Mac OS 10.6 to be Intel only?

Mac OS 10.6 to be Intel only?

Summary: There's a rumor circulating that Apple may either demo or release to developers a build of Mac OS 10.6 that's fully 64-bit clean and Intel-only.


Mac OS 10.6 to be Intel only?There's a rumor circulating that Apple may either demo or release to developers a build of Mac OS 10.6 that's fully 64-bit clean and Intel-only. "10.6 will not include any new significant features from 10.5; instead, Apple is focusing solely on "stability and security" writes TUAW.

10.6 is rumored to go gold master (GM) by December 2008 for release in January 2009 at Macworld Expo.

TUAW brings up a good point, what will developers do? Will they continue to develop "universal" versions of their applications, or will they follow Apple's lead and leave PowerPC owners in the dark?

Also, what will the code name be? Apple has trademarked Lynx and Cougar, which one will it be?

[poll id=129]

Topics: Intel, Apple, Hardware, Operating Systems, Software

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • 64-bit is the future

    64-bit is the future anyway so no problem with releasing a 64-bit only OS. It might seem painful but it's good given that it's just going to pave a way for people to switch from 32-bit to 64-bit as if the report is correct, no major feature will be added. That means people not ready for 64-bit only will do with Leopard and gradually as 64-bit support broadens, they then switch.
    • OS X is different than Windows when it comes to 64-bit...

      OS X is different than Windows when it comes to 64-bit. 32-
      bit drivers & software all run on the 64-bit OS X without
      needing anything special. 10.6 is just going to update any
      remaining 32-bit parts of the OS to 64-bit, but it shouldn't
      have any affect on 32-bit drivers and software.
      • From you lips...

        That's what I thought pre-Leopard. Some of my previously
        working printers last October cold-fish-slapped me on that
        • Device drivers sometimes stop working...

          Device drivers sometimes stop working because of changes
          to the underlying system; updates to system libraries may
          break some drivers.
      • couldn't agree more

        win 64bit sucks big time! in order to install win64bit to pc
        with 4gb ram, you have to remove the 2gb first. after
        installation finished, then you can put the 2gb back in. what's
        with that????
        • That's been fixed long ago

          There's a hotfix that you can integrate into a Windows installation that fixes that.

          If you can't/won't integrate the hotfix, SP1-integrated media includes the fix, so you can install a clean SP1 version without issues.

          It only affects certain chipsets. You are unfortunate to have one of them.
      • Wrong!

        The reason OSX can use 32bit drivers is because the kernel is 32bit. It runs 64bit programs in a shell. Once the kernel is 64bit your 32bit drivers are useless.
        • No, OS X's Kernel is 64-bit...

          No, OS X's Kernel is 64-bit. Just because it is 64-bit does
          not mean it can not process 32-bit software and device
          drivers. There is no emulation involved. The I/O kit
          presumably runs above the mach kernel and hands off
          information as appropriate.

          Device drivers are implemented on Mac OS X as kernel
          extensions that load dynamically when matching hardware
          devices are detected. Mac OS X supports both 32-bit and
          64-bit drivers.
          • Wrong!

            Mach is a 32-bit kernel. You can't run 32-bit drivers in a 64-bit kernel. Sorry. This is also how they have a single version install for 32-bit and 64-bit hardware. The original Core Duo - not Core 2 Duo - doesn't have Intel64 at all (formerly known as Intel EM64T).

            It also runs the CPU in hybrid 32-bit/64-bit mode all the time rather than switching back and forth like Windows. Running hybrid mode is actually slower than running natively for 64-bit processes and switching to 32-bit mode. Windows x64 doesn't use emulation on x86 hardware. It DOES on IA64 hardware though, but that's a completely different platform.
      • RE: Mac OS 10.6 to be Intel only?

        Don't ask me,but David. The thing is you might be pleased that Britain is not a member of the Eurozone, and the Euro from your opinion is going down. Yes, Britain is better than Greece for two reasons. Yes, Britain is better than Greece for two reasons.
        <a href="">SEO Company</a>
    • Sure it is

      Sure it is the future. But it will take years and years and years to move everything to 64-bit. Not just talking about OSX here.
  • RE: Mac OS 10.6 to be Intel only?

    I'm glad to see Macs go 64-bit only. Someone needed to get the transition started and now hopefully Windows will make the switch too (I don't see a 64-bit only switch in Linux's future because it still handles a number of older machines).
    • There have been pure 64 bit Windows OS's for some time

      Vista has a 64 bit version, so does XP, so does Windows Server 2003 and later. There are probably others as well...
    • Linux not doing pure 64 bit? wtf?

      as I'm aware... with Ubuntu, you get either the 64 bit, or the 32 bit versions. the 64 bit is pure 64 bit, though it has the compatibility wrapper to run 32 bit stuff.

      that said, you can still get 16 bit Linux out there... but it's only on the old stuff that you'll find the old versions... oh, and for those, you're either using outdated software, or you're dealing with having recompiled it yourself as 16bit. one advantage for linux, is most of the effort to switch 32 bit to 64 is in the compiler settings, for a huge amount of the programs.

      Linux has lead the support for 64 bit, so, please. don't think that Mac OS is the first with pure 64 bit. They're not. Linux in the data centre needed 64 bit a while ago... so they got it.
  • "focusing solely on ???stability and security""

    And yet, the Apple faithful will spend another $129 for this "stability and security."
    • M$

      sure beats $399 for M$ beta software...
      • $399? Why are you paying $399 for any MS OS?

        Are you really that gullible?
        • Not everyone can build their own computer...

          Not everyone can build their own computer and would be
          qualified to use an OEM/SB Windows disc. The OEM license is
          also non-transferrable if you were to buy a new computer or
          replace the motherboard, unlike the retail version.

          You strike me as someone who downloads movies off
          BitTorrent, so I don't know why I should bother explaining
          this to you.
          • Imagine that...your perception is wrong.

            [i]You strike me as someone who downloads movies off BitTorrent, so I don't know why I should bother explaining this to you.[/i]

            Any evidence to support this? Or are you just allowing your ignorance to speak?
          • It's not an accusation, just an observation. It's your manerisms. [nt]