Slashdot Log In
Apple's Leopard Will Exclude 800MHz G4 Processors
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Sep 24, 2007 03:57 PM
from the older-tech-gets-forked dept.
from the older-tech-gets-forked dept.
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."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Bad Summary! Article doesn't say G5-only! (Score:5, Informative)
The article is specifically about 800MHz and slower G4s being excluded:
Nowhere does the article claim that Leopard will be G5 & Intel only.
Incorrect Summary (Score:5, Informative)
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?)RTFA! (Score:4, Informative)
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.
]{
best. OS. feature. ever. (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
Theory Versus Practice (Score:5, Informative)
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.
800MHz G4 IS SUPPORTED (Score:5, Informative)
Include the word "rumor" in the headline (Score:4, Insightful)
Odd. (Score:4, Funny)
There is some concern with upgrade paths (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
for sale (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Whoopee doo (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
for Developers (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Parent
Re:for Developers (Score:5, Interesting)
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]
Parent
Re:Whoopee doo (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Whoopee doo (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.
Parent
Re:and we get slower still (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:and we get slower still (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:and we get slower still (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Money doesn't matter (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Death knell for PPC Mac Mini (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, just keep using a perfectly good computer as-is, instead of "upgrading" just because something new came out.
Parent
Re:Death knell for PPC Mac Mini (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:Death knell for PPC Mac Mini (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:How about a proper useable shell. (Score:5, Funny)
On a 1.2GHz G4 eMac:
I cannot quite type 1.2MB per second for more than a short burst, so I'll defer to your presumably superior typing skills and admit that I may not be as finicky as you deservedly are. Still, I would suppose that even one such as yourself would find Terminal.app to be at least, say, decent?
Parent
Re:Apple: RECONSIDER (Score:5, Informative)
Parent