Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Leopard Will Exclude 800MHz G4 Processors
goombah99 writes "According to AppleInsider, Apple is about to announce that Leopard will not support 800 MHz G4 PowerPC processors. Previously developers had been told that it would require at least an 800 MHz G4. But AppleInsider alleges only 867 MHz G4s and higher will now be supported because of speed issues, and testers have been told that the new OS 'cannot be installed' on lesser machines. This cutoff in minimum requirements means that all those original iMac flat screens and Titanium PowerBooks are now forked to the Tiger (10.4) Update Path."
The article is specifically about 800MHz and slower G4s being excluded:
Nowhere does the article claim that Leopard will be G5 & Intel only.
Actually, AppleInsider said that 800 MHz G4 processors may not be supported. 867 MHz or greater G4 processors would still be usable. From TFA:
OS 10.6, it is speculated, may not support PPC processors (so, we're talking 2009 here?)Apple is not dropping all G4's.. FTFA:
Instead, Leopard will now require Macs with "an Intel processor or a PowerPC G4 (867 MHz or faster) or G5 processor." Other system requirements include a DVD drive, built-in FireWire, at least 512MB of RAM (additional recommended), and at least 9GB of hard disk space.
So, instead of supporting 800 MHz and up, you now need 867 MHz and up.
Right, because complete 64-bit support, a *useable* *automatic* backup utility, the new developer tools, Objective-C 2.0, core-animation, a complete new interface & Finder, things like Xray (useable DTrace) mean nothing - and that's just off the top of my head!
You can't please all the people all the time, but to pretend it's "Apple's Vista" when it's not even out yet is the biggest load of tripe I've ever heard.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
The game.
800 Mhz Macs should be included on Leopard's compatibility list IMO. We are talking about machines that were released just 4 years ago, and we should not forget that Mac users take pride on their computers and they keep them for a long time. There is not a real technical limitation why QuartzExtreme-compatible, firewire-compatible etc Macs should not be supported, other than Apple wanting more money from you and less money spending on testing with these systems.
I'll probably get modded to hell and back, but Leopard is rapidly becoming Apple's version of Vista.
I haven't used Leopard enough to know whether it's a step backwards for OSX and has no useful new features. However, even if that's the case, at least they only wasted 2 years making it.
The article does not in any way resemble the summary. Do the slashdot editors RTFA!
....
The text in the article reads
Leopard will now require Macs with "an Intel processor or a PowerPC G4 (867 MHz or faster) or G5 processor." Other system requirements include a DVD drive, built-in FireWire, at least 512MB of RAM (additional recommended), and at least 9GB of hard disk space.
]{
Or, just keep using a perfectly good computer as-is, instead of "upgrading" just because something new came out.
"Oh boy! Are we going to try something dangerous?"
Excuse me, but what machine are you running your Tiger on? There is a wide spread agreement that Tiger is faster than Panther (but you need 512mb+ of ram)
When I installed Tiger on my 1ghz Titanium PowerBook it feelt like getting a whole new machine. I had 1gig ram. Note that you need a fresh install to gain all the speedbenefits from Tiger, upgrading from Panther will limit the performance a tad.
When in danger, whewn in doubt! Run in circles, scream and shout!
And my OS still hasn't even perfected its flux capacitor relay yet. Egads, skunked by apple yet again.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The backup system is definitely a step forward, but the interface "improvements" are not. Hell, even MacWorld thought that they were 'too pretty' to be useful in its review, and MacWorld usually hangs on Apple's every word.
The number of Apple updates that have actually been steps backwards in terms of features lately has been disappointing. Personally I think iTunes hit a high water mark with version 6.0.4 or 6.0.5 and went downhill from there; everything since then has been crappier interfaces and additional cashflow for Apple, at the expense of features that the music companies didn't like, but were great for users. If it wasn't for the fact that my iPod Nano absolutely *required* iTunes 7 (for no particularly good reason, except that it's a good way to force users to upgrade), I'd never have upgraded.
The saving grace of Apple is that when they make a mistake, they usually realize and fix it pretty quickly, but the direction they're heading as a company just isn't doing it for me as much anymore.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
How about they let the user decide what's "too slow"? I'm perfectly content with the speed of my 500MHz iBook G3 running Panther, so what makes them so sure I won't be happy running Leopard on my dual 533MHz G4 PowerMac?
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
What features have been cut out of iTunes in version 7?
It's not real until Apple says it.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
it's one thing for the summary to add something extra to a story... but damn it was just false. I read the article looking for where they said G5+ only and it's just not there... that's the first time that happened to me. Guess I don't read slashdot enough these days. well I'm glad my G4 powerbook will be upgradeable... I think...
Chaos is Divine *
"Up until Panther, each version of OSX ran faster than the previous one. But Tiger is definitely slower than Panther. Looks like Leopard will continue the trend."
So why is Photoshop faster on Leopard then on Tiger? As an ADC member I have access to all the seeds and I can tell you without a doubt that Leopard IS faster then Tiger.
There's a difference between stated requirements and what you can actually get to work. Users of the open-source XPostFacto have known this for years. Can't run OS 10.3 on that old beige G3 tower? Sure you can! Maybe even 10.4.
Nonetheless, even 10.4.x is supported on the 400mhz PowerBook G3 (the version with a bronze keyboard and FireWire). It is not the speediest thing ever, but for email, Word/PowerPoint, and most web browsing, it's just fine. My main reason to consider replacing it: after seven years of use, the backlighting is starting to fade. But those dual battery bays are hard to give up.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
That's not the Steve Jobs way.
He has an expectation for the experience, if the experience isn't within what he deems acceptable, it isn't allowed.
There are pros and cons of this.
Biggest Pro: End user experiences are much more consistent.
Biggest Con: Like you said. The end user doesn't get to decide for themselves.
Ok, I give up, why you?
I feel that most of the features in Leopard are of interest to developers. And that we'll see mainly developers and new mac buyers going for Leopard. If you have a Tiger-based G3/G4 mac right now and you're happy with it, I think you'll stay happy with it for a long time. But we'll see how my prediction holds when there is a 10.6 after Leopard and it doesn't support G3/G4 either.
If it becomes a problem it is possible for Apple to change their mind in the middle of the 10.5 upgrade path and allow G3/G4 installs, like if they came up with some solutions to speed issues. Remeber Tiger 10.4.0 to 10.4.3 didn't support x86, but 10.4.4 and later does.
If Leopard becomes some amazing new must-have I will just have to buy a new Mac Mini, and turn my old G4 Mac Mini into a media player or a Linux-based home router. Not a huge deal to me since my G3's and G4's aren't gaming machines and I don't need to upgrade to a machine capable of gaming. (well I play games, but they would run on just about any system)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Oh, no! I have a four-year-old iPod and a two-year-old Mac Mini! I no longer fit the stereotype! I'd better go throw some money away right away, so people know how to pigeonhole me.
"Oh boy! Are we going to try something dangerous?"
I can confirm that an 800MHz G4 is all that is required to install Leopard (the developer preview). A staff member in my department did it with an 800MHz Windtunnel PowerMac - and more interestingly, he used target disk to install Leopard on his unsupported 667MHz TiBook (on which the installer refused to run because it didn't meet the minimum requirements). Here is his entire story. http://forum.oscr.arizona.edu/showthread.php?t=4557
Why don't these Slashdot posts automatically have the word "rumor" in the headline? Seriously. As is, the headline is totally misleading, which leads to arguments that treat the discussion as if it is fact. Sure, Apple may incorporate these requirements into Leopard, but until then we're just putting out hot air about a rumor.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I thought every new release of OS X runs faster than the previous one?
Early G4s and older iMacs here, I know its slower as I have stopped trying to 'upgrade' the 10.3 systems to 10.4. Part of the problem is dashboard. Yes those are older processors, but the faster claim does cover all models right?
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
I don't think it's that bad. Two years isn't five, and Apple didn't promise a whole lot of stuff that ended up getting ripped out at the 11th hour (*cough* WinFS *cough*) because they couldn't figure out how to make it work. Also Apple didn't have to "start all over again" with a different kernel because the current Tiger one wasn't going to work. Apple has been making incremental advances without promising any HUGE! AMAZING! MUST-HAVE! features (which is good because Leopard's new feature set doesn't really qualify).
I think Apple and Microsoft are in the same boat, so to speak; Tiger works good enough, XP works good enough, so why upgrade? Sure there are features in Leopard that I'm pining away for, but speaking as an Apple fanboy, I have been completely underwhelmed by Leopard as solving any problem I solved years ago on Tiger.
So yes, I think you're right in that Leopard is Apple's Vista, but in a different way: I think both are watershed moments when the need to upgrade was trumped by people just needing to get stuff done and "deh shiny" started to be nothing more than gratuitous.
Well, you don't need to worry. You're obviously not hip enough to enter an Apple store anyway. ;-)
sudo eat my shorts
Whenever I see a post about running Linux (or any non-OS X os) on Apple hardware I also see a post asking what is the point when OS X is the best UNIX available on the desktop.
Here is the point. When Gnome or KDE copies features from OS X 10.6 or greater, owners of this newly excluded hardware will be able to get in on the fun as well.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
You can sometimes get dramatic speed improvements by disabling the Dashboard entirely. See http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macosxhints/2005/08/disabledashboard/index.php for how to do it.
I have a dual-proc G5 machine and I disable Dashboard, just because I don't use the thing and have never found it really useful.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I had a power mac 7300 way back in the day. It used a 604e motorola chip at 180 Mhz. The 7300 also had an upgrade card slot which allowed me to pop in a G3 card eventually and upgrade my processor. It also had 4 DIMM slots for lots of extra memory capacity.
When the 7300 came out, it cost around $1200. I bought it used for $500. The card cost me $300, memory was $50-$100, plus a $150 upgraded video card when it became available. I got about 7 years use out of that machine for the money invested.
A midrange iMac now costs twice as much, and has fewer upgrade paths than previous Macs. The white iMacs had options for 128 and 256 mb video cards but you could only buy them in that flavor, you could not upgrade them later.
To get a mac with upgrade options, you have to go with the $2500+ Mac pros. I bought a G4 1ghz about 4 years ago. I have no option to upgrade to a G5, and obviously can't upgrade to an intel. I can do surfing and wordprocessing on it just fine, but I can't play any new games on it, and the latest graphics programs and compression codecs for movies will drag to a crawl unless all other programs are shut down.
Now, the summary is utter crap. In fact, they are upping the requirement from 800 mhz to 867 mhz G4, and not ending it all together. However, this chops off 6 popular lines of Macs from being upgraded. My point is, however, upgrade paths are slowly getting shorter and shorter, and small changes like this are exposing that problem. The problem isn't the fact that Apple is upping the minimum requirements, it's the fact that without shelling out money for an entirely new computer, it's getting harder and harder to meet the minimum requirements. These 800 mhz machines were new just 4 years ago, and you can't pop in a $200 upgrade to get more life out of them.
I love Apple's products, and I'm still not considering a PC, but as a consumer, I want to be clear that keeping up with Apple is becoming more and more expensive, and there are no signs that Steve really cares (why should he, he's a CEO and his company is making gobs of money). I'm not comparing Macs to PCs, I'm comparing Macs to history costs of other Macs. The inflationary curve is out of control. At this rate will be back to the $10,000 price tag the Mac 2 had back in 1986 somewhere in 2015.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Considering how much end users bitch about the performance of the old finder, a new finder, if it performs well, would be a huge advantage all on its own.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Not everyone does nothing but share music all day... for me, the following features of iTunes 7 are easily more worthwhile than better sharing (since there is currently only one iTunes-capable computer on my network anyway):
- "Grouping" tag
- The extensive array of sorting tags
- Video handling features
- Podcast managing features
- Album (and, I suppose, the useless Cover Flow) view
- Additional smart playlist criteria
- and the big one: GAPLESS PLAYBACK. Did I say GAPLESS PLAYBACK? I hated iTunes until it had GAPLESS PLAYBACK.
I think it's a little misleading to make the blanket statement that 4.7.0 is better than all subsequent versions just because it doesn't have one little limitation that likely affects very few users besides college kids in dorms.
Sweet, so I guess there'll be a lot more G4's for sale on craigslist that I can experiment w/Linux on =D.
Hint: alt-tab then you can run the mouse over the icons
Most of the stuff on
Not this $#!+ again...
While they're not as dramatic as new Windows versions (and not as expensive), OS X releases are not comparable to service packs.
Service packs don't add new features. On the rare occasions when they do, the features tend to be related only to stability or security. That is comparable to OS X 10.x.x releases, not the major "big cat" releases. Those minor releases occur far more frequently than Windows service packs (which has its pluses and minuses).
"Big cat" releases add many, many features, both visible and under the hood. Assuming you accept the model of paying for an OS in the first place, they should be paid upgrades, because they fundamentally change the product you're buying.
And the last paragraph of your reply shows your only experience of Apple is through its Windows software (which could be better). Try actually using a Mac before pontificating about it.
No not the bs they include (I'm sorry when I can type faster than the fucking shell that's a problem, and one problem I haven't had since like 91-92 on dialup :P
And these other bolt in shells suck just as horrible.
Yes I could run X11, but why would I run X11, ontop of Aqua just for a decent shell. I still can't believe in all the improvments, they still ship that shitty ass terminal app.
oogly boogly!
Tiger was quite a bit faster than Panther. They sped up Quartz 2D, for example, by a large amount. Leopard will probably be faster still. It's getting native 64-bit support, more finely-grained locking is being implemented in the kernel, etc.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Actually the article summary has been misled/mistaken.. since the Titanium Powerbooks actually went to 1GHz before being discontinued.
I feel that most of the features in Leopard are of interest to developers.
Yes, who will then go on to build newer and more interesting applications based on these features, which Consumers will enjoy.
Not that there aren't some consumer things of interest in the release as well...
Apple traditionally also quickly has their own applications take advantage of new OS features so consumers could see new applications fairly quickly that would be compelling on Leopard.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Oh, that's not true. You can always run AmigaOS 4.0 on it.
Yes, that's what they're getting at. Basically, if you've got a G4 and it doesn't have Firewire, you're not going to be running Leopard.
I'm in the same boat.
I have a DP800 Quicksilver with the same video RAM and HD specs you do.
I'm really wondering if my system will be left out - with the above upgrades, my system easily ran software requiring a faster machine (the COD2 United Offensive for example). Besides, a DP800 should outpace a SP867 machine. After all, it will be running more than one process.
On the other hand, my machine was purchased in Oct 2001. It's had a long, good life and needs to retire.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
It's OSX.
On a PPC.
I think he'll be alright.
--- Do you believe in the day?
I'm unsure why this is big news. Apple doesn't care that much about accommodating those who aren't holding themselves to their prescribed upgrade cycle. Part of what gives them the ability to innovate is the fact that they, at some point, will cut off the legacy users. It makes it easier for them to move their products forward and offer innovative new features and products that "just work" - they're targeting a narrow set of systems, and they don't have to deal with layers upon layers of legacy cruft - and to profit off of the forced upgrades.
When it was originally posted, the summary said AppleInsider was anticipating that they'd drop all G4 support. That's why there are about 20 comments -- including this quote from the article -- correcting it. (And why it's tagged with "badsummary")
I'm glad the editors fixed the summary, but it would have been nice if they'd made some note to that effect, instead of confusing even more people.
Before moderating, you mods really ought to read the mod guidelines. The post that started this little thread was clearly a troll, according to the moderator guidelines. So was the parent to this post.
I won't give you a link to the moderator guidelines; it will do you good to look them up for yourself.
Or, if you just can't be bothered, the following is a clear example of flamebait:
"If you're too fscking stupid to tell the difference between a troll and flamebait, don't fscking use your mod points. You probably won't get any of your other mods right either, and we'll all be better off if you take your mod points and stick them up your ass instead of moderating."
The foregoing flamebait has been a public service announcement.
I know I shouldn't respond to this anonymous troll, but...
With every $150 service pack released for OSX...
There have been eleven releases of OS X 10.4.x over the last couple years. Once you had 10.4 all those releases were free. These releases are roughly equivalent to a service pack, in Microsoft-speak. Service packs don't add features, do they? The major releases all add features. Granted many of them are new capabilities for developers to take advantage of, but there are usually enough immediate benefits for the end user to drive sales.
And by the way, if you're going to troll, at least get your facts straight. Major releases of 10.x are $129 for a single machine, and $199 for a family pack that covers five machines.
I don't have a Mac. So, as an un-cool outsider, I find this topic a bit confusing.
Do Apple users actually keep up to date with OS X revisions? Is "Leopard" more like a service pack or a whole new OS or somewhere in-between? And what's the downside to not upgrading? Applications aren't tied to new OS X versions, are they?
In the Windows world, I would expect very few (non-geek) people to upgrade existing machines to Windows Vista.
As i found out after attempting to install on a 400mhz g4, all you have to do is boot the older system into target disk mode and install from a faster mac, so as long as you have 2 macs you are fine.
Thats's Toonces, you insensitive clod!
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand". -Milton F.
Mod this person up, I guess I am an insensitive clod. (I also spotted the error seconds after my post.)
Huh, wha?
Actually Tiger is much faster overall than Panther (excepting several finder actions... previewing images/.movs in column view, for instance), and as a fellow ADC member I can tell you that the new finder smokes. No more 5 minute lockouts if you forget to disconnect the laptop from the server before you leave the office. A NICE, extremely usable network browser.... lots of little polishy-bits. I'm hoping that the stacked dock icons make it back into the GM. I loved having all my office and CS3 icons in a single pile, not taking up huge amounts of real estate.
I'm not exactly buying into Apple's "entirely new finder" party line, but the improvements they've made are nice and snappy in the last several builds I've tested.
No idea why anyone would want to view a folder in cover flow mode, but whatever. It works, it's fast and Quicklook is mega-handy.
Can't really go into more detail for a couple more weeks, but if you follow the builds on the rumor sites you can see that Leopard is quickly approaching a solid release state.
They don't have enough RAM. If you do more than one thing at once Tiger will die with 512MB, while Panther has more room for error. If you have enough RAM to avoid swapping Tiger is snappier (once the Spotlight index is done and Dashboard is loaded).
Just do what I do - switch sharing off in iTunes and install Firefly Media Server and encourage others to do the same. It's an iTunes 4.7-style music server, which means people can download from it using things like OurTunes and, of course, it doesn't have the 5 connections/day limit.
:)
iqu