How Long Will PPC Last?

[icloud]

With the first preview of leopard being an Intel-only feature, I kind of began to worry and contemplate just how long it will really be before the power pc computer becomes no more...I mean I know leopard will support PPC and Universal Apps will be around for some time, but I just cant help but feeling the feature set will slowly shift away

any thoughts?

 

[Eraserhead]

I think the Windows booting is an exception to the rule. It simply cannot work with a Power PC processor as windows is only made for Intel.

 

[timswim78]

With the first preview of leopard being an Intel-only feature, I kind of began to worry and contemplate just how long it will really be before the power pc computer becomes no more...I mean I know leopard will support PPC and Universal Apps will be around for some time, but I just cant help but feeling the feature set will slowly shift away

any thoughts?

[Quote Apple] Leopard is our newest, latest, and greatest version of OS X. Yes, it will work with your older PPC system. However, many of the newest, latest, and greatest features will only work with these shiny, new Intel Macs. [/Quote Apple]

 

[jhu]

powerpc will persist, just not in a macintosh

 

[Eithanius]

powerpc will persist, just not in a macintosh

but then again, good old macs will ceased to exist....

and we'll have the almighty el-cheapo macs running around built on Int(el)-cheapo processors with el-crappo quality at an affordably el-sicko price tags plagued by el-fvcko security issues, just like Windows....

 

[miniConvert]

I'd imagine the longevity of PPC Macs just took a bit of a dive, what with the excellent multiple-OS capabilities the Intel machines are bringing to the party.

 

[BlizzardBomb]

This has been asked several times

Apple have already said they'll support PPC for years to come, probably at least 3 years. Power Macs are the only real option for Pro users and they come with PPC chips. I doubt Pro users would be happy when their $5000 machines become worthless in a year.

 

[macpastor]

I see the PPC going strong for a time. Apple would have many teed off customers if they scrapped support and features for the PPC immediately. Apple won't do that, so the support and features will be there for a time to come.

 

[i4k20c]

I am pretty new to this whole thing, so please only take my oppinion with a grain of salt..

Well when the intel transition was first annouced, i thought great, atleast apple is still supporting its PPC customers, and will make this transition nice for many. With the expected intel products in the summer (the first one), i thought how nice for the ppl who have recently purchased new macs, so that by the time there's get a bit bogged down 2-4 years, they will have a wonderful assortment of new intel macs to choose from. Now it seems to whole process is a bit rushed, i am almost positive by the end of this year, the intel switch will be complete, with most apple apps being run on their own rather than rosetta. I personally do not think that beyond the next mac os, ppc customers will get another 2 os's out of the macs. It is possible, but i am almost positive that the next OS will be the last for ppc imo. Which is somewhat okay for me, cause by that time, when w.e. comes after leopard is out, i suppose for anyone who has purchased a mac within the last year (ppc) it will be time to upgrade anyway, 2-3 years of use is good for a comp...

obviously u can keep the mac longer than that, but for ppl who want the latest OS, i am talking about them, or me.. so yah, a bit disapointed that the switch is going so fast, but not so much as i thought i would have..

I just tend to look at it this way, in 2-3 years, im positive everything will be back to normal, and fully in tune with everything, so as much as id love to have all this bootcamp, etc.. im glad that when it is time for me to try all that out, it will be at its best, and not beta, etc..

 

[Eithanius]

in two or three years, macs will be more or less equivalent to the good old PC counterparts... classless.... minus the OS of course....

seriously, for a poor sap like me who forked out more than $1500 not only because of macs, but also to get rid of billy's monopoly, only to find myself having been backstabbed by uncle stevie with this ****** dual-boot thingy....

 

[Abulia]

It'll last as long as developers, including Apple, continue to check that box in the compile options that says "PowerPC."

 

[Eithanius]

It'll last as long as developers, including Apple, continue to check that box in the compile options that says "PowerPC."

I doubt so.... especially if it involves Intel technology....

Just look at Parallels Workstation....

This is already the first sign that PPC is falling behind....

 

[spencecb]

PowerPC support will continue for some time. Think about it: Apple's entire installed base of users use PowerPC based Macs. With the release of the new Intel based Macs, installed users are mostly just adding on to their computers, or replacing old PowerPC Macs.

It really is a no brainer, to me. Look at all those people out there still using G3s, or look how long Apple has continued to support OS 9 compatability through Classic support.

Support for PowerPC will continue, I'd say for about 4 or 5 years.

You can't say that Apple is killing support for PowerPC by adding features that will only work on Intel based Macs. They have to look toward the future and where they would like to end up. They can't let the PowerPC hold them back. At the same time, that doesn't mean they won't support it.

Just my .02.

 

[Eithanius]

You can't say that Apple is killing support for PowerPC by adding features that will only work on Intel based Macs. They have to look toward the future and where they would like to end up. They can't let the PowerPC hold them back. At the same time, that doesn't mean they won't support it.

Just my .02.

Not to say apple is in all killing support for PowerPC, but the fact that my self-opinion about PowerPC's dwindling support was brought upon the fact that I've invested on an outdated platform so to speak; right about two months before Apple launches the first Intel-Macs, while adding inssult to injury, to replace a G5... all the while it was rumored that the G4s were the ones to be replenished first. Had I learnt about the Intel iMac earlier, I would have put off my purchase for another two months. (And please don't lecture me about the waiting syndrome).

Not that I don't appreciate my machine, but with the entire transition being slated to completion by this year alone is a shocking truth about PowerPC's imminent death; with the launch of Boot Camp, and Parallels' Workstation virtualisation, this is like leaving the former platform in the lurch. PowerPC users like me are now either compelled to upgrade if we were to utilise such features (that are non-existent to the PowerPC platform) or face a possibly future-bleak technology. Imagine my 6-month old model that just can't run a bloody simple piece of technology, thanks to Stevie's obsession for a bigger share of the market pie. And I'm sure I'll be speaking for everyone else who fell for Apple's poor marketing strategy.

 

[spencecb]

Not to say apple is in all killing support for PowerPC, but the fact that my self-opinion about PowerPC's dwindling support was brought upon the fact that I've invested on an outdated platform so to speak; right about two months before Apple launches the first Intel-Macs, while adding inssult to injury, to replace a G5... all the while it was rumored that the G4s were the ones to be replenished first. Had I learnt about the Intel iMac earlier, I would have put off my purchase for another two months. (And please don't lecture me about the waiting syndrome).

Not that I don't appreciate my machine, but with the entire transition being slated to completion by this year alone is a shocking truth about PowerPC's imminent death; with the launch of Boot Camp, and Parallels' Workstation virtualisation, this is like leaving the former platform in the lurch. PowerPC users like me are now either compelled to upgrade if we were to utilise such features (that are non-existent to the PowerPC platform) or face a possibly future-bleak technology. Imagine my 6-month old model that just can't run a bloody simple piece of technology, thanks to Stevie's obsession for a bigger share of the market pie. And I'm sure I'll be speaking for everyone else who fell for Apple's poor marketing strategy.

Would you rather see Apple and other software developers ignore the fact that the Mac is migrating to Intel, and have them focus on milking the PowerPC for everything it is worth?

The PowerPC platform is not an "outdated" platform, as you call it. The G5 is still one of the best processors out there. Time Magazine called it one of the greatest scientific inventions, when Apple released the Quad-Core G5. It is a remarkeable computer. Nothing can touch it.

 

[Eithanius]

Would you rather see Apple and other software developers ignore the fact that the Mac is migrating to Intel, and have them focus on milking the PowerPC for everything it is worth?

I don't mean that, but humans love to speculate on everything else, don't they....?

I was merely saying that with so much development set to hyperdrive on the Intel platform, I fail to see what Apple really upholds dearly with their Universal Binary thingy when things like dual-booting and virtualisation are only focused on the Intel platform.

But now that you've mentioned about developers ignoring the migration of Macs, perhaps people like you should speculate on whether software developers would specifically develope software to run on Windows only, now that Boot Camp has materialised. Would you rather see other software developers ignore the fact that with dual-boot capability, they should develop software on one widely-used particular OS... Windows...?

 

[dr_lha]

Not that I don't appreciate my machine, but with the entire transition being slated to completion by this year alone is a shocking truth about PowerPC's imminent death; with the launch of Boot Camp, and Parallels' Workstation virtualisation, this is like leaving the former platform in the lurch.

Being as both of these solutions require an Intel processor I don't really think you have a right to moan. Although software like Parallels would have worked on an PPC based machines, it would be useful for what exactly? Running PPC Linux, Beos and AIX? Hardly worth the financial expense of developing it.

Want to run Windows on your Mac? Buy VirtualPC.

 

[j26]

in two or three years, macs will be more or less equivalent to the good old PC counterparts... classless.... minus the OS of course....

seriously, for a poor sap like me who forked out more than $1500 not only because of macs, but also to get rid of billy's monopoly, only to find myself having been backstabbed by uncle stevie with this ****** dual-boot thingy....

Your machine will still do what you bought it for - it's just not future-proofed as far into the future as far as you'd like. It's still a damned good machine, and with Leopard on it (even if it is the last OS update) it will be even better. You already have, or can still get the software you want for it. It just means that you might consider buying a new comp a few months earlier than you would have anyway, if some "must have" software comes out, or your needs change due to much nigher processor needs.
The machine still does what you bought it for (including flicking Billy one ) - don't get peeved because it's not the latest one anymore.

 

[Eniregnat]

Likely Apple will continue to support the PPC until OS X is no more. That won't be too long away, perhaps 3-4 years.

 

[Eithanius]

Your machine will still do what you bought it for - it's just not future-proofed as far into the future as far as you'd like. It's still a damned good machine, and with Leopard on it (even if it is the last OS update) it will be even better. You already have, or can still get the software you want for it. It just means that you might consider buying a new comp a few months earlier than you would have anyway, if some "must have" software comes out, or your needs change due to much nigher processor needs.
The machine still does what you bought it for (including flicking Billy one ) - don't get peeved because it's not the latest one anymore.

finally... someone who reads my mind well enough....

let me summarise, I was merely stating that to Apple, Intel means development, while PowerPC was only meant for support until its death (probably 4 or 5 years later)....

As I've stated before, I love my machine well enough to do all the workload for me (so for those who misunderstood me, please read my previous posts carefully again). However, I doubt Apple will be treating the PowerPC platform fairly as they do now Intel...

Being as both of these solutions require an Intel processor I don't really think you have a right to moan. Although software like Parallels would have worked on an PPC based machines, it would be useful for what exactly? Running PPC Linux, Beos and AIX? Hardly worth the financial expense of developing it.

Want to run Windows on your Mac? Buy VirtualPC.

perhaps I should add the phrase "for example" to my post you've quoted...

 

[spencecb]

Likely Apple will continue to support the PPC until OS X is no more. That won't be too long away, perhaps 3-4 years.

That is not accurate at all. Steve has said in his keynotes before that OS X is lined up to support the Mac for the next 20 years. OS X isn't going anywhere, anytime soon.

 

[dr_lha]

perhaps I should add the phrase "for example" to my post you've quoted...

Your examples are inherently flawed though. You can't use two examples of running an Intel operating system on a Mac as evidence that Apple is giving up development of PPC software!

Remember Apple is pushing developers to build "Universal Binaries" not "Intel Binaries".

 

[dpaanlka]

I still believe, that the idea of RISC processors is still, in fact, superior to CISC.

It's a shame that IBM and Motorola allowed PowerPC to fall so far behind the "inferior" processor on steroids. Not Apple's fault.

 

[Eithanius]

Your examples are inherently flawed though. You can't use two examples of running an Intel operating system on a Mac as evidence that Apple is giving up development of PPC software!

Remember Apple is pushing developers to build "Universal Binaries" not "Intel Binaries".

Can you incorporate "Universal Binaries" when the techonology in question is Intel specific...? What about Intel's upcoming Viiv (assuming Apple's adopting it)...? Can it be incorporated onto the PPC platform...?

I still believe, that the idea of RISC processors is still, in fact, superior to CISC.

It's a shame that IBM and Motorola allowed PowerPC to fall so far behind the "inferior" processor on steroids. Not Apple's fault.

I concur... to a certain extent....

 

[kahos]

Can you incorporate "Universal Binaries" when the techonology in question is Intel specific...? What about Intel's upcoming Viiv (assuming Apple's adopting it)...? Can it be incorporated onto the PPC platform...?

Viiv is nothing but marketing.
Besides, in order to have the viiv sticker, the pc needs to be running windows.