Comments on: Is PowerPC Doomed? Nahhhh http://theappleblog.com/2007/09/30/is-powerpc-doomed-nahhhh/ TheAppleBlog, published by and for the day-to-day Apple user, is a prominent source for news, reviews, walkthroughs, and real life application of all Apple products. Wed, 03 Dec 2008 07:22:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Billy Halsey http://theappleblog.com/2007/09/30/is-powerpc-doomed-nahhhh/#comment-110571 Billy Halsey Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:01:22 +0000 http://theappleblog.com/2007/09/30/is-powerpc-doomed-nahhhh/#comment-110571 Thanks for the thoughtful response, Uli. That's something I didn't know and his essay didn't explain. :) Thanks for the thoughtful response, Uli. That’s something I didn’t know and his essay didn’t explain. :)

]]> By: Uli Kusterer http://theappleblog.com/2007/09/30/is-powerpc-doomed-nahhhh/#comment-110567 Uli Kusterer Sat, 06 Oct 2007 09:57:53 +0000 http://theappleblog.com/2007/09/30/is-powerpc-doomed-nahhhh/#comment-110567 Dilger has a few flaws in his analysis, though. I don't think it invalidates his theses, but back in the 68k/PowerPC switch days, we had "fat binaries", which were essentially the same as "universal binaries" are now. They contained both PowerPC and 68k code in one executable file, and the Code Fragment Manager's data structures for these files had been engineered in a way that even would have allowed adding other architectures. So, I don't agree that Mach-O is the silver bullet that made all of this possible in the first place. CFM did the same. But since NeXT already had done several ports, to Intel and SPARC and others, and maintained them simultaneously, Mac OS X itself already has been purged of any portability problems. *that* is why Apple could do the Intel switch and the ARM switch comparatively quickly. Dilger has a few flaws in his analysis, though. I don’t think it invalidates his theses, but back in the 68k/PowerPC switch days, we had “fat binaries”, which were essentially the same as “universal binaries” are now.

They contained both PowerPC and 68k code in one executable file, and the Code Fragment Manager’s data structures for these files had been engineered in a way that even would have allowed adding other architectures.

So, I don’t agree that Mach-O is the silver bullet that made all of this possible in the first place. CFM did the same. But since NeXT already had done several ports, to Intel and SPARC and others, and maintained them simultaneously, Mac OS X itself already has been purged of any portability problems. *that* is why Apple could do the Intel switch and the ARM switch comparatively quickly.

]]> By: Billy Halsey http://theappleblog.com/2007/09/30/is-powerpc-doomed-nahhhh/#comment-110387 Billy Halsey Tue, 02 Oct 2007 01:31:28 +0000 http://theappleblog.com/2007/09/30/is-powerpc-doomed-nahhhh/#comment-110387 @Twist -- Dilger's analysis of Apple's trend would indicate that G4 support will be gone in 10.6, but that G5 will continue to be supported. As he notes, Apple typically supports hardware for approximately 5 years when it releases a new version of the OS. Although it boggles the mind to imagine a 867MHz G4 running Leopard, it <i>is</i> possible according to the system requirements. And if Dilger's numbers are correct, PPC systems still outnumber Intel systems by a fair margin. Still, I'm glad I upgraded my PowerBook to an MBP before Leopard drops. :) @Twist — Dilger’s analysis of Apple’s trend would indicate that G4 support will be gone in 10.6, but that G5 will continue to be supported. As he notes, Apple typically supports hardware for approximately 5 years when it releases a new version of the OS. Although it boggles the mind to imagine a 867MHz G4 running Leopard, it is possible according to the system requirements. And if Dilger’s numbers are correct, PPC systems still outnumber Intel systems by a fair margin.

Still, I’m glad I upgraded my PowerBook to an MBP before Leopard drops. :)

]]> By: MacSpoon » Blog Archive » Будущиее Mac OS X на PowerPC, и почему Apple умнее Microsoft http://theappleblog.com/2007/09/30/is-powerpc-doomed-nahhhh/#comment-110380 MacSpoon » Blog Archive » Будущиее Mac OS X на PowerPC, и почему Apple умнее Microsoft Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:02:35 +0000 http://theappleblog.com/2007/09/30/is-powerpc-doomed-nahhhh/#comment-110380 [...] блога RoughlyDrafted.com. Я, в свою очередь, нашел эту ссылку на TheAppleBlog.com. Статья довольно длинная и написана на английском, но [...] [...] блога RoughlyDrafted.com. Я, в свою очередь, нашел эту ссылку на TheAppleBlog.com. Статья довольно длинная и написана на английском, но [...]

]]> By: Twist http://theappleblog.com/2007/09/30/is-powerpc-doomed-nahhhh/#comment-110376 Twist Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:31:17 +0000 http://theappleblog.com/2007/09/30/is-powerpc-doomed-nahhhh/#comment-110376 I would not be the least bit surprised to see support for PPC based Mac's dropped from Mac OS X 10.6. At the least I would expect G4 support to be dropped at this time. Apple has a well established history of dropping support for old hardware sooner than most people would want and I don't see that changing anytime soon. I would not be the least bit surprised to see support for PPC based Mac’s dropped from Mac OS X 10.6. At the least I would expect G4 support to be dropped at this time. Apple has a well established history of dropping support for old hardware sooner than most people would want and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

]]>