Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 17th Aug 2006 23:29 UTC
Mac OS X There are some new clues that Mac OS X Leopard will drop G3 support. Its ReadMe file does not mention it, its web pages do not mention it and Apple even made a deliberate change to their 64bit webpage to remove the G3 mention recently. My take: This was not unexpected. For each new version Apple required one more additional feature in order to work (in the past it has been USB, then firewire etc) and now it's G4+. I bet that the client version of OSX after Leopard would require a supported 3D QuartzExtreme-compliant graphics card in order to boot up.
Order by: Score:
don't worry all you little g3s...
by macisaac on Fri 18th Aug 2006 00:03 UTC
macisaac
Member since:
2005-08-28

... linux will still love you ;-)

Reply Score: 4

kadymae Member since:
2005-08-02

... linux will still love you ;-)

But for how long? We're already the stepchildren.

Yeah, source can be compiled from x86 to PPC, but that's not the same as something that's been cleaned up and made to run well on PPC.

Reply Score: 5

espinafre Member since:
2006-01-15

#include <stdio.h>

int main(void)
{
printf("Hello, world!n");
return 0;
}

Hum, looks like this runs equally well on x86, PPC, ARM, PA-RISC, Alpha, SPARC and whatever other weird architecture they may throw in.

What may not run as well is hand-written assembly, very little used in Linux (IIRC, only on boot code).

Reply Score: 1

kadymae Member since:
2005-08-02

Hum, looks like this runs equally well on x86, PPC, ARM, PA-RISC, Alpha, SPARC and whatever other weird architecture they may throw in.

Okay so if all it takes is a simple complile to solve the world's cross processor ills, then why isn't there realplayer or flash for PPC Linux? (Are we really not worth an hour or two of processor time?)

Why aren't Firefox updates for PPC Linux always released on the same day as the x86 version? (As several people from the Ubuntu forums can tell you -- that's not so. Several of us did a fair amount of troubleshooting for noobs who, when Firefox 1.5 didn't show up in Synaptic, went out to download and install via the command line. They all had x86 files. A trip to http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/ showed no PPC version avalible for download. In fact, we had a wait for Firefox 1.5 for PPC Linux/OS X to show up.)

And again regarding Firefox, if a compile is all it takes, then why are there significantly fewer plugins for Firefox PPC than work on the x86 version?

To me, this illustrates that many times it can take more than just a compile to make software function properly.

Reply Score: 2

macisaac Member since:
2005-08-28

"(Are we really not worth an hour or two of processor time?)"

according to the purveyors of closed source software, the answer is apparently largely yes.

that said, re realplayer:

https://player.helixcommunity.org/2005/downloads/

(look for linux-ppc)

about flash:

why do you _want_ that anyhow ;-)


about firefox:

in that case it should just be a recompile, there is only one source tree (which of course you're free to download). it's just a bit of a minor b*tch to get right in compiling it by hand on your own. as to the various and sundy plugins, if they provide the source, just try compiling it... most likely the reason they are only providing an x86 version is that that's the type of machine the author of said plugin had (yeah I guess they could try a gcc cross compile, but I probably wouldn't even bother with that myself)

and if you're going to bring up DRI support, no there's none of it in terms of closed drivers, but for supported cards in xorg, it's just the same as elsewhere:

0001:10:14.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Radeon R100 QD [Radeon 7200]
$ glxinfo |grep direct
direct rendering: Yes

Reply Score: 1

Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Don't feel too bad, there is no flash for x86_64 either.

Reply Score: 1

macisaac Member since:
2005-08-28

Like the poster above wrote, that's what POSIX compliance is about (and writing things in C instead of Assembly). It's really not rocket science to make proper unix apps cross-architecture.

That said, it is true that while "Linux" may run fine on the PPC arch, there is much less choice and attention to fine detail in terms of the actual distros out there as compared to the x86 variants. (certainly not horrible though, I probably wouldn't be running it otherwise myself)

Reply Score: 1

kadymae Member since:
2005-08-02

there is much less choice and attention to fine detail in terms of the actual distros out there as compared to the x86 variants.

Posix compliance aside, that's mostly what I'm talking about.

Reply Score: 2

macisaac Member since:
2005-08-28

sad but true. that said, these last few days I've been trying out a bunch on this G4 here (previously had been running a G3). quick non-scientific summary:

yellow dog = actually pretty good, lots of stuff works with little pain involved. seems to be in suspension though in terms of updates from terrasoft (and I'm guessing it's future (not including the whole HPC thing))

ubuntu ppc = annoying. worked up to a point, had weird quirks though (I'm not crazy about the distro anyhow)

debian ppc = disappointing. worked impressively good with my g3, couldn't get X to even start without spitting a SIGBUS error this time.

fedora ppc = awful. let yellow dog be the "redhat" in ppc town instead.

suse ppc = typical suse. really impressive at first, until you notice, hey this is kind of slower than it seems it should be, and hey, this isn't working quite right, etc...

slackintosh = same problem as debian.

gentoo ppc = just started playing with it. looks very promising actually (and I used to badmouth the distro in another time)

so, so far on this box at least (the G3 had very different results), it's either yellow dog, gentoo, or more likely both. that said, it's a ton of fun to play with, forces you to really go the free software route since the closed source foo just won't work (obviously), and there's something to be said about being a niche in a nice :-)

Reply Score: 2

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

I don't think PPC 32 and x86 32 have any differences which make typical, bad, c code fail.

And languages like Java, Python, and C# don't depend on the CPU architecture ... AT ALL. And then there's Objective-C, which I think is somewhat similar to C in its needs but typical developers are much less likely to get themselves into trouble with it.

Even OS developers don't develop for architecture, they go to a lot of effort to minimize that.

And as far as high quality C compilers there is a commercial one. It's better than gcc on x86, but I don't know how it compares to Intel on x86. But gcc does PPC code just fine, not to mention a dozen other architectures (which fewer people use) which it does well enough on.


If you have any concern it's that support for your logic board will wane.

Reply Score: 2

grabberslasher
Member since:
2006-02-09

Here's someone who's got Leopard working on his G3:

http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showtopic=24736

Reply Score: 5

This Worries Me...
by rm6990 on Fri 18th Aug 2006 00:22 UTC
rm6990
Member since:
2005-07-04

Apple introduced a new G3 iBook just over 3 years ago, and continued selling that model until it was discontinued less than 3 years ago. For anyone wondering, this is the 900 MHz model I am talking about. Although I don't actually own an iBook, if this is true, then it worries me that Apple is willing to leave a 3 year old laptop or desktop unable to run their latest operating system, considering they normally support hardware for at least 5 years after they ship it. Should I begin worrying how long my Mac Mini Core Duo is going to be supported?

I guess one good thing about the Intel switch though is that if Apple decides to screw over their Intel customers this way, we just head straight to their main competitor and don't look back (or to Linux of course, which also runs on PPC for folks with newer G3 iBooks).

Info on G3 iBook I am speaking of: http://img301.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture1wd4.png

Reply Score: 5

RE: This Worries Me...
by Eugenia on Fri 18th Aug 2006 00:38 UTC in reply to "This Worries Me..."
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Yes, you should worry. And this is exactly why I haven't bought a new powerbook yet and I am waiting instead for the 64bit powerbook to arrive before I do. Because after the demise of G3, the quartzextreme gfx cards, 64bit-only is the next logical thing to require...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: This Worries Me...
by rm6990 on Fri 18th Aug 2006 01:18 UTC in reply to "RE: This Worries Me..."
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

You're going to be waiting for a mighty long time. Apple discontinued the Powerbooks 6 months ago :-P I know what you mean though.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: This Worries Me...
by Chezz on Fri 18th Aug 2006 02:37 UTC in reply to "RE: This Worries Me..."
Chezz Member since:
2005-07-11

A Mac-Intel laptop will guarantee its survival. You will always find another OS to run. I expect the new Intel CPUs to live at least 5 years under Mac OS thats if you dont want to run something different.

Everybody loves x86 (even Macs) ;) you shouldnt worry much.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: This Worries Me...
by huarifaifa on Fri 18th Aug 2006 23:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This Worries Me..."
huarifaifa Member since:
2006-08-13

> Everybody loves x86 (even Macs) ;)

except developers that have programmed in x86 assembly language... PowerPC, ARM, Sparc... even the "ancient" 68000 CPU is nicer to work with :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE: This Worries Me...
by ormandj on Fri 18th Aug 2006 00:56 UTC in reply to "This Worries Me..."
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

You bought what you bought knowing what you got. You didn't purchase a "right to upgrade" for X amount of years. If you weren't happy with the package you got, you shouldn't have purchased it.

Part of the reason windows is so "crufty" and "crappy" is there is junk in there to support god knows how many year-old machines/devices.

That being said, the situation will likely get better with the Intel transition, since intel historically hasn't pumped out incompatible processors every few years. They just tack on more and more instructions (sse/see2/sse3/blahblahblah).

Why would you expect a 3 year old laptop to run the "latest" OS anyways? Why would you *want* to? It'd run like dog crap. My PB G4 runs like dog crap already, I'm just waiting on revision two of the MBPs with Merom before I upgrade. Tiger is bad enough on this thing, I'd HATE to try 10.5. That's with 1.25 gigs of ram.

A g3? I don't know how ANYBODY can even use one of those things with 10.4. They were fast with OS9, but they've been dog poo speed-wise since then.

That's how the tech market works, you either upgrade upgrade upgrade, or you settle with "good enough". 10.4 + g3 == seemingly the last mile for that chip, and it's already unbearable enough I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. If you're happy with it though, great, stick with it. 10.5 would make it bog like a slug stuck in mud. Only a mashochist would find that usable.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: This Worries Me...
by ma_d on Fri 18th Aug 2006 01:20 UTC in reply to "RE: This Worries Me..."
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

It's not supporting old machines that makes Windows a nightmare, it's supporting old binaries.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: This Worries Me...
by geekdom on Fri 18th Aug 2006 01:21 UTC in reply to "RE: This Worries Me..."
geekdom Member since:
2006-08-18

OSX 10.4 runs faster on my imac g3 than 10.3 as long as dashboard is off. In fact, I believe others have reported that subsequent versions of OSX perform better on the same old hardware compared to previous ones. This may well change in Leopard since they might stop optimizing for PPC. Sure OS9 runs faster on the imac than OSX does, but at the price of stability and compatible browsers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: This Worries Me...
by ormandj on Fri 18th Aug 2006 01:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This Worries Me..."
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

I certainly can't argue, I don't own a G3. I still stand by my original comment. ;) I do know my G4 is nearly unusable to me on 10.4. I don't know how a G3 could be usable. Testers who have gotten 10.5 working on the G3 say it's DOG slow.

Edited 2006-08-18 01:33

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: This Worries Me...
by rm6990 on Fri 18th Aug 2006 01:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: This Worries Me..."
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

Panther was completely and utterly painful on my Sawtooth Powermac. Tiger, once I drop to the commandline and disable Dashboard, is actually pretty usable. I'm currently running Transmission (bittorrent), Adium, Thunderbird, Safari, iTunes and Preview. I'm obviously not going to be running Final Cut Pro on this computer, but then again, I have absolutely no reason to do that.

Of course, it isn't nearly as fast as my Mini. Too bad Apple's authorized repair shops don't seem to have any official Apple training up in Canada. The first 2 repair shops I took my Mini to had never even worked on an Intel Mini before, which is pretty scary when you consider Apple has authorized them to fix the computer for me. It's going to be stuck in the repair shop for a while it looks like.

Edited 2006-08-18 01:43

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: This Worries Me...
by wizzard on Fri 18th Aug 2006 05:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: This Worries Me..."
wizzard Member since:
2005-06-30

I have a G3 450 and it works just fine with 10.4.X. It would be a shame if support for G3's were dropped. Personally I don't like it due to being unable to purchase a new one but given an very long IT background, early obsolesence is part of the ever changing IT landscape.
Guess I will save the $1XX.XX to upgrade and take that cash to vegas, or buy lottery tickets.
G3 will still run Linux quite well.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: This Worries Me...
by rm6990 on Fri 18th Aug 2006 01:33 UTC in reply to "RE: This Worries Me..."
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

You bought what you bought knowing what you got. You didn't purchase a "right to upgrade" for X amount of years. If you weren't happy with the package you got, you shouldn't have purchased it.

I suggest you re-read my comment, mainly the part where I say I don't own one of these iBooks....

Why would you expect a 3 year old laptop to run the "latest" OS anyways? Why would you *want* to? It'd run like dog crap. My PB G4 runs like dog crap already, I'm just waiting on revision two of the MBPs with Merom before I upgrade. Tiger is bad enough on this thing, I'd HATE to try 10.5. That's with 1.25 gigs of ram.

I'm running Tiger on a Sawtooth Powermac, works just fine with 768 MB RAM and a 400 MHz processor. And again, had you comprehended the words in my comment, you would see I don't own an iBook, but the fact that Apple is cutting off support for 3 year old systems and then supporting their existing operating systems for less time than I can get support for free Linux distros has me a bit worried for the sake of my Mac Mini Core Duo. I've never owned a PC that hasn't gotten 5+ years of use out of it. If you can no longer get OS X + Security updates on a 3 1/2 y/o laptop from Apple, then it suddenly becomes much more realistic when people say Apple is more expensive than a standard PC.

A g3? I don't know how ANYBODY can even use one of those things with 10.4. They were fast with OS9, but they've been dog poo speed-wise since then.

Maybe Apple shouldn't have been shipping G3 computers in 2003 then, no? Of course, until Apple finally switched to Intel, they were behind the rest of the industry for years anyways, so what can you expect. Hell, until 6 months ago 166 MHz system bus was the best you could get on an Apple notebook.

That's how the tech market works, you either upgrade upgrade upgrade, or you settle with "good enough". 10.4 + g3 == seemingly the last mile for that chip, and it's already unbearable enough I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. If you're happy with it though, great, stick with it. 10.5 would make it bog like a slug stuck in mud. Only a mashochist would find that usable.

Again, re-read my comment, particularily the part about which computer I actually own....

EDIT: Here, copied this from my original comment:

Although I don't actually own an iBook, if this is true, then it worries me that Apple is willing to leave a 3 year old laptop or desktop unable to run their latest operating system, considering they normally support hardware for at least 5 years after they ship it. Should I begin worrying how long my Mac Mini Core Duo is going to be supported?

Edited 2006-08-18 01:41

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: This Worries Me...
by ormandj on Fri 18th Aug 2006 01:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This Worries Me..."
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

I suggest you re-read my comment, mainly the part where I say I don't own one of these iBooks....

I read your original comment, excuse my poor English. I meant you as in the collective you. Meaning people who have purchased these mentioned machines.

I'm running Tiger on a Sawtooth Powermac, works just fine with 768 MB RAM and a 400 MHz processor. And again, had you comprehended the words in my comment, you would see I don't own an iBook, but the fact that Apple is cutting off support for 3 year old systems and then supporting their existing operating systems for less time than I can get support for free Linux distros has me a bit worried for the sake of my Mac Mini Core Duo. I've never owned a PC that hasn't gotten 5+ years of use out of it. If you can no longer get OS X + Security updates on a 3 1/2 y/o laptop from Apple, then it suddenly becomes much more realistic when people say Apple is more expensive than a standard PC.

Must be nice. I have a 1gHz PB g4 with 1.25 gigs of ram and a Mac mini G4 1.25gHz with also 1.25 gigs of ram, and both run like crap with 10.4. I reverted to 10.3, it's better for me. I might try turning off dashboard like somebody suggested. As of yet, I've not encountered any software that is going to require me to use 10.4 on those machines. I have NO idea how you can be ok with a g3 at 400mhz. You must not use the same Safari I use.

Speaking as to your linux support, have fun with that. There is a reason I quit dealing with linux at my data center. That's on enterprise machines.

As to your PC with 5+ years out of it, I do the same. In 5+ years, my PB g4 will be fine too, doing what it does now. I will NOT expect it to be running software produced 5 years from the date I purchased it, however.

You tell me the specs on your 5+ year old pc that can run Vista well, please. 10.3 -> 10.4 was about equivilant to the changes in Windows 2k and Windows XP. Apple just pushes out new versions faster. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade to 10.5 now, stick with 10.3 or 10.4 and you'll be fine (if you truly can stomach the dogslow machine you seem to say you can.)

10.2/3 was out 3 years ago offhand, and if you still want to run that OS, you can. You can still run your software too. I don't understand why you're griping you may not be able to run 10.5. 10.5 is *beyond* vista-level.

Maybe Apple shouldn't have been shipping G3 computers in 2003 then, no? Of course, until Apple finally switched to Intel, they were behind the rest of the industry for years anyways, so what can you expect. Hell, until 6 months ago 166 MHz system bus was the best you could get on an Apple notebook.

Maybe a smart consumer shouldn't buy such crappy processors when they are obviously outdated. The fact people bought them, is reason enough Apple was wise in selling them. If people hadn't purchased them, I'm sure Apple would have quit selling them.

Again, re-read my comment, particularily the part about which computer I actually own....

I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough, I didn't realize you read things so literally without interpreting what I said.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: This Worries Me...
by rm6990 on Fri 18th Aug 2006 01:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: This Worries Me..."
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

Must be nice. I have a 1gHz PB g4 with 1.25 gigs of ram and a Mac mini G4 1.25gHz with also 1.25 gigs of ram, and both run like crap with 10.4. I reverted to 10.3, it's better for me. I might try turning off dashboard like somebody suggested. As of yet, I've not encountered any software that is going to require me to use 10.4 on those machines. I have NO idea how you can be ok with a g3 at 400mhz. You must not use the same Safari I use.

I'm typing this in Safari right now. About the only thing that is difficult to use is Google's personalized homepage. I regularily use Google Calendar, Gmail, etc. It depends on what you are using the computer for. Your needs and my needs could be night and day for all I know. Obviously, I'm more comfortable on my Mini Core Duo (when it's actually working and not broken of course), but I can get by easily on this computer. Oh, and I said it is a G4, Sawtooth's never shipped with G3's.

Speaking as to your linux support, have fun with that. There is a reason I quit dealing with linux at my data center. That's on enterprise machines.

I've used Linux for far longer than I have OS X, I'm sure I will be just fine switching full-time back to Linux, or even Windows.

As to your PC with 5+ years out of it, I do the same. In 5+ years, my PB g4 will be fine too, doing what it does now. I will NOT expect it to be running software produced 5 years from the date I purchased it, however.

You tell me the specs on your 5+ year old pc that can run Vista well, please. 10.3 -> 10.4 was about equivilant to the changes in Windows 2k and Windows XP. Apple just pushes out new versions faster. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade to 10.5 now, stick with 10.3 or 10.4 and you'll be fine (if you truly can stomach the dogslow machine you seem to say you can.)


You seem to be missing the point. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. I don't expect it to run the latest software. I expect it to either be able to run the latest software, or be supported for a reasonable period of time. It is pretty pathetic when the latest ubuntu has almost 2 years more support coverage than a paid-for copy of OS X. Yes, I can continue using Tiger, and in a years time, any people who own that iBook no longer have security updates from Apple. For the amount Apple charges for their hardware and software, their software support times are utterly ridiculous. I'm talking about security updates here.

10.2/3 was out 3 years ago offhand, and if you still want to run that OS, you can. You can still run your software too. I don't understand why you're griping you may not be able to run 10.5. 10.5 is *beyond* vista-level.

I pointed out quite a few times that my main gripe is with the lack of security updates, not with the inability to run the latest OS. My point was that if being able to run the latest OS is the only way to get security updates, Apple should ensure that is possible for at least 5 years. Of course, if you need me to make this point again in my next comment, I'm perfectly happy to do so.

Maybe a smart consumer shouldn't buy such crappy processors when they are obviously outdated. The fact people bought them, is reason enough Apple was wise in selling them. If people hadn't purchased them, I'm sure Apple would have quit selling them.

Maybe non-technically minded consumers whom like Apple computers because they are easy to use don't realize Apple is going to screw them over?

Of course, XPostFacto is going to likely make this whole argument pointless. I've heard it works pretty good for Tiger and quite a lot of unsupported computers right now.

Edited 2006-08-18 02:01

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: This Worries Me...
by ormandj on Fri 18th Aug 2006 02:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: This Worries Me..."
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

I pointed out quite a few times that my main gripe is with the lack of security updates, not with the inability to run the latest OS. My point was that if being able to run the latest OS is the only way to get security updates, Apple should ensure that is possible for at least 5 years. Of course, if you need me to make this point again in my next comment, I'm perfectly happy to do so.

This is where you and I disagree. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. 3 years desktop, 5 years enterprise support - I could agree with that. I wouldn't go any more though, otherwise you're stuck with a bunch of crufty stuff.

You keep bringing up Ubuntu. They JUST released LTS, and it's not even been but a few months. You have no idea what's going to be going on in 5 years. They have 0 track record. Heck, LTS was flawed out of the gates, they already have an updated release you have to install.

The difference being, you don't pay for Ubuntu "upgrades". Except in headaches. The kind I had while messing around with it on some of my machines, as in - it didn't install due to issues in the installer. Broken partitioning software. Etc. I could go on. Yes, you can "pay" for support. You seen the cost on it? Have fun. ;) We'll just agree to disagree on this one.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: This Worries Me...
by twenex on Fri 18th Aug 2006 03:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: This Worries Me..."
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

There was a distro this week whose name I forget which tanked after 3 years, despite the fact that the distributors had promised 5 years' worth of support from date of installation. I certainly wouldn't want this to happen to Ubuntu or its users, but it could. OTOH if your Linux distro tanks you just switch to another; not something you can do when/if Be/Apple/Castle go under.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: This Worries Me...
by ormandj on Fri 18th Aug 2006 03:39 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: This Worries Me..."
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

You're screwed either way. ;) I think Apple has a much better chance of surviving given their current financial state than Gentoo! ;) Not that I have anything against Gentoo, a lot of people really love it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: This Worries Me...
by th3rmite on Fri 18th Aug 2006 02:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: This Worries Me..."
th3rmite Member since:
2006-01-08

Dude I'm not sure what you are doing wrong, but Tiger runs like a champ even with Dashboard turned on on my 800mhz imac flatpanel. I'll be running GIMP, Audacity, Bottorrent, Garageband, and Safari all at the same time. The only thing I've done to the thing is add extra ram to make the total 768MB.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: This Worries Me...
by thebluesgnr on Fri 18th Aug 2006 02:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: This Worries Me..."
thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

As to your PC with 5+ years out of it, I do the same. In 5+ years, my PB g4 will be fine too, doing what it does now. I will NOT expect it to be running software produced 5 years from the date I purchased it, however.

Do you expect to get security patches for it? For how long? That's the problem here. Apple can stop releasing new versions of their OS if they want, but the people who bought a computer 3 years ago expect to keep it secure on the internet for at least a couple of more years.

Ideally Apple should keep support for old versions, since upgrades aren't free. But when upgrades aren't possible, it's an entirely different story.

Linux, which you claim to have problems with on enterprise systems, is offered for free with 5 to 7 years of supported updates, depending on the vendor you pick. Oh, and upgrades are free.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: This Worries Me...
by ormandj on Fri 18th Aug 2006 03:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: This Worries Me..."
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

It's a different model with linux, and yes, it's free - which is why "updates" for security is free. They don't have to be developed in-house, the writers of the OSS software (assuming it doesn't dead-end) keep updating it. All RH/Novell/etc have to do is roll up the updates into patches, not exactly a very expensive thing to do.

It's a lot more expensive to support a system you *have* to make the patches for. I cannot expect 5 years of any sane company supporting an OS they sold for 150$. No way. My company supports MUCH less complex software than OSX for MUCH more per year. Let alone 5.

I don't "claim" to have problems with linux, I *do* have problems with linux. Check out my mail server(s) if you want (mail.corenode.com) - running Solaris 10. My webserver(s)? (www.corenode.com) - FreeBSD 6.x. Etc.

I pay for my updates on Solaris, I get free updates with FreeBSD (It's a free OS - and it's all Free software with devs bouncing out updates daily.)

You're asking Apple to invest a LOT of manhours for 5 years into a product you paid 150$ for. I don't see it making business sense for them to do it. You're not happy because they don't do it. Apple apparently sides with the "no business sense" side of things. Maybe if they charged 300+ like MS is going to, they'd support it for 5 years. Is that REALLY what you want? Or do you expect them to open source it, so you can get free updates until the devs get bored?

Again, I think agreeing to disagree is better here. I see it in terms of a financial thing for Apple, you see it as an ethical/"I want" type issue. Business comes first, and get ready to start shelling out 300+$ for your OS to get your 5 years of support. What's the full-featured Vista going to be going for now? 1k? ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: This Worries Me...
by arashikaga on Fri 18th Aug 2006 02:06 UTC in reply to "RE: This Worries Me..."
arashikaga Member since:
2006-08-18

I am glad we have you to tell us the facts of life, where would we be without your knowledge. Too be honest working in the tech department I've noticed almost no difference between a G3 and a G4 (well, okay, some). They are both painfully slow. Apple would be smart if they dropped them both and made this release for G5 and Intel only. If they want to show off the latest features in OSX 10.5 you are going to need a 64bit Intel Macintosh anyway. This of course would cut too many customers out of the loop. It might be safe to axe the G3 and it might not be. A lot of universities still use them.

On a serious note, I believe it is likely that the G3, G4, and G5 will all be supported. The G3 will run OSX, whther or not they sanctioned by Apple.

Edited 2006-08-18 02:09

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: This Worries Me...
by twenex on Fri 18th Aug 2006 03:19 UTC in reply to "RE: This Worries Me..."
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

My three-year old, bog-standard desktop runs a very recent Gentoo; in fact it runs it better now than it did then, since it didn't at first occur to me to compile the kernel for anything more sophisticated and recent than a 386. duh.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: This Worries Me...
by ormandj on Fri 18th Aug 2006 03:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This Worries Me..."
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

That's really not surprising. Could your grandma setup Gentoo? Stage 3 install? ... ;) Different market my friend, different product, and TOTALLY different business model. IE - No business model.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: This Worries Me...
by twenex on Fri 18th Aug 2006 03:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: This Worries Me..."
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I don't see how that's relevant to the question of whether you can get decent performance out of an old computer running a new version of its OS.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: This Worries Me...
by ormandj on Fri 18th Aug 2006 03:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: This Worries Me..."
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

It means, the vast majority of people, can NOT get decent performance out of an old computer running a "new version of its OS". How many people in reality can install Gentoo? Not many. A VERY slim portion of the people who use computers. The vast majority are stuck running whatever windows version was the last to run "ok", or os 8, or whatever it might be. That's my point.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: This Worries Me...
by twenex on Fri 18th Aug 2006 03:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: This Worries Me..."
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

The fact that it's got Gentoo on it is besides the point entirely. I don't use Gentoo because of its supah-dupah performance or because I'm a ricer; I use it because (for the most part) it just works(TM).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: This Worries Me...
by alcibiades on Fri 18th Aug 2006 06:11 UTC in reply to "RE: This Worries Me..."
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

"Why would you expect a 3 year old laptop to run the "latest" OS anyways? Why would you *want* to? It'd run like dog crap."

Well, no it wouldn't. We bought a 1GHZ PIII laptop (for an impecunious mobile writer) recently, put Fedora 5 on it, and it runs just fine. It would certainly have also run XP just fine. Its at least three years old.

It may be that the 3 year old PPC laptops won't run the latest Mac OS acceptably, but if so, it is is a problem peculiar to the Apple PPC hardware, not to 3 year old laptops in general.

Edited 2006-08-18 06:12

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: This Worries Me...
by ormandj on Fri 18th Aug 2006 06:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This Worries Me..."
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

I think the reason I'm having such a hard time accepting all this, is people's opinion of running "fine" and mine are TOTALLY different.

A 1ghz P3 is NOT my idea of running fine. I helped an older woman recently get her laptop fixed (somebody had installed a pirated copy of XP on her p3 laptop), I reinstalled it fresh along with a copy of MS office. It took the computer what seemed like a DECADE to startup. Starting programs took FOREVER. *Nothing* ran well. Firefox *crawled*.

Admittedly, she only had 512 megs of ram, but when p3 laptops were common, that was a lot. This thing ran like utter poopoo to me, there is no way in heck I could ever use something that slow. I really don't understand how anybody could see that speed laptop + XP running well. Even just doing word processing. A typewriter would be faster, seriously. (I've used smith corona machines, you'd be MUCH better off with one of these, with way less margin for problems..)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: This Worries Me...
by REM2000 on Fri 18th Aug 2006 08:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: This Worries Me..."
REM2000 Member since:
2006-07-25

I have a PIII 886MhZ 512MB SDRAM Compaq Desktop computer and it runs Windows XP fine. It's not going to set the world on fire , but it runs MS Office XP fine and functions well on a windows network (AD).

Although i do doubt it would run the latest OS Vista (i know it hasn't been released yet), although i can't really say that until the OS has been released, i say Vista because XP is 5 years old.

As mentioned in an earlier post, panther users are still receiving updates, and i would expect Tiger users too aswell. I do agree however that it would be a good idea if Apple (if they don't already do so), publish the amount of time they will support/release security updates for previous versions such as Panther and Tiger.

I agree with another poster in that a lot of comments say that they are currently use Tiger on G3's but will switch to Linux if they can't run Leopard, as long as Apple keep up the security updates then just stick with Tiger, it will have the same functionality.

As for apple releasing G3's up until 3 years ago, i think everyone knows that apple had a big problem the PowerPC CPU in notebook computers, although now it looks like they are back on track.

As for the topic of G3's *Might* (ill wait for the official word) be dropped in the supported systems for Leopard, im not surprised. The same has happened to windows, although the main difference is that Microsoft Windows has a lower minimum spec.

Although it is worth noting that Vista which is supposed to be the equivalent to the release of Leopard has a minimum of 800Mhz Processor, which would mean the PIII series of processors.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: This Worries Me...
by Yoda on Fri 18th Aug 2006 09:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: This Worries Me..."
Yoda Member since:
2006-05-30

Pentium III 886 was released in 2000
Windows XP was released in 2001

I guess the comparison isn't valid with a 3y old notebook wich probably will not be supported by Leopard in 2007

edit:
The last G3 version (PowerPC 750FX) used by Apple was introduced in 2002 (5 years before Leopard release)
The first G3 version (PowerPC 740/750) was released in 1997 (used in iMacs)

BTW: performance/watt was allready relevant:

"The PPC 740 slightly outperformed Pentium IIs while consuming far less power"

Edited 2006-08-18 09:29

Reply Score: 2

RE: This Worries Me...
by Yoda on Fri 18th Aug 2006 09:16 UTC in reply to "This Worries Me..."
Yoda Member since:
2006-05-30

Please, be aware that the first Mac using G3 was introduced in 1997
(Power Macintosh G3, one of the beige Macintoshes)

Apple cannot keep on supporting 10 years old hardware

Probably two versions after Leopard (or 3) will be 64-bit only
(G5, Core2Duo, Xeon, and newer)

Reply Score: 1

RE: This Worries Me...
by gftapscott on Fri 18th Aug 2006 12:05 UTC in reply to "This Worries Me..."
gftapscott Member since:
2006-08-18

Hey, what utility did you use in that screenshot? It supplies some very nice information.

-G

Reply Score: 1

Necessary
by alwayscrashing on Fri 18th Aug 2006 00:49 UTC
alwayscrashing
Member since:
2006-01-13

I think dropping support for old hardware for the sake of better software is a necesity. Just look at the state Windows is in because of trying to hard on backwards compatibility. Lines need to be drawn.

Your G3 iBook won't become useless overnight, you'll just have to keep 10.4, which I am sure will get security patches just as 10.3 does now.

I think people lose more than they gain by OS upgrades to older Apple hardware anyway. My friend's G3 iMac didn't suit OS X despite being one of the later ones but the sky didn't fall on his head when using OS9.

The same applies to anyone who has to stick with 10.4, personally for a G3 I would have stuck with 10.3, it was definately speedier and more usable on my G4 iMac before I upgraded to a G5.

10.6 might well be Intel only and I won't bitch about it if I am still using my iMac G5.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Necessary
by Eugenia on Fri 18th Aug 2006 00:51 UTC in reply to "Necessary"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

I actually agree with you. Supporting lots of hardware is a major engineering and support headache.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Necessary
by macisaac on Fri 18th Aug 2006 02:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Necessary"
macisaac Member since:
2005-08-28

thing is though, it's not lots of hardware, it's however many models Apple has come out with since they transitioned to PPC. think of it, MS and X number of free Linux/BSD distros are able to target their OS'es to pretty much whatever the end user throws at them (within whatever arch they support), but Apple is supposed to be unable to maintain compatibility for the few machines that _they_ themselves designed?

sounds more like the "you want the software upgrade? pay for the hardware upgrade too then" game that the (proprietary) tech industry seems to play on its users.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Necessary
by twenex on Fri 18th Aug 2006 03:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Necessary"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

To be fair, MS has its army of hardware partners to write drivers for its OS, whilst Linux has an army of sometimes reluctant hardware partners and dedicated hackers [in the true sense of the word]. By comparison, Apple looks rather like the Vatican's detachment of Swiss Guards, numerically speaking.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Necessary
by rm6990 on Fri 18th Aug 2006 01:23 UTC in reply to "Necessary"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

Yes, that is true. The problem, however, is Apple's incredibly short support times for their operating systems. Wow, Leopard is released, and a year later your 4 year old iBook is no longer supported because Apple doesn't feel the need to provide extended support for their operating systems. I'm not saying they should support each release for 10 years like Microsoft does, but when you stop supporting 3 year old computers and then cut off the software lifeline for that computer a year after that, you tend to alienate your customer base. That is one thing I have always found ridiculous about Apple. I can get longer support than Apple provides by going to www.ubuntu.com, which is pretty pathetic when you compare the sizes of Canonical and Apple.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Necessary
by fury on Fri 18th Aug 2006 02:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Necessary"
fury Member since:
2005-09-23

I think this refers more to hardware support in new operating systems, as opposed to the tech support cut off.

Simply put, all software has it's minimum requirements. It is totally feasible to allow users of older hardware to disable features which they don't need to increase performance, though.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Necessary
by ma_d on Fri 18th Aug 2006 03:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Necessary"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

I think they should support the software for 5 years after the hardware was released. After that it'd be nice if they continued, but you can't always expect it.

As far as the 3 year old ibook. Isn't it 3 years ago now? So, wouldn't it be 3.5 years when Leapord actually might ship? So that's be 4.5 years of support if they support Tiger for a year after Leapord.
It's really not that big of a deal. It sucks, sure, but it's not particularly surprising.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Necessary
by alwayscrashing on Sat 19th Aug 2006 03:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Necessary"
alwayscrashing Member since:
2006-01-13

Depends what you consider as 'supported'.

Apple released 10.3 about three years ago and security fixes are still coming out.

Judging by that even if Apple end-of-lifed 10.3 right now you would still be getting your patches for 10.4 in 2008.

Thats damned good support for so many processor versions down the line in my book.

Reply Score: 1

G3 is still good enough
by Umbra on Fri 18th Aug 2006 01:15 UTC
Umbra
Member since:
2006-03-06

Tiger (Mac OS X 10.4) works very nicely on a 7 years old 350 MHz G3 B/W. This configuration is enough for quite many users -> surfing, email, music, text and so on.

A 3-4 years old MHz G3 iBook (like the one I am using right now to write this post, attached to a 37 inch HDTV) will most certainly work with Leopard. Anything else would be a total reverse policy from Apples side.

A 700 MHz G3 is good enough for most daily common tasks. I will most certainly expect it to run 10.5 flawlessly.

Reply Score: 1

Old hardware
by czubin on Fri 18th Aug 2006 01:20 UTC
czubin
Member since:
2005-12-31

I own an ibook G3(900mhz) and those laptops aren't fast but slooooww.
Only thing I use it is for C,c++,java & postgresql(*), but loading eclipse or something similar simply isn't doable.
Perhaps leopard needs some better hardware.

*: I don't have always internet so it's easier for testing SQL

Edited 2006-08-18 01:21

Reply Score: 1

RE: Old hardware
by rm6990 on Fri 18th Aug 2006 01:34 UTC in reply to "Old hardware"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

The fact that you bought a low-end iBook to do development work has me a bit baffled, to say the least.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Old hardware
by czubin on Fri 18th Aug 2006 02:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Old hardware"
czubin Member since:
2005-12-31

:D

First: When it was bought, it was shiny new.
Second: I got it free because the art* student(my sister) didn't need the laptop.
Third: I don't got the money right now to buy a new & very expensive laptop

Perhaps you care to fund me a 1000 euro? ;)

Any low-end pc is good enough for development, no app should need a brand new pc.


*: art as in art and not as in graphical design ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Old hardware
by rm6990 on Fri 18th Aug 2006 02:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Old hardware"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

Ah, OK. I thought you meant you specifically picked a low-end laptop for application development.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Old hardware
by mallard on Fri 18th Aug 2006 11:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Old hardware"
mallard Member since:
2006-01-06

>Any low-end pc is good enough for development, no app should need a brand new pc.

I totally agree. I do all my dev work on a P-II 400Mhz running Linux. Doing your dev work on an older machine encourages you to write more efficient code, benefiting anyone who uses it.
Some performance killers you would hardly notice on a 3+Ghz Core 2 Duo are practical show-stoppers on a P-II 400.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Old hardware
by huarifaifa on Fri 18th Aug 2006 23:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Old hardware"
huarifaifa Member since:
2006-08-13

> Any low-end pc is good enough for development, no app should need a brand new pc.

Tell that to Microsoft (Visual Studio .NET), IBM (Eclipse), etc. their development tools are the ones that need more and more resources after every release ;)

Well, Eclipse 3.2 works fine on my 4-years old notebook running Windows XP (Pentium 4 1.42 GHz, 512 MB).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Old hardware
by thebluesgnr on Fri 18th Aug 2006 02:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Old hardware"
thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

The fact that you bought a low-end iBook to do development work has me a bit baffled, to say the least.

Except that Apple doesn't sell low-end computers.

Reply Score: 2

So shall it be with PPC ... eventually
by paperfrog on Fri 18th Aug 2006 01:46 UTC
paperfrog
Member since:
2006-01-01

The day Jobs announced Apple was moving to Intel, I knew that even if I keep my dual G5 Powermac healthy, it will likely be running Linux in its dotage.

That will be okay. My guess is that G5-class Macs will probably stay in the game another major release or two -- assuming their video cards are up to snuff -- and then we'll see them left behind. At that point, OS X will really be an Intel-based, 64-bit OS 11, even if they don't call it that. When Jobs said OS X was the OS for the next 20 years, Intel was still Plan B. For the sake of the developers, there will have to be some point where they move on.

As for the G3s, why is this a surprise? G3-class machines weren't fully supported by Tiger, since 10.4 requires hardware not present in all G3s.

Whatever follows Leopard will winnow out the early G4s in a similar manner. The next release will still run on PPC, but require 64 bits (G5 only). And then we'll see.

Personally, I only took my G3s to Panther. One is now an OS 9 retro box. The other is running Xubuntu.

Reply Score: 1

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Considering the Mac's focus on ease of use, am I the only one that finds it hysterically funny that so many Mac users switch to or co-opt Linux, when general opinion in the Windows world is still (!!) that it's too hard to use?

Reply Score: 0

ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

By many, do you mean far less than 1%? I haven't seen a single mac, in my life, ever, running linux. I see a *lot* of macs. Yes, you're going to see people from time to time posting on OSNews about their linux-ized apple computers, and you'll probably hear about it in your geek-mailing lists/dev groups. That is NOT a good representation of the Apple userbase!

I don't have any real figures to throw at you, but I assure you, farrrrr less than 1% of apple owners run linux. I know people still banging away in OS7.

Edited 2006-08-18 03:47

Reply Score: 2

not mainstream anymore
by happycamper on Fri 18th Aug 2006 03:04 UTC
happycamper
Member since:
2006-01-01

I think it's right to drop support for the G3 CPUs if they can't handle the software that Apple wants to develop for the Mac OS X.

Edited 2006-08-18 03:05

Reply Score: 1

Cyclical
by Sphinx on Fri 18th Aug 2006 03:52 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

That takes me back, this is where the joy of owning a mac ends. Nothing lasts forever. It was at just this same sort of point in history that I stopped being a mac owner.

Reply Score: 1

I never cease to be amazed
by tpaws on Fri 18th Aug 2006 04:38 UTC
tpaws
Member since:
2006-06-02

at how many non-Mac users feel compelled to comment on anything Apple does. Long time Mac users don't have the "issues" that PC user's think Mac user's should be upset about. Apple is a strong and healthy company. I started with a Mac Plus in 1988 and have upgraded systems a number of times. Moving to new hardware, Apple and Mac Clones, was never difficult. Upgrading Operating Systems until EOL has always been simple. Moving through variations of 6800 to PPC 60X through G3,4,5 has always been handled very well. The recent bold shift to Intel is quite spectacular with minimal compatibility issues, which quickly get resolved. Mac users traditionally use their Macs longer than most PC users, and as all Mac users know well, use your Mac until its time to upgrade, then just move right in.

If your Mac doesn't have the hardware to use the new features in Leopard, there won't be much reason to upgrade. Save your money and get new hardware when you are ready. The Windows world is full of die-hard Win 2000 users. Windows Vista is supposed to have 7 different versions some of which based on hardware requirements. this OMG the sky is falling nonsense is just that.... nonsense.

Reply Score: 5

Tiger / Leopard on a G3
by DrLex on Fri 18th Aug 2006 12:22 UTC
DrLex
Member since:
2006-08-18

I have an 800MHz G3 iBook which runs Tiger. If I don't do anything crazy, it runs pretty fine. But there are moments where it crawls down to unpleasant speeds. If I happen to start Dashboard while spotlight is updating its index and Safari is loading a bloated website, I have to wait several dozens of seconds before the machine becomes responsive again. More RAM would help, but it's already maxed out at 640MB. Seriously, I wouldn't even want to try to run Leopard on this machine. Even with more RAM, the machine still would be unable to play H.264 video or streaming Flash video smoothly. It's obviously starting to lack in raw CPU power for modern applications. It would only seem logical for Apple to drop G3 support, just to protect people from torturing themselves by trying to run software on too slow machines.

Reply Score: 1

Aren't Macs upgradable!?
by SamuraiCrow on Fri 18th Aug 2006 22:20 UTC
SamuraiCrow
Member since:
2005-11-19

Why can't Apple just put sockets on their processor subassemblies to let people upgrade to G4s when they are ready?

Answering my own question: To some extent they do, and laptops can't, I understand that.

It's a pity that they can't just abstract all of the Altivec enhancments in LLVM and continue to support the older Macs with a software recompile at install time.

[off topic rant]
My Micro-A1c flies running AmigaOS 4.0 prerelease 2 and after I update to prerelease 4 it still will fly. When people start upgrading their AmigaOnes to 1.7 GHz G4s I'll probably pick up an old used 933 MHz G4 and upgrade my own system and it'll fly faster still. Why is MacOSX slower than AmigaOS on the same friggin' processor?
[/off topic rant]

Reply Score: 1