Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple's Leopard Will Exclude 800MHz G4 Processors

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the older-tech-gets-forked dept.

Operating Systems 371

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."

cancel ×

371 comments

Whoopee doo (1, Troll)

Joe Jay Bee (1151309) | more than 6 years ago | (#20733719)

As far as I'm concerned, it's no real loss, to be honest.

Leopard looks to me to be quite a disappointing update. Not only did Apple completely cast out the refined Aqua look and feel in favour of something that looks like Windows Vista beat Front Row over the head, but there's nothing much I'm excited about (a backup utility? whoopee-fuck. multiple desktops? excuse me while i soil myself...) and indeed a lot I'm more apprehensive about (the iTunes finder with Cover Flow...jesus wept). I think I'll be sticking with Tiger a bit longer; it's a shame Apple diverted attention from what could have been a fantastic new release of OS X onto the glitzy, crippled fashion accessory that is the iPhone.

I'll probably get modded to hell and back, but Leopard is rapidly becoming Apple's version of Vista. Just like Vista, Leopard will be mostly under the hood changes and a few piffling new features, and a whole new look which goes for all out eye candy but simply doesn't match the elegance of what went before. I'm sure the XPostFacto guys will whip something up for all those G4/3 users in the mean time though...

Re:Whoopee doo (4, Insightful)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 6 years ago | (#20733837)

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.

Re:Whoopee doo (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20733933)

Right, because complete 64-bit support
As nice as the other features are, 64-bit support is not something the G4 owners can take advantage of in the first place, now is it?

for Developers (4, Interesting)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734159)

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)

Re:for Developers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20734409)

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.

OS features of interest to developers will quickly become application features of interest to end users.

Folks will upgrade to Leopard for the applications that use those new features and therefore require Leopard, even if they have no interest in Leopard itself.

Re:for Developers (4, Interesting)

DECS (891519) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734463)

Is that because you're not using it yet? I see a lot of people complaining about Leopard, but I've been using it since June, and I can't imagine going back.

Leopard is as great of a jump from Tiger as Tiger was from Panther. Nice refinements everywhere, significant new apps and features like Spaces/Time Machine, major improvements to Mail/iCal/Safari/Quicktime/iChat, lots of major improvements under the hood that will propel third party development, including Core Animation.

Vista is XP with a new theme, plus DRM support for the dying HD-DVD, and a bolted on version of Apple's Quartz (WPF) and Cocoa (.Net).

Leopard makes modern machines more usable. Trying to use it on a sub-800 Mhz G4 (which would include Powerbooks and iMacs prior to 2002, or PowerMacs from before 2001) might be unreasonable. Those machines are now over a half decade old. PCs from 2001 would barely run XP, let alone Vista.

The summary is wrong - it confuses "less than 800 MHz G4s" with "non G5s." There are more than a half decade of G4 Macs that will run Leopard.

Leopard, Vista and the iPhone OS X Architecture [roughlydrafted.com]

Re:Whoopee doo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20734401)

Great, a complete 64-bit support on for a 64-bit system. Thanks guys!

a *useable* *automatic* backup utility - who cares? real users don't backup.

the new developer tools, Objective-C 2.0, Xray (useable DTrace) - who cares? most users aren't developers.

That leaves us with core-animation, a complete new interface & Finder. Sounds like the vista comparison is quite accurate.

Re:Whoopee doo (4, Insightful)

Altus (1034) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734543)


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.

Re:Whoopee doo (1)

be-fan (61476) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734739)

Better APIs and tools allow developers to make better applications. That's something that users definitely notice.

Re:Whoopee doo (5, Funny)

nine-times (778537) | more than 6 years ago | (#20733857)

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.

Re:Whoopee doo (2)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734379)

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.

Re:Whoopee doo (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734493)

Some of their graphical glitz I find slightly pointless. But I think the inclusion of Time Machine alone makes this release important and terribly useful. That would save me tons of time with random computer users who have learned to ask me for help with stuff. That is a BIG thing.

Re:Whoopee doo (2, Interesting)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 6 years ago | (#20733955)

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.

Re:Whoopee doo (2, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734005)

What features have been cut out of iTunes in version 7?

4.7.1 was the good one, not 6.0.4 (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734395)

I messed up with the versions. The one I was thinking of, and that I had held back upgrading until I had to because of the Nano, was 4.7, not 6.0.4. Apple introduced a 5-connection limit to the music-sharing feature in 4.7.1.

6.0.4 was nice because it was the last stable version before they changed the interface (IMO, for the worse) with version 7, but it had already had the sharing features gutted.

So if you don't have any devices that require a newer version and you don't care about the Apple Store, the version to use is from the pre-4.7.1 days. Unfortunately I think Apple pulled it from its download page; you can get 4.7.1 (the crippled one) but I can't find 4.7.0.

Wikipedia has a good page on iTunes Version History: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes_version_history [wikipedia.org] ).

Re:4.7.1 was the good one, not 6.0.4 (2, Informative)

dal20402 (895630) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734725)

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.

Re:Whoopee doo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20734219)

Not that I'm a Mac user, but multiple workspaces sounds like a big win to me. I can't understand why it's taken them so damned long. Ye olde alttabbing between multiple windows paradigm is pretty annoying and slow with too many windows. And no, expose isn't really a good replacement.

Bad Summary! Article doesn't say G5-only! (5, Informative)

Kelson (129150) | more than 6 years ago | (#20733751)

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.

Nice Catch (1)

cromar (1103585) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734369)

It did seem a little early to drop the G4 entirely...

You know, Leopords are cool and all (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20733769)

But if you look closely - the fancy spotted skin, the sleek movements, fast and graceful -- it all screams gay.

Re:You know, Leopords are cool and all (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20734033)

Why do you know so much about being gay?

Re:You know, Leopords are cool and all (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20734525)

So manly men use slow, ugly, and clunky OSes. Good to know when I'm more interested in proving my masculinity than using my computer. Oh, wait, I don't need to worry about that, because you already heard your mom scream for five minutes straight from the pounding I gave her with my ten-inch cock.

Re:You know, Leopords are cool and all (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20734585)

But if you look closely - the fancy spotted skin, the sleek movements, fast and graceful -- it all screams gay.
Of course it screams gay. It's Apple. Mac OS X is the OS named after pussies used by men who love cock.

Homophobic mods (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20734665)

Flamebait? How do you know he didn't mean it as a compliment? Sleek, fast & graceful sound like positive things to me.

and we get slower still (1, Insightful)

prockcore (543967) | more than 6 years ago | (#20733779)

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.

Time to retire those "feels snappier" jokes.

Re:and we get slower still (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20733849)

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"...

Re:and we get slower still (0)

nine-times (778537) | more than 6 years ago | (#20733915)

Tiger doesn't feel any slower for me, and i've used it on a variety of machines. I've never benchmarked anything, but general system responsiveness hasn't been noticeably slower, except maybe when you do a fresh install and Spotlight tries to index everything.

Re:and we get slower still (3, Interesting)

talornin (745646) | more than 6 years ago | (#20733941)

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.

Re:and we get slower still (2, Insightful)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734323)

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?

Disable Dashboard (3, Informative)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734465)

You can sometimes get dramatic speed improvements by disabling the Dashboard entirely. See http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macosxhints/2005/08/disabledashboard/index.php [macworld.com] 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.

Re:and we get slower still (1)

abhi_beckert (785219) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734551)

Then don't open dashboard! It's as simple as dragging the icon out of the dock and disabling the hotkey in system preferences. Dashboard does not get loaded until the first time you click it (though from then on it stays loaded until you log out). I personally do use dashboard on my G4, but only with two or three widgets.

Tiger runs perfectly on my 800Mhz G4 iBook with 640MB ram. Applications take longer to open than my G5, and I can't play 720p videos (480p runs fine), but otherwise the speed is is perfectly fine.

I've played with the leopard prerelease, and there seem to be performance issues with "everyday" features like save/open on slower machines (but who knows, it's a beta! maybe they'll be fixed by the final release). I think I'm still going to install leopard on my G4 iBook, system requirements like that are rarely enforced and can always be worked around.

Re:and we get slower still (1)

dal20402 (895630) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734635)

You need more than 512MB RAM... you need 1GB of RAM on a PPC, or 2GB on an Intel, to make Tiger happy. Dashboard and a number of Tiger's hidden processes are RAM hogs. On Intel, Rosetta is an even more dramatic RAM hog, often increasing (active+wired) RAM usage by 300MB or more when a Rosetta application first runs, and not giving all of it back when the application quits.

My experience is that with sufficient RAM Tiger performs significantly better than Panther on the same PPC machine. I've found this to be true on multiple PowerBooks G4 and my former dual G5 machine, all with at least 1GB RAM.

Re:and we get slower still (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20733945)

Tiger definitely slower than Panther? Funny. When I actually timed it with 10.4.1, almost everything was faster. (The exception was writing files that could be indexed - and I thought that was a pretty good trade-off.)

Re:and we get slower still (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 6 years ago | (#20733987)

And if there ever was a time where an OS with few more features but a lot of optimization was going to badly hurt microsoft it was this one.

Not to mention many powerpc linux potential switchers.

Re:and we get slower still (2, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 6 years ago | (#20733991)

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?

Re:and we get slower still (2, Insightful)

h2oliu (38090) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734149)

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.

Re:and we get slower still (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734231)

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?

Well, Apple is all about 'user experience' and their announcement avoids people phoning them up and complaining about what they already knew. As always within a few weeks of release there will be people finding ways to run the system on older computers.

Re:and we get slower still (1)

tholomyes (610627) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734261)

Well, they're not *forcing* the OS upgrade on you. Personally, I'll be content to run 10.4 until I bother to upgrade my PowerBook someday, anyway. I haven't seen a single feature in 10.5 that is a "must".

Re:and we get slower still (3, Interesting)

nbritton (823086) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734101)

"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.

Re:and we get slower still (-1, Troll)

I'm Don Giovanni (598558) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734167)

"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."

I agree, but it must be noted that OSX 10.0 was dog slow and 10.1, while faster, was slow as well. So making 10.2 and 10.3 faster than their predecessors wasn't so remarkable. ;)
10.4 is slower than 10.3 (in my experience), and 10.5 looks like it'll be slower still. So it seems that once OSX reached a decent level performance wise (10.3), Apple simply couldn't keep the speed increase trend going while adding features.

Money doesn't matter (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20734439)

If you don't mind paying the Apple Tax... don't get Apple. It means you don't get it. You would be happier with a Vista machine from Dell. If you have to look at the price tag, you aren't going to be happy... and even more importantly, Apple isn't going to be happy with you.

With every $150 service pack released for OSX, Apple just proves again and again how little respect they have for their customers. As if the iPhone price gouge didn't remove all doubt. But money doesn't matter: not for the beautiful people who "get" it. You can always make more money, like SteveJob does. But can you get anything that looks as pretty sitting on your $10,000 desk or in your Prada purse...? Nope.

And if the slowness of the operating system is an issue, or the lack of stability with Quicktime, or the fact that every piece of Apple software for Windows has a chance of killing the operating system... if all that hasn't convinced you that application stability and security need to take a backseat to pretty buttons and sleek shininess... you just aren't paying attention. That's how Apple works: if you are looking for a company which is going to put programming ahead of aesthetics... you had best look elsewhere. It means you don't get it.

Re:and we get slower still (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20734773)

10.4 is much more responsive than 10.3, even on old unsupported hardware (you really notice the difference on a 400Mhz G3). That said I would be willing to bet that older G4 owners will still be able to install 10.5 either using Firewire Target Disk Mode (FW TDM on the 800Mhz G4, boot off DVD/run installer off a newer Mac) or by removing the hardware check and burning a custom install disk. ( http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20051211074138859&lsrc=osxh [macosxhints.com] 10.4 custom disk instructions )

I hate to say it but this just sounds like Apple trying to sell more hardware (not that I can blame them). I doubt 800Mhz G4 iMac owners like my grandma are going to care that features she'll never use (Time Machine, Dashboard, etc) run 'slow' :/

Incorrect Summary (4, Informative)

SpottedKuh (855161) | more than 6 years ago | (#20733783)

Actually, AppleInsider said that 800 MHz G4 processors may not be supported. 867 MHz or greater G4 processors would still be usable. From TFA:

Instead, Leopard will now require Macs with "an Intel processor or a PowerPC G4 (867 MHz or faster) or G5 processor."
OS 10.6, it is speculated, may not support PPC processors (so, we're talking 2009 here?)

Re:Incorrect Summary (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20733963)

Isn't that pretty much the timeline that Apple official announcements have already implied?

Anyway, this announcement is no shock. 800 mhz systems don't meet the minimum requirements for Microsoft's latest OS, either.

Re:Incorrect Summary (2, Informative)

spiderbitendeath (577712) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734189)

Actually, I believe 800mhz is the minimum for Vista. Though you'd be insane to try it.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx [microsoft.com]

Re:Incorrect Summary (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734245)

The box for NT4 Workstation said 33MHz CPU and 12MB RAM.

Re:Incorrect Summary (1)

Trillan (597339) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734315)

I would love to see someone try that.

Re:Incorrect Summary (2, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734383)

Yeah. I keep forgetting. There's Microsoft's system requirements and then there is reality. Reality is always far greater than what Microsoft calls 'minimum system requirements.' To their credit, the link you provide lists their 'recommended system requirements', which are somewhat better, but still not entirely realistic for a power user. They might be okay for someone who does basic Web browsing, office apps, and e-mail, though, as long as they don't try to do many things at once. :)

Re:Incorrect Summary (1)

spiderbitendeath (577712) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734659)

"They might be okay for someone who does basic Web browsing, office apps, and e-mail, though, as long as they don't try to do many things at once." I think that should read, as long as they don't try to do them at once.

Re:Incorrect Summary (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734667)

And you would run multiple apps on a mac with 512MB ram and Leopard?

Re:Incorrect Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20734679)

To their credit, the link you provide lists their 'recommended system requirements', which are somewhat better, but still not entirely realistic for a power user. They might be okay for someone who does basic Web browsing, office apps, and e-mail, though, as long as they don't try to do many things at once.
That's all most windows users do with their systems. Anyone that does more than that knows that those requirements are not going to cut it.

Would be a huge surprise (1)

Fenis-Wolf (239374) | more than 6 years ago | (#20733789)

I'd be very surprised if they dropped support for G4s-G3 processors I expected to be dropped from this upgrade but machines less than 2 years old would be locked out of the upgrade. I remain faithful that my G4 12in Powerbook will be running Leopard in 2 months.

Re:Would be a huge surprise (1)

bockelboy (824282) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734027)

You're probably in luck! As the article states, Apple is requiring 867Mhz or faster G4 instead of a 800Mhz or faster G4.

Too bad for the people who didn't RTFA and just read the (incorrect) summary.

You need to read the article... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20733803)

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.

Death knell for PPC Mac Mini (0, Troll)

chiph (523845) | more than 6 years ago | (#20733811)

If this is true, Leopard is probably the last OS upgrade that will be available for the 1.2-1.5gHz PPC Mac Mini family.

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

Chip H.

Re:Death knell for PPC Mac Mini (5, Insightful)

markbt73 (1032962) | more than 6 years ago | (#20733927)

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.

Re:Death knell for PPC Mac Mini (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20734001)

Or, just keep using a perfectly good computer as-is, instead of "upgrading" just because something new came out.


That's all well and good until they release an iPod that inexplicably only works with 10.6

Re:Death knell for PPC Mac Mini (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734071)

That's all well and good until they release an iPod that inexplicably only works with 10.6


How often does one need to upgrade their iPod, though? I don't know anyone off the top of my head with so much disposable income that they buy a new iPod with each subsequent release just because its available...
Heck, as hard as it may be to believe, I even know people (myself included) who have yet to buy an iPod at all...

Re:Death knell for PPC Mac Mini (0, Troll)

Knara (9377) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734129)

Well, seeing how Apple is a religion, not a practical group of computing users, the followers of said religion seem to need an upgrade whenever The Jobs decrees it is so.

Re:Death knell for PPC Mac Mini (3, Funny)

markbt73 (1032962) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734197)

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.

Re:Death knell for PPC Mac Mini (1)

Solra Bizna (716281) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734387)

Until it died earlier this year, my main machine was an iBook from 1999.

-:sigma.SB

Re:Death knell for PPC Mac Mini (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734477)

Or whenever a piece of software they want to use no longer works with their version of the OS... which happens more often to much "younger" versions of Mac OS X than with Windows (e.g. Anyone try installing Adobe CS3 on a Panther system?)

Re:Death knell for PPC Mac Mini (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20734703)

A friend of mine recently received a new iPod nano as a gift. When she went to plug it into the family's TiBook, it wasn't properly recognized. Eventually I figured out how to get it recognized, and only then did it pop up a message saying that it needed a newer version of OS X.

Since my friend only had OS X 10.3.9 and the iPod requires 10.4.8, her only choices were to spend $150 to upgrade the OS, return the gift, or find some other computer that doesn't require an expensive upgrade to use.

It's a shame that Apple's "It Just Works" aura fools people into a false sense of complacency, causing the person who gave the gift to assume that since it was an Apple, it would "Just Work", and he never thought to ask if my friend had access to the most current version of OS X. Of course that might ruin the surprise, huh?

dom

Re:Death knell for PPC Mac Mini (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20734163)

That's all well and good until they release an iPod that inexplicably only works with 10.6


Just trying to figure out what you're asking. It's 2010, and you want to buy a $400 iPod, but you are afraid it won't work on your 2004 Mac Mini PPC.

I guess that's a problem. I have the feeling it won't be a particularly common one.

Re:Death knell for PPC Mac Mini (0, Troll)

harkabeeparolyn (711320) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734533)

Or, just keep using a perfectly good computer as-is, instead of "upgrading" just because something new came out.

Until the security updates stop coming. After that you may be a sitting duck whenever you go online.

Editors on vacation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20733827)

From the article:

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.
Apple isn't rumored to drop G4 support, just G4 based host hardware that are deemed "too slow."

Spelling Nazi time! (2, Funny)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 6 years ago | (#20733839)

two-flavors of the apple OS in widespread use, it's...
There! I can sleep better tonight knowing some wrong in the word has been righted!

Re:Spelling Nazi time! (1)

chrism238 (657741) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734053)

Some wrong in the world?

Re:Spelling Nazi time! (1)

QuijiboIsAWord (715586) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734341)

Nah. He got it write the first time.

Apple: RECONSIDER (2, Interesting)

Eugenia Loli (250395) | more than 6 years ago | (#20733845)

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.

Re:Apple: RECONSIDER (1)

omega_dk (1090143) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734039)

Powerbook G4 4th revision: Announced November, 2002 [1](Today: Sept. 2007. Dif: 4 years 10 months) That is almost 5 year old hardware that WILL be able to run the new OS. I'd like to see a 5 year old PC that can run Vista well... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PowerBook_G4&oldid=159255646 [wikipedia.org] search for 'antimony' under 'revisions'

Re:Apple: RECONSIDER (1)

pthor1231 (885423) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734647)

My desktop computer could run vista if I choose to put it on there, which I haven't. The specs of it are easily double in every area, and I built my computer in early 03. That would put it at almost 5 years. If you are going to say Vista sucks, and Leopard will be better, just say it.

Re:Apple: RECONSIDER (2, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734057)

I am fairly sure the Pre 800mhz Macs are not QuartzExtreme-compatible. I know my 667mhz powerbook wasn't I don't think Other G4s at that time were either. 4 years is a good run for a PC. And you are not forced to upgrade to the New OS. Software will be available for the old OS for years.

Re:Apple: RECONSIDER (1)

Trillan (597339) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734121)

If the article is true (big if), it's probably mostly about being able to exclude the early iBooks in a way that's easy for end users to understand.

Re:Apple: RECONSIDER (1)

p0tat03 (985078) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734459)

I suppose you're one of the people that expected XP to run on your 386... Like other posters have brought up - Leopard will run on machines made up to *FIVE YEARS* ago. Not to mention that companies will not start dropping Tiger support until well after Leopard has been released, so you can expect another good year or two of compatibility with a Tiger machine until new versions leave you behind. 6-7 years of support for a machine? That sounds pretty good to me.

Don't believe it. (1)

CommandoCody (1154955) | more than 6 years ago | (#20733895)

There are no G5 laptops. Apple would be snubbing users with laptops purchased as recently as Xmas 2005; such behavior has not been their historical pattern.

Re:Don't believe it. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20734489)

Such as snubbing users with iPhones purchased as recently as August 2007. Perhaps it's not Apple's "historical pattern", but evidently they're now willing to think differently.

RTFA! (3, Informative)

Kristoph (242780) | more than 6 years ago | (#20733909)

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.

]{

Re:RTFA! (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734111)

Do the slashdot editors RTFA!
You have /got/ to be new here.

best. OS. feature. ever. (5, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#20733943)

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.

It's a rumor site, for Christs' sake (3, Funny)

noewun (591275) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734013)

It's not real until Apple says it.

Re:It's a rumor site, for Christs' sake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20734237)

How many "Christs" are there?

ouch the summary was just false (2, Informative)

ErisCalmsme (212887) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734079)

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...

Under the hood (0, Troll)

earnest murderer (888716) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734085)

There better be something good in there eating all those cycles. We will have been waiting for over two years.... The keynote demo's looked more like weekend projects that were a result of someone taking code home to play with. New lipstick on the same pig if you will.

Theory Versus Practice (4, Informative)

Dekortage (697532) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734133)

There's a difference between stated requirements and what you can actually get to work. Users of the open-source XPostFacto [macsales.com] 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.

Re:Theory Versus Practice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20734517)

For what it's worth, the XPF community has pretty well died out. XPF hasn't been updated in >2 years, the forums are dead, and Ryan Rempel (the XPF author) hasn't been heard from in almost 2 years. I'm interested to see whether he resurfaces for 10.5. It'd be fun to run 10.5 on my 7600, but I don't have my hopes up.

Re:Theory Versus Practice (1)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734615)

I run Tiger on a 450mhz G4 that I bought in 2000 and I use it primarily as a server. What's interesting is that I only ever use the console from VNC and even through that additional interface, it's surprisingly usable. It's not fast, and it's definitely nothing I want to use day-in and day-out, but if that's all I had and all I wanted was something to web surf or write the odd document or two, it'd certainly be usable.

So presumably watching it run on a G4 ibook... (1)

Goth Biker Babe (311502) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734157)

...was a hallucination.

800MHz G4 IS SUPPORTED (5, Informative)

Manfesto (865869) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734257)

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 [arizona.edu]

Re:800MHz G4 IS SUPPORTED (1)

jfruhlinger (470035) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734623)

Whatever bit of code in Leapord determines if the computer can handle Leopard can be trivially updated to exclude sub-867 MHz Macs. The developer preview doesn't precisely indicate the functionality of the final shipping software -- that's why it's a "preview", you see.

Presumably Apple is looking at the results of all that developer previewing and has decided that Leopard performs poorly enough on sub-867 MHz Macs that users will be pissed and thus blame Apple for making their hardware slow or hard to use with the update. Or their dastardly number cruchers determined that there was more money to be made, take your pic.

Include the word "rumor" in the headline (3, Insightful)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734279)

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.

64-bits (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734297)

Apple has to kill off support for 32-bit systems, and uni-processors for that matter, sometime. AltVec also must be on the eventual chopping block, given that none of their new systems support it.

Re:64-bits (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734601)

Don't you dare touch my Altivec you insensitive clod. The newer systems don't support it because they're Intel. Currently running medical image processing on a cluster of machines, Altivec is a nice thing to have compared with other processors from the same era that didn't have it.

Odd. (3, Funny)

mattgreen (701203) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734309)

I thought every new release of OS X runs faster than the previous one?

This is why Linux on Mac is good and worthy. (2, Insightful)

foo fighter (151863) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734455)

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.

There is some concern with upgrade paths (5, Interesting)

hellfire (86129) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734505)

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.

who cares? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20734561)

apple users are low lifes anyway.

Rename Tiger to R2-D2 (1)

starglider29a (719559) | more than 6 years ago | (#20734621)

Several months ago [slashdot.org] , I posted the idea of setting an "R2 standard" where a computer can be connected to and useful from now until... Much like the R2 unit that both Obi-Wan and Luke used in their fighters.

This is a perfect example... an 800MHz G4 on Tiger could be one of those "droids". I was quoted as saying recently that "If this G4 Titanium with Tiger is all the computer humanity ever got, we'd be doing alright."

Specifically, Spotlight is such a boon to workflow, that it's worth the Panther to Tiger step. I'm not sure that Leopard is.

I know that with ever progressing technology, we can do things we never dreamed. But is that really a good thing? Last night I watched a YouTube video on my G3-400. I saw what I wanted. When YouTube-Holograhic edition is out, have we gained? I will have a Tiger machine, to quote the old Obi-Wan "for a long time... a long time."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...