IOS 7 and power macs incompatibility

Feel better now after your rant?

I hope you are happy with your PC.

Allan

Why specific would you have the iOS7 phone connect to your computer? You have iCloud, what do you want to do on your computer? The larger part of the world has "old" windows computers and a lot of them use new iPhones and can not connect.

I share rafaelfromsan fernando's frustration.

I'm running an older PPC, it's a G4 with OS 10/4/11, upgraded to the max with dual processors and five hard drives. While i know this is an old computer, it goes along just fine for me. I was not ready to buy a new apple computer, however have been "shopping" around looking at the newer quad processors in the newer boxes. I got my new iPad last Christmas- a year ago. Can't get it to talk to my Quicksilver 2 computer at all.

I've tried workarounds, to no avail. I'd really like to get my photos uploaded to the ipad, and to be able to download photos from it as well. Using email is the only solution, dropbox won't work and the cloud won't work.

So, this continues to beg the question: Why would Apple do this to we established users?

I've been using Apple computer sine they came out. Still have an Apple II in it's original box upstairs in the attic, for Christ's sake.... Been using Apple stuff since 1985.

Commercial greed is the only reason I can figure out. too bad, I really don't think that Steve Jobs wanted this sort of thing for Apple... Apple could design an app that would connect older apple computers -IMHO- if it wanted to.

That is all.

In the PPC, connect a drive then COPY all folders or files (photos) to a folder in the external drive.

The connect that drive to the new mac, copy all folders/files just copied from the external to the new mac.

PS: just the files/folders, NOT apps.

When you have any problems after that, start a new thread, because your post has nothing to do with the issue in this thread.

Whitjr wrote:

Why would Apple do this to we established users?

They didn't. 99% of their active users use an OS compatible with iOS7 devices (anything with an Intel CPU). Very, very few PowerPC users are still around and actively using it as a primary computer since they became obsolete when 10.7 was released 2.5 years ago.

Retaining support for a very small group of people using a completely different architecture doesn't make any sense from any point of view. That would be like asking Apple to support new versions of the iOS on first generation iPhone/iPad devices because a few thousand people out of tens of millions of users still actively use them (myself included).

I really don't think that Steve Jobs wanted this sort of thing for Apple...

Suggest you read Isaacson's biograpghy of SJ. You'll see exactly where "this sort of thing" originated.

Allen:

I have not read the bio you suggust. will put it on my reading list soon, thanks for the suggustion.

I was however there at the introduction of apple devices.

Back in the early early days of Apple [perhaps before you were born???] the apple computer was appealing to those of us counter-culture sorts. Those of us that used them were very very happy to get something that wasn't IBM, as that culture was 'way too straight and narrow for us. This is what I meant by my comment about Steve JObs approach. The "THINK DIFFERENT" advertisments wern't just a marketing ploy, IMHO.

DieselFuel

ForLife:

First off, I question your statement of 99% of Apple users are switched to intel based computers. Are you privdledged to these sort of stats? If so, what are the actual numbers? I'm asking you to prove your claim....

I suspect you would be surprized at how many older Macs there are out there still in use. These computers are in use because of their reilability, durability, and ease of use, and ease of upgrading. All these things are the benchmarks of a well-thought out device. I personally know of about 10 quicksilvers, with build dates of 2002, that are in service....

For years, Apple has dropped support for it's older computers, rather than continuing to serve establish users. This is nothing new... it's an aggrevation that has been in place for a very long time. It's called: "Sell New, drop support for the old." This is not unusual in America, you don't have to look far to find it. Dosen't make it right for we end-users.

For example: I can take my 30 year old Audi 4000S in an Audi dealership today, and the dealership will be happy to service it. Parts are available, servide technicians will research what is needed to repair it, by their in-house means.

Lex- Thanks for your suggustions for a work-around. I'll try that.

Are you a moderator here? Why wqould you insist that I nhjot post fuerther, perhapsw 'cause you don't like opposition?

iI tire of the lack of expereince and arrogence here. See you guys, have a great 2014. I won't be back.

Don't worry, post here if you like, but a lot of time is wasted on other things than just the issue on hand.

No, luckily, I am not a moderater, just a user, like you, and once in a while I am visiting here.

Post here the results of your copying: the data are just data, if they can be read by nwer versions of the apps, your problem is solved.

Whitjr wrote:

First off, I question your statement of 99% of Apple users are switched to intel based computers.

...

I'm asking you to prove your claim...

Facts don't lie.

Apple sold 13million PowerPC Macs from 2002-2006.

Apple sold 78million Intel Macs from 2006-2012

That 6:1 right out of the gate.

The newest PowerPC Mac is 7 years old (Power Mac G5 Quad). Most PowerPC computers sold were weak G3/G4 laptops, iMacs and Minis and were quickly retired once people figured out Apple/Motorola lied and that Intel is actually significantly faster. Few people actively use the same computer daily more than 5 years.

Take away 90% of that 13 million, leaving only the klingers behind and you have 1 million PowerPC Macs in daily use.

Take away 50% of Intel Macs and you still have 39million in active use. Thats a 39:1 ratio of Intel:PPC, or 99%.

Whitjr wrote:

These computers are in use because of their reilability, durability, and ease of use, and ease of upgrading.

Upgrading a 7+ year old computer is not just a complete waste of money, its just plain ridiculous unless you can get the parts for nearly nothing. You're just upgrading very slow to plain slow.

Whitjr wrote:

All these things are the benchmarks of a well-thought out device.

Benchmarks? Okay.

Here is my current 2012 iMac vs the fastest PowerPC Mac ever made, the Quad G5.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/compare/2382473/518855

4x faster.

The same G5 vs a base model Mac Pro only one year newer than the G5.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/compare/947365/518855

67% faster.

Even against a base model Macbook Air.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/compare/2394628/518855

53% faster.

Your precious Quicksilver Dual-1.0G4, against a bottom-end $599 Mac Mini?

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/compare/2380644/143692

8-1/4x faster.

How about your Quicksilver with the ultimate dual 1.8GHz upgrade?

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/compare/316441/2380644

The Mini is still 5x faster in EVERYTHING!

Whitjr wrote:

For years, Apple has dropped support for it's older computers, rather than continuing to serve establish users. This is nothing new.

...

For example: I can take my 30 year old Audi 4000S in an Audi dealership today, and the dealership will be happy to service it. Parts are available, servide technicians will research what is needed to repair it, by their in-house means.

Cars have no relation to computers for sales or parts supply. A car is considered highly successful if 1 million are sold over its entire production run. Apple sells 4 million macs, every 3 months. (FYI, only 1,405,506 Audi 4000 [Audi 80] were made in the world in an 8 year production run)

Cars are designed to be repairable, computers are not. Next time you have something fail on your computer, try to find somebody that will fix it instead of replace it. If the water pump fails on your Audi, do you replace the entire engine?

Like it or not, computers get better every year and old ones become less useful as software is designed to take advantage of the new technology. PowerPC had a great run, but they are a dead technology. Just like learning Latin (a dead language) doesn't mean its still useful, using an old computer doesn't make it anything more than an enthusiast's toy.

were quickly retired once people figured out Apple/Motorola lied and that Intel is actually significantly faster

Not quite an accurate rendition of what happened. IBM failed to produce a low power G5 within the time frame that Apple desired for the Powerbook. The iMac G5s which were slightly lower powered also suffered from power supply and capacitor issues due to an industry wide issue with capacitors at the time. The highest speed G5s were so hot, a separate cooling liquid was needed to keep them running on the desktops. Ironically, the XBox used G5s long after Apple switched to Intel. By the time Apple made the switch to Intel, the advantages of Windows native compatibiity significantly increased Apple's sales, and they had no reason to switch back. G5s were faster until the Xeons got to be fully 64 bit

a brody wrote:

Not quite an accurate rendition of what happened.

It happened exactly that way. Once Apple released Intel Macs, direct 1:1 comparisons were possible without any Mac:Windows differences. You can see it in the Quad G5 Vs base Mac Pro being 67% faster despite having only 5% higher clock speed.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/compare/947365/518855

Even the reduced-spec BTO 2.0 Mac Pro is 50% faster despite having 20% less clock speed.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/compare/654124/518855

a brody wrote:

Ironically, the XBox used G5s long after Apple switched to Intel.

That is false information.

The Xbox used a 733MHz Intel Celeron

The 360 used a modified Cell processor. The only thing Cell shares with a G5 is the PowerPC architecture.

Calling Cell a "G5" is like saying Ford is the same as Chevy.

G5s were faster until the Xeons got to be fully 64 bit

That is false information.

G5's were only faster in very specific tasks that leaned heavily on the AltiVec unit of the CPU, thats why Apple pushed IBM so hard to include it when IBM didn't want anything to do with it. In every other task Intel's CPUs were significantly more powerful and far more energy efficient.

The only advantages Apple had during the PowerPC era were a better OS, better machine quality and dedicated followers.