motion graphics. Still isn't. Was meant for static CAD vectors and spreadsheets. That's why the Intel chips excel at AutoCAD, but often fall short in After Effects and video editing. I've found that one shortfall of the Intel chips, is that they seem to run out of memory after a couple of hours, and regardless of whether it's Intel of Apple, they slow down, and the computer has to be re-booted. Intel Chips appear to suck the memory out of a computer.

Also, why when Apple dropped the PPCs, the gaming companies immediatly snapped them up that market share. Sony, Nintendo and even Might Wintel Microsoft use the PPC's for their gaming systems, because the Intel chips wouldn't cut it.

Indeed, it would be nice for apple to continue support for PowerPC, it is a fine architecture.


Its dangerous to assume anything in the field of computing without thorough research. There have been many of people debating about "True 64-bit," "Native 64-bit" but I have yet to see anything supportive of either within the debates.


What do you mean by "initially"?, are you saying that Apple considered using the Intel chip or that they used the chip at one time?. Apple never released a product using the Intel chip until the switch in 2006:

_{Apple I: MOS 6502 @ 1MHz
Apple II: MOS 6502 @ 1MHz
Apple II+: MOS/SynerTek 6502 @ 1MHz
Apple III/III+: SynerTek 6502A @ 2MHz
Apple IIe: MOS/SynerTek 6502 @ 1MHz
Apple IIc/IIc+: SynerTek 65C02 @ 1MHz(IIc), 4MHz (IIc+)
Apple IIe Enhanced/Platinum: SynerTek 65C02 @ 1MHz
Apple IIgs: WDC 65SC816 @ 2.8MHz
Lisa/Lisa2/Mac XL: MC68000 @ 5MHz
Macintosh 128k: MC68000 @ 8MHz}

Would you mind giving me a decent example(s) of where the x86 architecture has failed in motion graphics. Where have you heard this?, many computer history texts and documentaries which describe Intel's Microprocessor Endeavor, Intel had no particular vision for its early microprocessor(s) and surveyed those who bought and used their chips to see what purpose they were used for, and to collaborate with their customers to improve the architecture to suit their future purposes. You're referring to memory leaks which are related to bugs in binaries, the x86 architecture is used in many fields throughout the industry and depending on its purpose, its uptime can span years without a reboot and without a hit in performance.

Woah, I really don't know what you are getting at here.
Your argument was valid 15 years ago, but you're completely wrong now.

I like my G4 Powerbook, but there's no way it is superior than my Core 2 Duo Hackintosh because of its age

You don't even have an iota of a fraction of an idea what the hell you are talking about. There is really close to nothing you can categorically say about "Intel chips" over the last 30 years except that some of them use some of the same instructions in 16-bit mode. The way they process has been changed again and again and again and again.

There is no basis for your claim that a certain CPU manufacturer uses more or less memory than another. Even if, say, the G4 chip was more efficient than the Pentium III, that doesn't mean anything about the relationship between Core 2 and G3 or PPC 801 and the 80386dx.

Nonsense.

You're just mad that you overpaid for a G5 that's going obsolete faster than you think is reasonable. The first line says it all.

And SUCK memory? That's kinda harsh.... I don't mind Intel Processors but I always will be a PPC fanboy

I really don't mind the PPC macs, but if I bought lets say a dual dual core 2.5 g5, with that money I could buy a MacPro, or even a high-end Imac. With laptops, with their price, buying PPC laptops isn't a great idea either, as all Intel Mac laptops are dual core(Besides the MacBook Air). Really is just isn't a smart investment if you're looking out for whats to come.



That right there is probably one of the main reasons Snow leopard supports PPC, and I really wouldn't be surprised at all if it were just the G5s that were supported.



? The Intel chips that don't cut it right now can run miles around the 3 consoles. The Cell hardly has much to do with the PPC enough as it is. It doesn't even have real multiple cores. The biggest reason consoles didn't chose the Intel chips, is because that would mean building it on x86 or x64 platform, WHICH is a big no no. Why? Look at the Xbox, all the modding for one. It was easy to get inside of it because was basically a PC. Look at the AppleTV. It's on an Intel platform, which has been hacked to run a full Os X. Matter a fact, look at Osx86. Os X went from PPC, to Intel, then OSx86 came. And MICROSOFT DOES NOT JUST USE ONE BRAND OF CPU. Microsoft only reccomends the brand that's the best, Via, AMD, or Intel. That is stupid thinking right there, and you should hate yourself for it.

Edit-AND WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK INTEL CPUS ARE? All Core 2 duos and Xeons used in Macs are 64-bit.

I think it's unlikely that Apple will drop PPC support in 10.6 The normal product support life cycle is 3 years in most of the enterprise computing world, which means Apple should continue to support their products (G5) with their latest OS until 2009. That said, I think it equally unlikely that 10.7 will be a PPC OS.

WTF? I don't think CPUs take up memory, its the applications and the services, am I right? Lyke in windows, it has a process called "System Idle Process", that takes up RAM. It also takes up CPU.

But wtf mate? What do you mean Intel Processors take up memory?

Please anyone with REAL knowledge, tell me if I am wrong! I would love to know.

No offense superchase, but I think you are way off, and your knowledge of your computers is way off

There's a bit of truth that certain cpus suck up memory, because their instruction sets, and therefore executable sizes, differ. However in the case of PPC vs. X86 it's backwards, PPC executables are almost always larger. Not that this has any real effect in an era of multiple GB's of ram.

PPC executables are normally larger because of their architecture. They take up the same amount of ram.

WTF? MacBook Air has two cores... I think since its Core 2 Duo....

Wrong, the Atom is single core, the atom is in the Air. That's the biggest reason I would never buy it, that's just me personally.

I still miss Mac OS 9. That's pretty painful for me to say the least. Now Apple's giving us the finger and abandoning PPC support. Thanks a lot.

I'll have fun with my B/W G3 thank you very much

Sorry, but the MacBook Air does not use a Atom processor. It uses a Core 2 Duo "Merom". Maybe in the future apple will use a variant of the Atom in the MacBook Air or one of its Tablet offerings.

Asterion is right.

Toldja they would never use an atom processor because they top out at 2.0GHz.

HEHE i have a b/w g3 too. I stole it from some guy.

Why was I thinking the atom is in the Macbook Air...? Well, that's cleared up now.

Because the macbook air is slim and the atom is in the eeepc.

Apple was still using PPC processors in there XServes in early 2007, so that would suck for the people who bought it and only got 2 yrs of upgrade ability. But if Apple does make 10.6 Intel only then all "loyal" mac users will more than likely buy an intel mac, which goes to show you how Apple has much of the mac user base by the leash

Go PowerPC! You will never be forgotten!

I was a PPC fanboy to the final moment - then I bought a MBP and everything changed.

Still do love my G5, though. Runs Pro Tools and CS3 better than the MBP, to be honest.

I really love all the fanboy comments here. Can we be somewhat serious here and stop bashing people because they like "this" and "that".

Apple made a decision in 2006 to move to the Intel Platform, the reason why, being the fact that Intel was introducing the Intel Core series CPU's. On top of that, PowerPC couldn't keep up with today's standards no matter what you say. It might have been good several years ago, but it doesn't cut it now.

Bash me all you like, you'll probably fail in making your point anyway.