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."

Whoopee doo

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

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.

for Developers

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

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:for Developers

Things to consider:

Not every PC in 2001 had "Designed for Windows XP" stickers. Wonder why?

"Barely running" and "no problem running" could overlap depending on your level of Windows Enthusiasm.

Windows XP had major and significant problems until SP2 in 2004.

Vista came out in 2007 (technically 2006). Do PCs from 2007 have no problem running Vista?

To reliably run Windows with features on par with 2005's Mac OS X Tiger, wait for Vista Service Pack 2 in 2010, or perhaps Seven in 2013, or Seven SP2 in 2016.

Yes I'm kidding, but no not really so much.

SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 2000s [roughlydrafted.com]
SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 1990s [roughlydrafted.com]
SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 1980s [roughlydrafted.com]
SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 1970s [roughlydrafted.com]

Re:for Developers

.....Do PCs from 2007 have no problem running Vista?......

I have a Macbook pro that runs VISTA just fine. However compared to Win2K or XP it is dog slow. It is totally unreasonable to expect to be able to run VISTA on even the fastest Pentium available in 2001. For most Mac users, 10.4.x will probably work for a while, just as XP will be running on most Windows users current hardware until the hardware dies. Even the newest computers have to work hard to run Windows VISTA. With nothing else running VISTA uses about 30% CPU cycles. XP uses only 10%, everything else the same.

Re:for Developers

Yes there are driver issues with Vista, but the biggest complaints I see are from users who don't see the value of slowing down everything in order to deliver the Aero glass effects. Vista delivers Microsoft's first version of WPF, which is similar to Mac OS X's first version of Quartz back in 2001: entirely new and not entirely optimized. The only difference it that graphics compositing isn't novel in 2007.

When WGA crashed and turned off the features of the few Vista users who were trying to be happy with their purchase, it had the side effect of revealing that Vista's premium features were eating up significant resources, and simply turning them off made the system far more usable.

WGA the Dog: Microsoft's DRM Failure Earns Zoon Nomination [roughlydrafted.com]
One disadvantage to Microsoft's Windows Genuine Advantage DRM program--which forces Windows users to verify their software as "not-stolen" in order to receive certain patches and updates, including Internet Explorer 7--is that Microsoft's WGA server is not as highly reliable as Microsoft likes to advertise.

Re:Whoopee doo

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

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.

Bad Summary! Article doesn't say G5-only!

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

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

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

"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

"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.

Re:and we get slower still

I don't get the whole "10.4 is slower" crowd.

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).

Re:Money doesn't matter

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.

Re:Money doesn't matter

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.

Incorrect Summary

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?)

Would be a huge surprise

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...

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

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

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

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

Oh, that's not true. You can always run AmigaOS 4.0 [osnews.com] on it.

Spelling Nazi time!

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

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

I am fairly sure the Pre 800mhz Macs are not QuartzExtreme-compatible.

I'm assuming you meant to include 800MHz Macs in the "not QuartzExtreme-compatible" group, but there are many "800MHz and under" Macs that are QE-compatible [apple.com]:

• iBooks: April 2003 [apple.com] until (discontinued) April 2004 [apple.com] (2 revisions)
• eMacs: April 2002 [apple.com] to April 2004 [apple.com] (2 revisions)
• iMac "Luxos": January 2002 [apple.com] to September 2003 [apple.com] (2 revisions)
• PowerBook G4s: October 2001 [wikipedia.org] to November 2002 [apple.com] (2 revisions)
• Power Mac G4s: January 2001 [apple.com] to August 2002 [apple.com] (3 revisions)

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.

That's three and a half years for some iBooks and eMacs, but I agree with your point (it will be a good run). However, although software will be available for years, OS X Tiger will stop receiving security updates when OS X 10.6 is released (if Apple continues its undefined OS lifecycle).

Don't believe it.

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!

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.

]{

best. OS. feature. ever.

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

It's not real until Apple says it.

ouch the summary was just false

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

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

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

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.

So presumably watching it run on a G4 ibook...

...was a hallucination.

800MHz G4 IS SUPPORTED

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]

Include the word "rumor" in the headline

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

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.

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

This is why Linux on Mac is good and worthy.

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

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.

Rename Tiger to R2-D2

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."

for sale

Sweet, so I guess there'll be a lot more G4's for sale on craigslist that I can experiment w/Linux on =D.

Does this also exclude upgraded Macs?

The article doesn't say, but maybe someone here with a developer build can shed some light. I have an old Sawtooth G4 that's been upgraded a number of times. It now has a 1.2GHz G4, Radeon 9600 (supports CoreWhatever), a Sonnet RAID card, and 1.5 GB of RAM. I still use the machine daily as my main home machine because, even though it's nearly 7 years old, it still works great! It would be nice to know that I could run Leopard on this, although, as I mentioned, I am quite happy running Tiger. I guess I just want to play with the new toy like all the other kids...

It's should be easily hackable

As far as there is support for any G4 processor, enabling Leopard to install on lesser Macs should not be much harder than edit the OSInstall.dist file on the installation DVD (as some people do to install Tiger on non firewire iMacs).

How about a proper useable shell.

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.

Re:How about a proper useable shell.

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

On a 1.2GHz G4 eMac:

$ find / > /tmp/foo
$ wc /tmp/foo
636858 1061869 59578401 /tmp/foo
$ time cat /tmp/foo
cat /tmp/foo 0.00s user 1.45s system 2% cpu 49.424 total

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?

There are G4 CPU upgrades for the slower 800Mhz...

There are G4 CPU upgrades for the slower then 800Mhz systems you even use G4's form Quick Silver Power Mac G4s macs with a 12 V power mod to the 4th pin on the cpu.

You can find g4 cpu's on ebay from time to time.

how about dual 800mhz?

I have a G4 with dual 800mhz CPUs. I wonder if the leopard install engine is smart enough to allow me to proceed with the install?

Big Deal.

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.

Fine with me

I'd rather have support for old OS versions and a new OS version that has bells and whistles than be plauged by continual support for all things past.

I have a MacBook Pro running Tiger, which I love and will upgrade. I have a G4 Cube (450 Mhz G4) that runs Panther and works more than fine. I regularly get the security updates and keep QuickTime and iTunes updated, and otherwise use it as a server/DVD player/iTunes player, etc. Let old machines keep working without wanting them to play Halo 3 or other unreasonable demands (the Cube is 7 years old).

How "big" is an OS X update anyway?

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.

Re:How "big" is an OS X update anyway?

Do Apple users actually keep up to date with OS X revisions?
I'd guess about half of them do. Most of the other half stay up-to-date with the minor revisions (10.4.x) for free using Software Update.

Is "Leopard" more like a service pack or a whole new OS or somewhere in-between?
It's a "whole new OS" like Vista is a whole new OS relative to XP.

And what's the downside to not upgrading? Applications aren't tied to new OS X versions, are they?
Same as with Vista. You get various OS improvements, most are low level. Slowly apps will come out that require those features. Five years from now it'll be the minimum required version, etc...

-pmb

My G4-800 ...

... died yesterday of a broken power supply. Don't know if I'll bring it back to life. But it had ran Leo before :-)

Easy to bypass

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.

My GF still uses my Powerbook G4 550

I'll have to tell my GF... She still uses my old Powerbook G4 550, and only recently has she said it's getting too slow. :^)

lesser mode for lesser machines

If they call an 800MHz G4 a 'lesser machine' then they should put a 'lesser mode' in their OS to allow it to run without funny graphics and whatnot. Why alienate old faithful users when you can just put a few more lines of code to disable power-hungry stuff when a 'lesser CPU' is detected? Also, smart users get fast CPUs to do something meaningful with them, not spend all their processing cycles to unnecessary OS graphics and bad programming (people in Commodore days where doing wonders with 64K, and actually much less than that as about half of it was reserved by BASIC, and now we need GBs just to run an OS and a leaky browser??? where are the real programmers? if 64K were enough to do wonders in 1980s then imagine what one could do with 2 or 4G if real programming were used today).

Puny 67MHz OC.

"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..."

Duh... ever heard of overclocking?? ;)

Not supported on 5+ year old machines? meh....

So it will still support my 5 year old 1GHZ TiBook? Sweet..... not that I really cared, - it's 5 years old and only gets used once in a blue moon - compare that to my 2 year old Toshiba tablet that gets used every day totally shat it's self with Vista (work's Tosh Tecra M9 runs it kinda OK though). Now if it hadn't supported my Dual processor G5 Tower I'd be totally pissed off.

Any news about early dualies?

I have a dual 450 MHz G4 that still runs 10.4.10 beautifully. Any word on if my ol' girl will run 10.5?

If you take a little liberty with the processor speeds, my system meets all the requirements:

450 MHz x 2 = "900 MHz"
704 MB of RAM
4x DVD burner
120 GB hard drive
FireWire

I bought it back in '00 for about $2200. Over the years I've upgraded the RAM and graphics card and added a DVD burner and wireless card. It still remains responsive, even if I'm doing several things at once, like surfing wirelessly, listening to iTunes and burning a DVD. That's better than I can say for several much newer Windows systems I've used.

Doesn't run Classic

I think for most people who have a 800MHz G4, they probably still have that one classic app that they don't want to get rid of anyway. And because Apple is stupid enough to dump Classic in Leopard, many PPC users may well be in for a painful shock down the line. Personally - I rarely fire up classic any more. But I'm a geek and seek out new software.

Why is Apple doing this anyway? How hard would it be just to leave it in?

Apple's Leopard and old Macs

Let's wait for release of Leopard before judging it. There are many talks about "useless" underhood changes, but that is what driving all third-party applications and that's what we use everyday. If you don't like that, you can always turn back to stuff like old good terminal applications and write emails, browse web through text based, "uncluttered interface" :-)
And, after all, topic is 800MHz G4's and Leopard ;-) I hope my PB G4 will run it or I will need to upgrade to Intel-based portable Mac.

Re:You know, Leopords are cool and all

Homophobes are usually closet bisexuals.

OT: troll, not flamebait

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.

Re:Debian PPC to the rescue

And they also make a version of Ubuntu for PPC. Who would have figured?

Re:Say what you will about Vista...

This is exactly why I'll never buy a Mac. I've got two Pentium III class machines at home and they work great. A 7-year old Mac is a doorstop. I don't have a wallet fat enough to keep up with Apple's upgrade cycle. The advantages of a Mac are few anyway -- and there are tons of negatives.

Re:Say what you will about Vista...

It's not like vista is your only choice on a standard x86 PC, I run Linux on a Pentium II class PC (AMD K6 350 MHz) with 64 MB of RAM as a web server. Before that it ran 200 and then XP which it did an alright job of if all you wanted to do was browse the web. I also run a PIII class (1 GHz, 256 MB Ram, Geforce 3 64MB) machine as a file server running Linux prior to that it was an XP gaming machine (4 years ago, I replaced it in 2003).

Re:who cares?

That's high-tech low-life to you, fella.

Re:And the Apple bashing keeps droning on.....

> then geeks should be chasing Vista with pitchforks and torches

Now showing on /. twice daily with additional performances whenever Microsoft makes an announcement