11 Replies Latest reply: Jul 26, 2010 6:51 PM by 787521 RSS

    11g support for Mac OS X?

    82603
      Is Oracle still committed to providing Oracle on Mac OS X? I would have assumed that some form of 11g support would have been available by now. Does anyone know?

      Thanks...
        • 1. Re: 11g support for Mac OS X?
          322957
          Nothing has changed ... please see my previous posts:

          11gR1 on MacIntel is "Projected" with availability "STBA"
          Certification Matrix shows 11g EE "projected" on Mac Intel also

          10gR2 on MacIntel is "Projected" with availability "2H CY2008"
          Certification Matrix shows 10gR2 "projected" on Mac Intel

          Oscar
          • 2. Re: 11g support for Mac OS X?
            Rumburak
            I can't understand why oracle could not say us if they would bring 11g on the Mac? These rumours don't help them.
            • 3. Re: 11g support for Mac OS X?
              Ronald Rood
              For the intel I am confident that a sever will be released somewhere in 2008. The powerpc id dead.

              regards,
              Ronald
              http://ronr.nl/unix-dba
              • 4. Re: 11g support for Mac OS X?
                578496
                Welcome to 2009?

                Guess this will be the year of PostgreSQL.
                • 5. Re: 11g support for Mac OS X?
                  638296
                  Any more news on this?
                  • 6. Re: 11g support for Mac OS X?
                    CInglez
                    I don't think Oracle is planning to port 11g on Mac, specially after buying Sun (Solaris).

                    It took a long time already to support 10gR2 on Mac, and it's only for Mac OS X 10.5.

                    Oracle commitment to the Mac platform is a joke.
                    • 7. Re: 11g support for Mac OS X?
                      12275
                      Sorry to nitpick, but I think what you meant to say was "Oracle committment to Mac OS X <b>was</b> a joke.".
                      • 8. Re: 11g support for Mac OS X?
                        CInglez
                        Sorry, but I didn't understand. Has something changed? It seems to be the same joke to me.
                        • 9. Re: 11g support for Mac OS X?
                          779494
                          We use Pearson PowerSchool in our school district and just got this notice from them:

                          We’ve been anticipating an update from Oracle, which would allow us to deploy Oracle 11g on the Mac.  The Windows version from Oracle has been available for nearly 2 years; however, there is still no published delivery date from Oracle for a Mac version.

                          Complicating matters, the current version of Oracle for the Mac is not compatible with Mac OS X 10.6.x Snow Leopard, which has been shipping since August 2009.  New customers, and existing customers who want to upgrade their hardware, would find new Apple servers are incompatible with the current Oracle database.  Oracle has not provided a date by which the current version of the Oracle Mac Database (10gR2) will be certified on Mac OS X 10.6.

                          Oracle’s diminishing commitment to the Apple platform has left Pearson with limited options for customers using Mac servers. We do not have a commitment from Oracle for future versions of the database supporting the Mac, and current versions of the Oracle database are incompatible with new hardware running Mac OS X 10.6.

                          Therefore, all Mac customers should make plans to replace their Mac database servers with a Windows-based database server (physical or virtual).  Pearson will discontinue support for the Mac database server effective December 31, 2010.*

                          Should Oracle issue a version of 11g with Mac compatibility, we will evaluate support options for this platform again.

                          This is extremely bad news for us as we are a Macintosh district and don't have the resources to support Windows servers. Why is Oracle not supporting Mac OS X? Is there anyone we can complain to or is it just a hopeless cause?
                          • 10. Re: 11g support for Mac OS X?
                            780271
                            We're in the same boat: this Oracle FAIL came out of the blue from PowerSchool. It's unfortunate that PowerSchool trusted Oracle to keep the database product updated on all platforms only to have the rug pulled out from under them...it's not PowerSchool's fault, other than the fact that they should have probably picked MySQL or Firebird or some other database product that is more open and less subject to corporate whims.

                            We are a cross-platform district and have Windows expertise, but we much prefer Mac OS X on both the client and server sides, so this is a real blow. To make it worse, two servers are really required, one as a test/archive server for our state's (PA) data reporting, so it's either two physical Windows boxes or diving into virtualization with one box. Either way, it really stinks and is completely unexpected.

                            PowerSchool promises to once again support Mac database servers if Oracle ever gets their heads out of their nether regions and releases 11g on OS X, but I wouldn't hold my breath....

                            If PowerSchool were still owned by Apple, there might be a chance of something happening (like PowerSchool changing databases) for purely philosophical reasons, but that's not going to happen for any other company.

                            Ah well, another stinking Windows box in the data center....sigh.
                            • 11. Re: 11g support for Mac OS X?
                              787521
                              For what it's worth, I'm running Oracle 10g on OS X 10.6.4 right now. It wasn't an easy process getting it to install, but the information on how to do so is out on the Internet (a critical component needs to be compiled with an earlier version of the compiler - the easiest way to do this is to just copy it from a 10.5 machine).

                              However, that is not the same as a certified installation, and the fact Oracle have not even updated their installation instructions to cover Snow Leopard is disappointing.

                              Nor have I been able to get the Pro*C compiler to successfully compile and link a program - the OS X version seems to be missing the required make and example files to at least do the initial tests. I can accept that not many people run live Oracle servers on OS X, but on the other hand, it is a relatively popular development platform. Even running Oracle in a Linux VM I still need to be able to compile Pro*C/OCI client code on OS X.

                              On the other hand, I think Pearson are being a little disingenuous in pushing customers over to Windows server installs (I'm actually amazed anyone out there is drawing the line at a minimum requirement of Oracle 11 support already).

                              I can see several alternatives :

                              1) Use virtualisation to run Oracle 10g under OS X 10.5, while running compatible software under 10.6
                              2) Use virtualisation to run Oracle 10 or 11 on Linux, while running compatible software under 10.6. It took me 15 minutes to get Oracle installed and running using a VM on OS X, and you can easily communicate to it from OS X.
                              3) Just run Oracle on a Linux server.

                              All of these make more sense to me than adding a Windows Server licence cost to the mix, and reading between the lines, it is obviously Oracle's environment of choice (the Linux release leads even the Windows release).

                              On the other hand, Pearson are right that Oracle's support for the Mac is non-commital. don't know if it is diminishing. It was a surprise to me when the Intel instant client came out, and ditto 10g, because I thought things were dead then.