7 ms·

There is no excuse for the most profitable company in the world to drop support for working hardware. It's entirely within their capability to support even Powe

There is no excuse for the most profitable company in the world to drop support for working hardware. It's entirely within their capability to support even PowerPC macs. And that's besides fact that Apple has an incredibly small portfolio of hardware to support; so much so that they could trivially exhaustively test every update on every possible piece of hardware.

hgsgm 4y ago
calvinmorrison 4y ago
I was just rereading the ppc history for Apple as they're doing it again for ARM and it seems quite reasonable to be honest. They pulled something off I think would be difficult for many others and have shown they're not married to a single architecture. Still RIP my favorite machine the last ppc Mac tower
- kennend3 4y ago
  > They pulled something off I think would be difficult for many others and have shown they're not married to a single architecture. You mean like how MS Windows ran on the DEC Alpha as well as X86? Or how Linux runs on X86 and ARM CPU's? Running an OS on multiple CPU types goes back a very long time.
  - LoganDark 4y ago
    > Running an OS on multiple CPU types goes back a very long time. Yet moving the entire world onto this new architecture and getting all developers on board to start creating software for it is nearly unheard of outside of Apple.
    - macintux 4y ago
      That’s the strategy that Microsoft can’t/won’t pursue: be willing to abandon legacy vendors/customers by forcing a migration.
      - eric-hu 4y ago
        I’m fan of how Apple does things for their ecosystem. I think only this strategy could have let them make the transition to arm as smooth as it’s been. That said, I also have deep respect for Microsoft for being so deeply committed to backwards compatibility. You can find developer stories about how they’ve gone out of their way to hard code support for legacy apps (even space pinball) in major Windows updates. That sounds really gross from a code perspective, but from a business/product perspective, it buys trust/loyalty from enterprise customers. We see the opposite issue with Google, who has established a reputation for unreliable long term support. Despite their reputation for strong engineering, their new product lines suffer from distrust. Potential customers ask themselves why pay the onboarding cost for a Google product when it’s unclear if it’ll be around in two to three years.
    - kennend3 4y ago
      "Planned obsolescence" has its advantages? This is the third time apple has done this so one would hope they have learned form their mistakes and make the transition seemless? Windows machines on X86 are just fine.. Amazing when you dont have a monopoly on both the OS and Hardware. MS runs on Intel, AMD, ARM... MacOS runs on whatever hardware Apple sells. you can see how an attempt by Microsoft to move off Intel would fail, right?
  - alwillis 4y ago
    You mean like how MS Windows ran on the DEC Alpha as well as X86? Or how Linux runs on X86 and ARM CPU's? It’s not the same thing. A macOS hard drive could boot either an Intel or PPC Mac and all of the apps ran on both types of machines. Apps that were “fat binaries” ran natively on both processor architectures. Same thing today with the apps and the operating system running natively on Intel and ARM machines.
    - kennend3 4y ago
      Nothing you wrote is accurate. The apps ran on both types of machines thanks to rosetta and the performance hit this takes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software) It is doubtful that a PPC system can boot an intel MacOS HD. One is RISC the other CISC. The reason you can "natively" run intel on ARM machines is Rosetta2 "Until recently, Mac developers only had to worry about creating Intel-based apps. However, that started to change when the first Apple silicon Macs arrived. For Intel-based apps to run on these computers, Apple introduced Rosetta 2." Please read up before posting.
      - pram 4y ago
        lol maybe you should do some reading before posting. Mach-O supports multi-architecture binaries. Rosetta is solely for things that haven’t been made “Universal” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_binary https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_binary
        kennend3 4y ago
        Great.. now explain why Rosetta exist if it is not needed because "mach-o supports.."
      - vetinari 4y ago
        > It is doubtful that a PPC system can boot an intel MacOS HD. One is RISC the other CISC. That's the point of fat binaries: they contain .text sections for several architectures. Even the installation DVD was a single one, for both platforms. Some more modern example of the same concept: Terminal: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures: [x86_64:Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64] [arm64e] Terminal (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64 Terminal (for architecture arm64e): Mach-O 64-bit executable arm64e
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Tijdreiziger 4y ago
  Well, you can't run 2002 OS X software on a modern Mac anymore, but you can still run 2002 Windows software on a modern PC (and probably 2002 Linux software too). Actually, you can't even run 2010 iPhone OS software on a modern iPhone anymore (but you can run 2010 Android software on a modern Android phone).
  - ehutch79 4y ago
    That's not true in any practical sense. Sure you can run the xp calculator app on windows 11, but so what? Most of the programs that people want backwards compatibility for, enterprise apps, won't run correctly. Yes that's mostly because of how they're coded, but even if the source code still exists, I doubt anyone is putting effort into updating them at this point, and is just running xp or 2000 in a vm.
kennend3 4y ago
This is sort of my line of thinking. when you effectively have a very small product line and are incredibly profitable it does seem a bit greedy to artificially limit updates. It would be different if there was no way to bypass the upgrade lock, but given opencore legacy works.. Clearly the hardware is able to run the new OS.
scarface74 4y ago
Besides the impracticality of running new OS’s on a 2005 era Mac, what software engineer at Apple would be willing to take on that role? Also, even if the hardware were supported, what third party software company would still support PPC Macs?
- ben-schaaf 4y ago
  > what software engineer at Apple would be willing to take on that role? One being paid to do so? People still work with COBOL. If you have trouble finding engineers to do it, offer a higher salary. > Also, even if the hardware were supported, what third party software company would still support PPC Macs? Some software is still supported for Windows XP, and that's considerably older than the last PPC Macs. It would certainly be a whole lot easier to support if Apple still did the same. In any case my point is that they absolutely have the resources to do this. I don't see how that's at all controversial given how much money they have.
  - goosedragons 4y ago
    There's still Linux distros supporting 32bit PPC Macs.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      And how many people are actually getting paid to do so and how many companies are selling software for them?
  - scarface74 4y ago
    > One being paid to do so? People still work with COBOL. If you have trouble finding engineers to do it, offer a higher salary. Higher salary than who? Do you really think old COBOL programmers (FWIW I’m 48) are making more than the average new college grad working at any major tech company? And besides if you know how raises and promotions work at tech companies, you would know they are based on “impact” and “scope”. You don’t demonstrate either by saying “I spent all last year supporting MacOS on a PowerPC 6100 from 1994 doesn’t speak well to either. Unless you work at Google where it’s based on creating new messaging app that will be killed in a year. Is the average COBOL programmer even making close to the same $170K+ that I’ve seen returning interns make at major tech companies (including the one I mentored) > Some software is still supported for Windows XP, and that's considerably older than the last PPC Macs. How much mainstream software is supported by XP? Microsoft Office? Adobe software? Modern browsers? Modern games? > In any case my point is that they absolutely have the resources to do this. I don't see how that's at all controversial given how much money they have Yes and they also had the money to buy Twitter. But what moron would do something that stupid?

hgsgm 4y ago

calvinmorrison 4y ago

I was just rereading the ppc history for Apple as they're doing it again for ARM and it seems quite reasonable to be honest. They pulled something off I think would be difficult for many others and have shown they're not married to a single architecture. Still RIP my favorite machine the last ppc Mac tower

kennend3 4y ago
> They pulled something off I think would be difficult for many others and have shown they're not married to a single architecture. You mean like how MS Windows ran on the DEC Alpha as well as X86? Or how Linux runs on X86 and ARM CPU's? Running an OS on multiple CPU types goes back a very long time.
- LoganDark 4y ago
  > Running an OS on multiple CPU types goes back a very long time. Yet moving the entire world onto this new architecture and getting all developers on board to start creating software for it is nearly unheard of outside of Apple.
  - macintux 4y ago
    That’s the strategy that Microsoft can’t/won’t pursue: be willing to abandon legacy vendors/customers by forcing a migration.
    - eric-hu 4y ago
      I’m fan of how Apple does things for their ecosystem. I think only this strategy could have let them make the transition to arm as smooth as it’s been. That said, I also have deep respect for Microsoft for being so deeply committed to backwards compatibility. You can find developer stories about how they’ve gone out of their way to hard code support for legacy apps (even space pinball) in major Windows updates. That sounds really gross from a code perspective, but from a business/product perspective, it buys trust/loyalty from enterprise customers. We see the opposite issue with Google, who has established a reputation for unreliable long term support. Despite their reputation for strong engineering, their new product lines suffer from distrust. Potential customers ask themselves why pay the onboarding cost for a Google product when it’s unclear if it’ll be around in two to three years.
  - kennend3 4y ago
    "Planned obsolescence" has its advantages? This is the third time apple has done this so one would hope they have learned form their mistakes and make the transition seemless? Windows machines on X86 are just fine.. Amazing when you dont have a monopoly on both the OS and Hardware. MS runs on Intel, AMD, ARM... MacOS runs on whatever hardware Apple sells. you can see how an attempt by Microsoft to move off Intel would fail, right?
- alwillis 4y ago
  You mean like how MS Windows ran on the DEC Alpha as well as X86? Or how Linux runs on X86 and ARM CPU's? It’s not the same thing. A macOS hard drive could boot either an Intel or PPC Mac and all of the apps ran on both types of machines. Apps that were “fat binaries” ran natively on both processor architectures. Same thing today with the apps and the operating system running natively on Intel and ARM machines.
  - kennend3 4y ago
    Nothing you wrote is accurate. The apps ran on both types of machines thanks to rosetta and the performance hit this takes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software) It is doubtful that a PPC system can boot an intel MacOS HD. One is RISC the other CISC. The reason you can "natively" run intel on ARM machines is Rosetta2 "Until recently, Mac developers only had to worry about creating Intel-based apps. However, that started to change when the first Apple silicon Macs arrived. For Intel-based apps to run on these computers, Apple introduced Rosetta 2." Please read up before posting.
    - pram 4y ago
      lol maybe you should do some reading before posting. Mach-O supports multi-architecture binaries. Rosetta is solely for things that haven’t been made “Universal” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_binary https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_binary
      - kennend3 4y ago
        Great.. now explain why Rosetta exist if it is not needed because "mach-o supports.."
    - vetinari 4y ago
      > It is doubtful that a PPC system can boot an intel MacOS HD. One is RISC the other CISC. That's the point of fat binaries: they contain .text sections for several architectures. Even the installation DVD was a single one, for both platforms. Some more modern example of the same concept: Terminal: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures: [x86_64:Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64] [arm64e] Terminal (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64 Terminal (for architecture arm64e): Mach-O 64-bit executable arm64e
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Tijdreiziger 4y ago
Well, you can't run 2002 OS X software on a modern Mac anymore, but you can still run 2002 Windows software on a modern PC (and probably 2002 Linux software too). Actually, you can't even run 2010 iPhone OS software on a modern iPhone anymore (but you can run 2010 Android software on a modern Android phone).
- ehutch79 4y ago
  That's not true in any practical sense. Sure you can run the xp calculator app on windows 11, but so what? Most of the programs that people want backwards compatibility for, enterprise apps, won't run correctly. Yes that's mostly because of how they're coded, but even if the source code still exists, I doubt anyone is putting effort into updating them at this point, and is just running xp or 2000 in a vm.

kennend3 4y ago

This is sort of my line of thinking. when you effectively have a very small product line and are incredibly profitable it does seem a bit greedy to artificially limit updates. It would be different if there was no way to bypass the upgrade lock, but given opencore legacy works.. Clearly the hardware is able to run the new OS.

scarface74 4y ago

Besides the impracticality of running new OS’s on a 2005 era Mac, what software engineer at Apple would be willing to take on that role? Also, even if the hardware were supported, what third party software company would still support PPC Macs?

ben-schaaf 4y ago
> what software engineer at Apple would be willing to take on that role? One being paid to do so? People still work with COBOL. If you have trouble finding engineers to do it, offer a higher salary. > Also, even if the hardware were supported, what third party software company would still support PPC Macs? Some software is still supported for Windows XP, and that's considerably older than the last PPC Macs. It would certainly be a whole lot easier to support if Apple still did the same. In any case my point is that they absolutely have the resources to do this. I don't see how that's at all controversial given how much money they have.
- goosedragons 4y ago
  There's still Linux distros supporting 32bit PPC Macs.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    And how many people are actually getting paid to do so and how many companies are selling software for them?
- scarface74 4y ago
  > One being paid to do so? People still work with COBOL. If you have trouble finding engineers to do it, offer a higher salary. Higher salary than who? Do you really think old COBOL programmers (FWIW I’m 48) are making more than the average new college grad working at any major tech company? And besides if you know how raises and promotions work at tech companies, you would know they are based on “impact” and “scope”. You don’t demonstrate either by saying “I spent all last year supporting MacOS on a PowerPC 6100 from 1994 doesn’t speak well to either. Unless you work at Google where it’s based on creating new messaging app that will be killed in a year. Is the average COBOL programmer even making close to the same $170K+ that I’ve seen returning interns make at major tech companies (including the one I mentored) > Some software is still supported for Windows XP, and that's considerably older than the last PPC Macs. How much mainstream software is supported by XP? Microsoft Office? Adobe software? Modern browsers? Modern games? > In any case my point is that they absolutely have the resources to do this. I don't see how that's at all controversial given how much money they have Yes and they also had the money to buy Twitter. But what moron would do something that stupid?