Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Apple's Leopard Will Exclude 800MHz G4 Processors

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Sep 24, 2007 02:57 PM
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This discussion has been archived.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.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Whoopee doo (Score:1, Troll)

    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 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Space cowboy (13680) * on Monday September 24, @03:05PM (#20733837)
      (Last Journal: Friday April 27 2007, @02:20PM)
      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.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Whoopee doo by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday September 24, @03:11PM
      • for Developers (Score:5, Interesting)

        by OrangeTide (124937) on Monday September 24, @03:26PM (#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)
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:for Developers (Score:5, Interesting)

          by DECS (891519) on Monday September 24, @03:47PM (#20734463)
          (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/ | Last Journal: Friday August 11 2006, @11:13PM)
          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]
          [ Parent ]
        • And thus for Consumers by SuperKendall (Score:3) Monday September 24, @04:35PM
        • Re:for Developers by nurb432 (Score:2) Tuesday September 25, @10:10AM
        • Re:for Developers by cthulhu11 (Score:1) Tuesday September 25, @12:48PM
        • Re:for Developers by larry bagina (Score:1) Monday September 24, @05:54PM
        • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Whoopee doo by Tim Browse (Score:2) Monday September 24, @06:55PM
      • Re:Whoopee doo by iamhassi (Score:2) Monday September 24, @08:46PM
      • Re:Whoopee doo by s4ltyd0g (Score:2) Monday September 24, @09:01PM
      • Re:Whoopee doo (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Altus (1034) on Monday September 24, @03:54PM (#20734543)
        (http://slashdot.org/)

        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 by Achromatic1978 (Score:1) Monday September 24, @07:31PM
          • Re:Whoopee doo by absoluteflatness (Score:1) Tuesday September 25, @04:45AM
        • Re:Whoopee doo by Spaseboy (Score:1) Tuesday September 25, @12:44PM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Whoopee doo by be-fan (Score:2) Monday September 24, @04:08PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 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:Whoopee doo by Kadin2048 (Score:3) Monday September 24, @03:12PM
    • Re:Whoopee doo by WhatAmIDoingHere (Score:2) Monday September 24, @04:42PM
    • Re:Whoopee doo by JeepGuyMike (Score:1) Monday September 24, @05:07PM
    • Re:Whoopee doo by hatrisc (Score:2) Monday September 24, @11:36PM
    • Re:Whoopee doo by crashelite (Score:1) Tuesday September 25, @01:43AM
    • Re:Whoopee doo by Divebus (Score:3) Monday September 24, @04:16PM
    • Re:Whoopee doo by fyngyrz (Score:2) Monday September 24, @07:59PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 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.

  • and we get slower still (Score:1, Insightful)

    by prockcore (543967) on Monday September 24, @03:01PM (#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 (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24, @03:06PM (#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"...

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:and we get slower still by nine-times (Score:1) Monday September 24, @03:10PM
    • Re:and we get slower still by talornin (Score:3) Monday September 24, @03:11PM
    • Re:and we get slower still by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday September 24, @03:11PM
    • Re:and we get slower still by marcello_dl (Score:2) Monday September 24, @03:13PM
    • Re:and we get slower still by tverbeek (Score:3) Monday September 24, @03:14PM
    • Re:and we get slower still (Score:4, Interesting)

      by nbritton (823086) on Monday September 24, @03:21PM (#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.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:and we get slower still by Pope (Score:1) Monday September 24, @06:23PM
      • Re:and we get slower still (Score:5, Interesting)

        by dr00g911 (531736) on Monday September 24, @07:13PM (#20736873)

        "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."


        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 ]
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:and we get slower still by be-fan (Score:3) Monday September 24, @04:18PM
    • Re:and we get slower still by DurendalMac (Score:1) Monday September 24, @06:35PM
    • Re:and we get slower still by evilgrug (Score:2) Tuesday September 25, @02:09AM
    • Re:and we get slower still by IwarkChocobos (Score:1) Tuesday September 25, @09:01AM
    • Re:and we get slower still by yabos (Score:2) Tuesday September 25, @11:13AM
    • Re:Money doesn't matter (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dal20402 (895630) * <dal20402 AT mac DOT com> on Monday September 24, @04:17PM (#20734869)
      (Last Journal: Tuesday May 29, @09:14PM)

      With every $150 service pack released for OSX

      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:Money doesn't matter by WhatAmIDoingHere (Score:2) Monday September 24, @05:05PM
    • Re:Money doesn't matter (Score:4, Informative)

      by wavedeform (561378) on Monday September 24, @06:06PM (#20736279)

      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.

      [ Parent ]
    • 4 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Incorrect Summary (Score:5, Informative)

    by SpottedKuh (855161) on Monday September 24, @03:01PM (#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?)
  • 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.
  • You need to read the article... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24, @03:03PM (#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 (Score:1, Troll)

    by chiph (523845) on Monday September 24, @03:04PM (#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.
  • Spelling Nazi time! (Score:3, Funny)

    by thatskinnyguy (1129515) on Monday September 24, @03:05PM (#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!
  • Apple: RECONSIDER (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Eugenia Loli (250395) on Monday September 24, @03:05PM (#20733845)
    (http://www.eugenia.co.uk/ | Last Journal: Saturday April 01 2006, @02:19PM)
    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.
  • Don't believe it. (Score:1)

    by CommandoCody (1154955) on Monday September 24, @03:08PM (#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.
  • RTFA! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Kristoph (242780) on Monday September 24, @03:10PM (#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! by Nimey (Score:2) Monday September 24, @03:21PM
  • best. OS. feature. ever. (Score:5, Funny)

    by damn_registrars (1103043) on Monday September 24, @03:11PM (#20733943)
    (Last Journal: Sunday September 30, @09:20PM)

    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.
  • by noewun (591275) on Monday September 24, @03:15PM (#20734013)
    (Last Journal: Tuesday September 23 2003, @04:07PM)
    It's not real until Apple says it.
  • ouch the summary was just false (Score:2, Informative)

    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 (Score:1, Troll)

    by earnest murderer (888716) on Monday September 24, @03:19PM (#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 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Dekortage (697532) on Monday September 24, @03:24PM (#20734133)
    (http://www.cheapcheap.biz/)

    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 by wandazulu (Score:2) Monday September 24, @03:58PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Chipped G3s? by swb (Score:2) Monday September 24, @06:36PM
    • Re:Theory Versus Practice (Score:4, Interesting)

      by TJamieson (218336) on Monday September 24, @06:41PM (#20736607)
      I suspect this requirements push is again solely due to video cards. The 800 MHz iMac G4 had a GeForce2MX; yikes. The first major push was to kill the G3 so OpenGL could use vector libraries, now they probably want to ensure the equivalent of 'DirectX 8+' for Leopard. So in theory, if you have a GeForce 5xxx in an 800 MHz G4 tower, you should still be able to run Leopard.
      [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • ...was a hallucination.
  • 800MHz G4 IS SUPPORTED (Score:5, Informative)

    by Manfesto (865869) on Monday September 24, @03:32PM (#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]
  • 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 (Score:2)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Monday September 24, @03:35PM (#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.
  • Odd. (Score:4, Funny)

    by mattgreen (701203) on Monday September 24, @03:35PM (#20734309)
    I thought every new release of OS X runs faster than the previous one?
    • Re:Odd. by brian.reading (Score:1) Monday September 24, @07:45PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by foo fighter (151863) on Monday September 24, @03:47PM (#20734455)
    (http://news.google.com/)
    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.
  • 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