Hi
If I cannot run Snow Leopard on my G5 Power Mac, I will switch completely to Linux/Ubuntu. If I have to change (change!), then it has to be cheap. In my installations, there are so many Linuxes around (e.g. Synology) - one or two more do not matter.
HPM

HPM, thanks for the comment. Is there really a problem running the current iteration of OS X? As the user of a few copies of XP, and someone unwilling to use Vista, I can see no reason to switch, and simply ending the sales of XP will not deter me in the least.

Although the software for Apple is smaller in scope, I know there are many ways to solve problems, and until a problem came up that couldn’t be handled on the G5 with OS X, that would be what I’d be using.

I’ve got a MacBook Pro and my teenage daughters use my old G4 PowerBook and dual G5 PowerMac. They’d be pretty p*ssed off if the POWER chips weren’t supported. There’s nothing wrong with those old Macs and my kids absolutely love them. Part of the initial attraction of the Mac, for me, was its longevity and high residual value, so obsoleting former top-of-the-range platforms for no good reason (and there *is* no good reason) would put Apple in no higher esteem than Dell or HP. I actually find this report hard to believe. Sure, the early betas might be Intel-only, but why deprecate POWER completely and alienate a large user base for so flimsy an excuse?

Given that there are reportedly virtually no new features in 10.6, I’m at a loss to see what the fuss is all about.

Now, admittedly, I’m still running Tiger (quite happily, by the by), but if there’s pretty much nothing new in the upgrade (update?), what’s the concern? Or the need to buy it?

So far, the reporting indicates that the only new (accessible) feature will be Exchange push support. Now, maybe that’s a desperate need for you that’s gone wanting for far too long, and so you’re now going to go another, non-Mac route. But then, I’m wondering why you’ve been using a PowerPC Mac for so long and haven’t taken the opportunity to upgrade so you can actually run native Windows and solve the problem already.

So, basically, people who are upset about the possibility (something still far from confirmed) of dropping PowerPC support in 10.6 are upset because…

What? They won’t be paying $129 for a bunch of bug fixes and under the hood improvements?

I am still using a G3 iMac, updated not long ago to Tiger, and it is working perfectly fine. The leisurely pace of updates is one of the things that attracted me to Apple in the first place. You can guess that this news doesn’t make me happy. :-(

I think this is a great step forward. How can any operating system truly take advantage of cool new gizmos if the machines that are running it aren’t capable of keeping up with the processing needs of the day? I wouldn’t expect XP to run well on my Windows 95 machine, or OS-X to run smoothly on a Mac made for OS9.

The PowerPC was a great platform, and I have fond memories of my time at Apple when they announced the G5 and how unbelievably fast it was. I recall endless amounts of customers calling in so excited that their new iMac or Power Mac was on its way. At the time it was simply unmatched in performance and elegance.

However, times changed and Intel quickly took the lead in the market of processors and Apple went with what works best for their customers. I think the old processor has had its time in the sun and I’m sure there is nothing wrong at all with users sticking to OS-X version 5 for the time being.

Everyone, thanks for the comments. I see there is still the fierce loyalty among Apple users. As I said, I think Jobs should have waited for the Power 6 chip, which, when introduced, wiped the floor with anything AMD or Intel had - plus it was very cool to be immune to all the nastiness of the x86 world.

I think Apple lessened itself with the move to Intel processors, and saw the only reason to do so being the release of OS X for all x86 processors - but alas, that has still not happened.

Apple has a long history of making older hardware obsolete, why should that change? I’ve read these comments about longevity of the platform, but I am reminded of the history of the 68xxx platforms as the PowerPC arrived. So Apple will do it again, what’s new?

HarryH - you’re right about that, but then the 68xxx was a really old technology to begin with - it was patterned after the VAX!

Thanks for the comment.

I know Apple fans will hate me when I say this, but to your point about the Power 6, if Apple hadn’t moved to Intel it wouldn’t have Windows abilities. Yes, Windows may be sub-par in the book of Apple fans, but there’s no question that having the ability to keep productive software and gaming software usable in Parallels is what’s bringing so many people to Apple as their main PC.
Was switching to Intel a bad decision, absolutely NOT. It was the keystone to getting Windows users to switch to Apple without having to give up their 300-500 dollar photoshop, or their 300 dollar Adobe software. Well done I say.

Matt , I don’t think that many Apple users bother trying to run Windows. Perhaps a few gamers, but then, since there aren’t many choices for a great video card that will work within the confines of the machines, I’m not so sure.

I think Bootcamp was a move to ease corporate Windows users into the Apple way, not keep them running Windows.

The Photoshop users would have been happier with the Power 6, as it offered lots more raw performance.

If you compare core to core Power 6 wipes the floor with anything produced for the consumer market. It does as much work per cycle as the newest Intel chips, and started being produced at 4.1 GHz, something Intel or AMD has yet to do.