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."

7 of 371 comments (clear)

  1. Bad Summary! Article doesn't say G5-only! by Kelson · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article is specifically about 800MHz and slower G4s being excluded:

    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.

    Though seemingly mild, the 67MHz increase will exclude a handful of Mac system, namely the 800MHz PowerBook G4 (Titanium), 800MHz PowerMac G4 (Quicksilver), 800MHz iMac G4, 800MHz iBook G4, and 800MHz eMac.

    Nowhere does the article claim that Leopard will be G5 & Intel only.

  2. Re:and we get slower still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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. If they keep up this trend they will have to call the next release "Garfield"...

  3. Re:Whoopee doo by nine-times · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  4. Re:Death knell for PPC Mac Mini by markbt73 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Prepare to buy an Intel CPU Mac for your next major OS upgrade after Leopard.

    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?"
  5. best. OS. feature. ever. by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Funny

    Leopards advances came in the form of either under-the-hood changes (e.g. 64 bits) or added capabilities (e.g. time machine)

    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.
  6. 800MHz G4 IS SUPPORTED by Manfesto · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  7. There is some concern with upgrade paths by hellfire · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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"