Snow Leopard + Power PC???

If Apple hadn't changed architecture these machines would not be facing such problems

If Apple hadn't changed architecture, Macs would be stuck with processors that were generations behind in performance and power utilization, and probably would be even farther back in laptop processors. The development of the single-chip PowerPC architecture had stalled and would have required tens of millions of dollars (if not more) in investment from Apple to push things forward. From every measure - technical and financial - moving to Intel processors at the time Apple did was the sensible thing for them to do.

now these machines will have zero use because even simple applications will have no support for PPC!

Sorry, but that's complete nonsense. PowerPC-based systems have exactly the same use that they did before Snow Leopard. The fact that future applications may not run on them diminishes their utility not one whit, as long as the user's needs remain constant. A computer only becomes obsolete when a user's needs change and outgrow what the computer can do. Many people are happily running G3 systems and even 680x0 systems and find them quite useful.

The bottom line is that whether or not you agree with Apple's approach, Snow Leopard does not and never will support PowerPC systems. It will be up to each individual user to decide whether the claimed improvements are attractive enough to warrant purchasing a new computer to gain said improvements.

Please, let's drop this now. This argument serves no useful purpose.

Dave, you are absolutely right this argument serves no useful purpose....

I cannot however resist remarking that these "objections" are raised each time there is a major change in the OS. I remember a white hot debate in these forums following the introduction of OS X. One person actually commented that Apple should not have done it because "we did not ask for it." Really.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

It may mean my Safari won't be functional in a few years. ie "you must have Safari . to access this page" etc. I won't be able to get the latest update anymore.

Any webmaster who gives you that mess, hasn't read http://www.anybrowser.org/

Adam Vincent wrote:
Why no Power PC support?

The short answer is that no PPC powered Macs are powerful enough to support Snow Leopard going forward.

The longer answer is that computing hardware has hit a speed limit of sorts: while Moore's law continues unabated, cranking up the clocks to make CPU's run faster results in way too much heat for all those ever tinier transistors to dissipate without melting. So instead of seeing massive jumps in clock speed with each new generation of CPU's like we once did, we now see massive parallelism -- all those extra transistors are devoted to more cores & more independent processing units in each core to do more things at the same time.

It is a bit like widening the data path from 32 to 64 bits to process more data in one clock cycle, except now there are many 64 bit data paths all working at the same time in the CPU's. They don't have to run so fast that they self-destruct, they just have to crunch enough data together to get the same result.

Unfortunately, the PPC architecture as implemented in Macs was not ideally suited for this. There was only one dual core version of a PPC family CPU ever made that could run the Mac operating system, the IBM 970MP, the most powerful G5 the by then Motorola-less AIM alliance produced. It was a good design but much too expensive for use in anything but the top-of-the-line 2005 Power Macs, & it wasn't suitable for use in laptops or the compact iMacs & Mac Mini's that Apple knew was its major market. Basically, it was a dead end for Apple. By then, Intel was offering chips with better power consumption to performance ratios (the big problem with the high end G5's) & an architecture that was well-suited to future multi-core development. Just as importantly, Intel was eager to work with Apple to build custom chips specifically optimized for the Mac OS, & to make them available at reasonable prices. The result was the current Intel Macs, highly optimized for the parallelism Apple has been building into its OS for some time now.

So basically, while some G4's & all G5's are adequate for Leopard's basic requirements, none are stellar performers in comparison to what the Intel-Apple collaboration has produced. The gap would be much wider with Snow Leopard because of technologies like Grand Central Dispatch & OpenCL that will exploit the massive parallelism of the new systems.

Also I recommend anyone else feeling this way, should read this tip:

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1502615&tstart=0

I personally got 3 answers for this,

1-go linux- I can personally boot ubuntu 9.10 karmic koala in 19 seconds on my 2.0 GHz Imac G5, which is way faster booting than my brother's new macbook pro with snow leopard booting in 32 seconds. And i got much more animations too.

2-stay on mac osx 10.5.8- just as my apps keep working the same as right now I dont need a new mac, the only downside is, no new games and no java 1.6 support for now... (I still keep a double boot system on my mac)

3-<edited by host>

done with what?

Adam Vincent wrote:
This means sooner than later I'm going to HAVE to get an Intel machine for X thousand dollars. There's nothing wrong with my G4. Sorry just a little frustrated at being sort of forced to pay to keep up.

I agree with your frustration, but disagree with your thoughts that you will be forced to spend X thousand dollars on new hardware. You definitely have some options.

Apple has made the right business decision to do this and move on. Apple did it partially when OS 9 was left behind once dual boot machines were no more starting beyond the 2003 MDD model. Apple did it again with Leopard in 2007, and dropped "classic support" completely, and also left behind all G3 machines, and G4 machines below the 867MHz mark (barring hacked installs).

It's nothing personal, it's just evolution. Your purchase of Leopard is justified, and will allow you to get the most of the remaining life out of your G4. Heck, Leopard was last updated less than 30 days ago (10.5.8)! At the very least, you'll be able to use iLife '09 with Leopard, along with several other apps that require Leopard as a minimum. which should justify your investment.

You have options that won't cost you X Thousand dollars to get you the most out of your computing experience:

Option A
=========
Since your G4 is a tower, you have the luxury of upgrading it. Maxing it out with upgrades will certainly extend the useful life of it and should give you at least another 3 to 5 years of useful service.

I would start by maxing out the RAM to 2 GB (if you haven't done so), and add a fast core image video card like a Radeon 9800 Pro (universal PowerPC edition - works in both G4s and G5s). Then if you really want to go for the gusto, drop in a dual 1.6 or 1.8 GHz processor upgrade (single 2.0 GHz is also out there if you look around). You will definitely see the difference over Tiger with these upgrades. At the very least put in a fast core image graphics card and max out the RAM. Without a heavy hitting core image video card and a minimum of 1 GB of RAM, you were better off with Tiger.

On a personal note, I have nothing but PowerPC machines myself, but I bought them all used, so I didn't invest $1000s. I can't say that I feel your pain there, but without further delay, here's option B:

Option B
========
I can tell you this - for the average user, even for higher end production stuff that you may use, I would seriously consider a 2009 White MacBook or a 2009 Mac Mini as possible replacements to your G4. Not only will both of these machines still handle your old PowerPC applications with Rosetta, but you will also be able to render, view, and edit HD Video, play the latest games, use the latest apps, and more - all for under $1,000 and at blazing speed. You can also run Windows in Boot Camp if you come across something PC only.

Even if you dropped all of the said upgrades into your MDD G4, the cost isn't justified with the new Mac Mini priced new at just $599 and a White MacBook priced new at just $999 (a dual 1.8 GHz G4 processor upgrade alone runs the price of the new Mini).

The new machines will both take advantage of open CL and Grand Central Station technologies in Snow Leopard, and they both will play the new HD movies from iTunes (minimum requirement - 2GHz Core2Duo and a high end graphics solution). They also meet the spec to play commercial Blu Ray discs with a Blu Ray drive and the proper tools (Windows only) by booting into Windows.

I would not get so frustrated... You got at least 6 -7 years on this machine right now and certainly got your money's worth, and then some.

If you have a nice monitor, get a Mini. You won't be disappointed! Want to save more $, check the refurbished page often - sometimes a base $599 model shows up there refurbished for $499 - quite a steal for a modern machine! The purchase of the mini will last you 4-7 years, and will let you run Snow Leopard and beyond, putting yet another case for purchasing new vs. upgrading (longer useful live and use of the newest technology).

Although the question was "answered" I felt you would benefit even more from this answer.

- Dan

Here is real point. Apple pounded the advertising to sell out their Power PC based hardware right before they announced the move to Intel based hardware. I suckered in and bought a Mac Mini, which I have been fairly happy with. Now I am in the market for a backup solution and Network Attached Storage for my home network which has Mac, PC, and Linux. Time Machine and Time Capsule look great and I have heard wonderful things. But I can't get there from here with the Power PC based Mac Mini. The Time Capsule is actually cheaper than a Windows Home Server solution, except for the fact that I would have to buy a new Mac and toss the Power PC Mini. And if I did buy a Time Capsule, how do I know it won't be obsolete just as fast as my Mini. Apple should do a buyback program and publicly apologize for the scam they pulled. Not up to Jobs standard behavior.

meymeymey wrote:
Time Machine and Time Capsule look great and I have heard wonderful things. But I can't get there from here with the Power PC based Mac Mini.

Why? From Time Capsule - 1 TB - Apple Store (U.S.):

*System Requirements*

*For Time Machine backup:*
Mac with Mac OS X Leopard or Snow Leopard

*For setup and administration:*
Mac computer with _Mac OS X v.10.4_ or later, CD drive, and Ethernet or wireless networking capability
PC with Windows XP (SP2) or Windows Vista, CD drive, and Ethernet or wireless networking capability

*For wireless client access:*
Mac with AirPort or AirPort Extreme wireless capability
PC with 802.11a/b/g/n

*For shared hard drive:*
Mac with _Mac OS X v10.4.8_ or later
PC with Windows XP (SP2) or Windows Vista; Bonjour for Windows included on Time Capsule CD

*For shared printing:*
USB printer
Mac computer with _Mac OS X v10.2.7_ or later
PC with Windows XP (SP2) or Windows Vista; Bonjour for Windows included on Time Capsule CD

Without getting into a ton of the technical info, I would have to say it's been quite apparent since the release of 'Leopard' that the day would come where PPC support would go the way of the dinosaur, I think we (PPC users) have been lucky enough to have gotten this far. When I installed 'Leopard' on my Dual 1.8 GHz PowerMac G5 and my 1.5 GHz PowerBook G4, I had noticed a huge lack of performance, right from my first few minutes of using 'Leopard' I could tell it was designed or at least 'optimized' for an Intel machine. The menus are sluggish, the stack effect takes a second or two to load, Safari's load time increased and the list went on...I feel since I started using 'Leopard' on my PPC's I'm always waiting a few seconds for each process. Not to mention being a professional Graphic Designer I rely heavily on the Adobe CS and with every additional Adobe upgrade my PPC's seem to just bog. Yes, these programs are universal binary but have been 'optimized for Intel' as with many universal apps so in my eyes it's been quite clear the focus has been on Intel since the first days of the Intel machine and that I needed to start thinking about the move to Intel. Gone are the day's of excitedly unpacking and installing Apple's newest OS on your old PPC G3 and watching as your old clunker has miraculously come back to life.

My advice to anyone disappointed with the fact that Snow Leopard is not PPC compatible, is to step back and look at what you actually use the machine for. For a casual user the current OS and the apps will be fine for at least another couple of years, even without updates. If you like the way the apps currently run what does it matter if they don't get updated. If you are creative professional or use a Mac for any other processor intensive application than it's probably about time to upgrade to Intel machine. But that's been obvious with any type of computer since day one, if you wanted to play the latest games run the most current software etc... at some point we all have to break down and get a new machine Pc or Mac.

Actually, you're so wrong.

My Mum and my sister now run Windows 7 happily on much older PCs than the latest PPC Mac. Happily. On the older (Old!) PC it needed a memory upgrade for trivial $$.

So Microsoft aren't forcing people to upgrade their hardware at all.

It wasn't so long ago Apple was telling the world how much better PPC was than Intel chips - so much for that story.

No doubt Apple has strengths, but don't be so blind as to ignore some real strengths of the PC world. Seems hardware longevity might be a new plus.

Hmmmm, well I run a G4 Powerbook and knew about a year ago that Snow Leopard would not run on my laptop. It did not and does not bother me at all. The programs I use are running fine for me and the updated architecture in SL is irrelevant to my machine. If I had an old PC and wanted to use Windows 7 then I would update anyway so that I had the power to utilise the program properly. Millions of older PC users are already screaming that W7 has slowed their old PCs to a crawl. I will update my Apple when I can afford to one day, but not having SL is not costing me a wink of sleep. get used to it or complain to Apple instead of ranting to other users here.

Cheers