The Power Mac G5 computer is not supported for use with any version of Mac OS X Server 10.2, or any earlier version of Mac OS X Server. Mac OS X Server 10.3 will be supported on Power Mac G5 computers, Apple reported. Elsewhere, Unix users will be major beneficiaries of the upcoming ‘Panther’ version of OS X, Apple Computer told the AUUG conference.
Power Mac G5: Mac OS X Server 10.2.x Not Supported
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Nothing like stating the obvious. 10.2.6 client and before won’t run on a G5 they had to rework it to get it to work. Why do so many people seem to be surprised by this news?
xServe is still G4 for now. and the G5 is not being sold as a server, maybe should be, but isn’t.
Hopefully this means that 10.3 will be coming sooner. Making a version of 10.2 Server not worth the effort.
I’ve been using 6 seeds of the preview of Panther. The first build which was available at WWDC and build 7B21, 7B39, 7B44, 7B49 and now i’m on 7B53 wich is the latest build.
Only now i can say Apple is improving the performance of the operating system which means:
they aren’t going to add more code, which means:
it’s nearly finished besides from improving the code, which means:
it won’t take long to reach Golden Master, which means:
Panther will soon be available.. which means:
it wil be the most kick-ass GUI OS available.
And as Hike said, it’s obvious Server 10.2 woun’t run on a G5 just like Client 10.2.6 would not run on a G5
why apple makes computers that are not able to run all of their most recent releases of software. Yeah they have snazzy systems lately, but the fact that versions of Mac OS X year old not running on new hardware baffles me somewhat.
As the G5 supposedly can run 32 bit Mac apps natively, I am left wondering if it has more to do with what they choose to do with the OpenFirmware (locking older versions of Mac OS X out?) rather than an inability of the software itself to run. I seriously doubt that it a driver issue, except perhaps for the USB2 support.
Anyone have any real information on this topic for me?
They do run the most recent release of OS X, the one it ships with. Why downgrade? And they are probably waiting for the release of Panther before introducing the G5 servers, so that’s really a non issue.
Hi there,
does anzone know, if there will be an 10.2.7 update for G3 or G4 Macs available? I mean in the linked article always 10.2.7(G5) was mentioned. Will there be a version without (G5)?
Just wondering
Greetings from Anton
I never understood the surprise about older versions of the OS not working with newer hardware. I also don’t understand WHY you’d want to downgrade a brand new computer. In many cases, it is a driver issue I’m sure. Apple doesn’t issue driver upgrades for every little component in the system. What would be the benefit of locking out the older OS’s for no reason? It’s not like they’d do it to urge people to upgrade as the latest release comes with each computer anyway.
A person goes out and buys a G5 with 10.2.7 on it. Are they really going to want to then turn around and install 10.2.0 (a year old OS) on it?
Now, on the flip side… I am a tad miffed that Panther will not officially run on the Beige G3’s… many of which are faster than the original iMacs that it will still be supported on.
Who says Apple isn’t practicing the “lock-the-customer” techniques their friends Microsoft have perfected? I still fail to see the difference between Microsoft and Apple? Only that one has a horrible EULA agreement while the other is ripping off free and open source software while trying to appeal to the free, open source users and a bunch of baseless fanatics.
Beyond this, Microsoft and Apple are birds of the same feathers. Go ahead, throw away another $500000000.00 for a server edition. You’ll propably be paying for an upgrade a year later.
Point #1: said free software was made available to be used in precisely such a way. Otherwise they’d have licensed it differently.
Point #2: last I checked Quartz, Aqua, iLife, etc. are hardly available as OSS. If you think a modified Mach kernel and portions of FreeBSD userland constitute the entirety of what Apple’re offering then you’re kidding yourself.
“They do run the most recent release of OS X, the one it ships with. Why downgrade? And they are probably waiting for the release of Panther before introducing the G5 servers, so that’s really a non issue.”
While an excellent point, it is not the answer to my question. I want to know what the technical reasons are for the lack of interoperability with (not so much) older software (MAc OS X.2.6) on the new hardware. The 64 bitness and other advances in this chip aside, what major differences are there in the hardware that prevent Mac OS X.2.6 from running?
Most likely the kernel has to set some things to put the chip into 32-bit compat mode, etc. Either that or something relating to the other new hardware on the motherboard.
“Most likely the kernel has to set some things to put the chip into 32-bit compat mode, etc. Either that or something relating to the other new hardware on the motherboard.”
I had wondered if this was a possibility, but I also remeber recent instances of simillar situations on Macs in recent history, like when Mac OS X.2 came out, Mac OS 9 was no longer able to be installed on (the same models!) of computers that they had run on weeks before.
That’s why I wonder if it’s something to do with OpenFirmware or something equally obnoxious. It’s also why I wonder if it’s really a driver issue, as (like I said) Mac OS 9 did run on the same models of Macs that they (eventually) refused to install on.
U3
The G5 has a new north bridge (in addition to a functionally different CPU), of which earlier versions of OS X do not have the code to deal with. If there were no hardware checks (or if you were able to bypass them) in earlier versions of OS X, the machine would lock up immediately with code incompatibility issues on the new hardware.
“The G5 has a new north bridge (in addition to a functionally different CPU), of which earlier versions of OS X do not have the code to deal with. If there were no hardware checks (or if you were able to bypass them) in earlier versions of OS X, the machine would lock up immediately with code incompatibility issues on the new hardware.”
Thank you. That was informative.
I want 9.3 with support for the G5. Then I might consider buying one.
I want G5 support for the IIGS OS, or the C-64.
OS 9 is dead!!!!
oh my god, you get it….they are phasing it out and now, it is just as dead as DOS is in home desktop computing.
Stop wishing for the return of OS 9. It is dead as a doornail, and good riddance. It crashed several times a day on my before I gave up on it back in 1999. After using BeOS until it became a corpse, I switched to OS X and never looked back. The nostalgia for OS 9 is getting a little sad – get with the program.
” I had wondered if this was a possibility, but I also remeber recent instances of simillar situations on Macs in recent history, like when Mac OS X.2 came out, Mac OS 9 was no longer able to be installed on (the same models!) of computers that they had run on weeks before.
That’s why I wonder if it’s something to do with OpenFirmware or something equally obnoxious. It’s also why I wonder if it’s really a driver issue, as (like I said) Mac OS 9 did run on the same models of Macs that they (eventually) refused to install on. ”
They locked out OS 9 becuase they are getting rid of it. It had nothing to do with Jag or the hardware at the time. You can reset the firmware and boot into OS 9 if you want to, but Apple won’t garuntee anything anymore because they don’t test it.
Look (G4)
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/721…
swicharoo, haha
There was an <a href=http://www.unsanity.org/archives/000044.php>article a while back about how the performace of OS X is affected by Apple’s choice of using the MACH-O binary format in a RISC architecture. I wonder if there is an even larger performace hit with the G5. This might explain the delay of Panther and OS X Server. Apple is simply modifying their tool chain to cope with a decision made two decades ago.
There was an article a while back about how the performace of OS X is affected by Apple’s choice of using the MACH-O binary format in a RISC architecture.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Mach-O, it’s simply the particular PPC ABI they chose was antequated. This was with compatibility with their development toolchain at the time, a toolchain which has since been drastically change (i.e. XCode)
If Apple ever plans to offer full 64-bit support on OS X, it will be done using Mach-O binaries, although you can expect substantially better ABI design…
This is the beginning of the end for backward compatability on Macs
These links may help you out.
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/05/Applesexitstrategy.shtml
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/05/X86Mac-gettingfromAtoB.sh…
Have a great weekend…..
I see you’ve linked to the “USS Clueless”. They certainly live up to their name! Their argument is based upon two assumptions:
Suppose that he [Steve Jobs] is pretty certain that Apple’s computer business is doomed. Not doomed in the short run, not doomed to imminent collapse, but doomed to long term decline through gradually increasing uncompetitiveness.
That’s not at all implausible, based on two assumptions. First, that Motorola has given up on further development of high-speed PPCs, which is almost certain.
Wrong. See:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/30993.html
http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/SNDF2003_EUROPE_H1101.pdf
The second assumption is that IBM’s 970, when it arrives, will perform at least acceptably, but that it will be much more expensive.
The processor itself is cheaper than the G4, due to the smaller wafer size. The surrounding architecture, however, is not.
Wow, an opinion piece whose argument is based on two incorrect assumptions. That’s credibility right there…
jtfolden (IP: —.dsl.wotnoh.ameritech.net) said–
>>>I never understood the surprise about older versions
>>>of the OS not working with newer hardware. I also don’t
>>>understand WHY you’d want to downgrade a brand new computer.
Because most people have more experience with the WindowsIntel world, its not uncommon to slap on an older OS in these machines for an instant (if not illusionary) speed boost. OTOH, when using products like 98lite to configure the system with the older Windows 95 version of Explorer, this actually does provide the speed boost of a new(er) kernel running with an olderlighter interface on top… But in answer to your REAL question, I honestly doubt anyone with a brand new G5 that _comes with_ a newer version of the MacOS written especially for it would want to do this, as the above described issues do not aparently exist for many Macintosh users. However WindowsIntel users do have the ability to run older versions of the Operating system on brand spanking new hardware for the most part, thus their (our?) casual ignorance.
debman (IP: —.cable.mindspring.com) said–
>>>OS 9 is dead!!!!
>>>oh my god, you get it….they are phasing it out and
>>>now, it is just as dead as DOS is in home desktop computing.
You might want to tell the good people working on FreeDos that, or perhaps you’d like to tell this bit of news to the various companies that are _still_ releasing new implementations of DOS. Perhaps the nice people at the (IMHO) defunct SEAL 2.x project this bit of information or maybe the Qube people? They’ve been working hard on making GUIs for DOS and they might like to know its time to throw in the towel since DOS is dead… /sarcasm anyone?
As for MacOS 9.x you might want to keep in mind that there are people with a sizable amount of money invested in some older MacOS programs that either don’t function in MacOS X.x or they have found a way to make MacOS 9.x behave to their likeing and would rather not have to start over with the new UI of MacOS X.x…hard to imagine, but I’m sure there are some people who prefer the ‘classic’ way of doing things and see no real reason to move on–except wanting abit more speed in their hardware.
Tony Soprano (IP: —.client.attbi.com) said–
>>>After using BeOS until it became a corpse, I switched
>>>to OS X and never looked back. The nostalgia for OS 9
>>>is getting a little sad – get with the program.
And if someone had said these self same words to you while you were still using BeOS ‘until it became a corpse’ how would you have reacted? YOU need to get with the program, not everyone will want to use their computers the same way that you and I do–and there’s nothing *wrong* with that! we just happen to do things differently. It’s really sad to see someone get so upset about someone happily using their computer in whatever way works best for them (whether or not we ‘know’ better or not..)
Yup OS 9 is dead! I have have been using OS X since 10.1 and have never looked back to 9, but my college is finally updated to OS X(end of this month). Either they didn’t have the money(heck i pay enough) or something, but new computers with x are on their way.
There is no server edition of OS X available for the G5 until Panther is released. That’s the real issue. Clearly people will want to use the G5 PMs as servers and they have to do without it for a month or so… it’s not really an issue of using an older version of the OS.
That being said… I see it as a non-issue as you could certainly get most server functions running on a G5 w/ 10.2.7 and Panther is imminent. But everyone’s been writing the article wrong. No one cares about pre-10.2.6 support. Articles should say: “No Server System for G5s.” That would shake people up (as most Mac stories are intended) and would actually be a real issue.
“There is no server edition of OS X available for the G5 until Panther is released. That’s the real issue.”
For the record, you are right about that being the real issue in the article. *My* issue is that I would like to understand *why* a slightly older version will not work (and I not talking about Mac OS 9 here). Michael (IP: —.sp.trw.com) provided the closest thing yet to a good reason for *why* it can be done.
why it *can’t* be done. got enter happy there.
I want the G5 to support MacOS 6.. there hasn’t been a better OS since version 6. It had more features and capabilities than an OS to date. It was waaaay ahead of its day. I have no idea as to why it was axed.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
OK…. just kiddin’
9 was/is/will always be a total POS and i am glad they dumbed it for what is the finest OS made today.
….good riddance to bad rubbish!
To experience new OS; you must buy new mac.
New OS runs on old hardware… running Panther builds on a 400Mhz iMac.
To experience OLD OS, you must buy an OLD Mac.
In x86 world, you can experience new OS with old hardware, but of course, with penalties on performance mainly…
you can run OS9 on your G5!!
You just have to install Linux first and then download and install Mac on Linux: http://www.maconlinux.org/
RE: Quattro (IP: —.olathe01.ks.comcast.net) – Posted on 2003-09-04 19:46:11
There was an http://www.unsanity.org/archives/000044.php article a while back about how the performace of OS X is affected by Apple’s choice of using the MACH-O binary format in a RISC architecture. I wonder if there is an even larger performace hit with the G5. This might explain the delay of Panther and OS X Server. Apple is simply modifying their tool chain to cope with a decision made two decades ago.
1) [/i]And after all, who cares about a 10% speed loss? You can always get a faster Mac, right?[i]
2) There has been some code added to GCC (DFA Scheduler etc etc) to work around the fact that Mach-O was originally designed to work on CISC.
You don’t need to do anything like this.
You just run the classic environment within X.3
The problem is not that 9 does not work on G5,
The problem is that 9 does not boot on G5.
There are sompe applications whic hdo not work under classic
but not shedloads of them.
phil
Kingston,
Every new Macintosh released is different (obviously), and the system needs to be updated to reflect the developments. With the G5 the differences are great (G5, PCI-X, AGP 8x etc), and that machine specific support needs to be included. With the aluminium PowerBooks released at the start of the year it was Bluetooth and Airport Extreme support. The older OS versions do not work because the support is not included (Apple wouldn’t include it even if it was finished because people have a habit of tearing the updates apart for clues on future product developments).
Someone who’s name I can’t remember,
Yes 10.2.7 will be made available for all machines shortly, improvements include graphics drivers and USB/FireWire support.
Matt