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."

and we get slower still

[prockcore]

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:Whoopee doo

[Space cowboy]

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:Death knell for PPC Mac Mini

[markbt73]

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:Whoopee doo

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:and we get slower still

[tverbeek]

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

[h2oliu]

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.

Include the word "rumor" in the headline

[Infonaut]

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.

Re:and we get slower still

[JoeCommodore]

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?

Re:Incorrect Summary

[morgan_greywolf]

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. :)

This is why Linux on Mac is good and worthy.

[foo fighter]

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.

Re:Whoopee doo

[Altus]

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.

How about a proper useable shell.

[CRiMSON]

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:and we get slower still

[be-fan]

Tiger was quite a bit faster than Panther. They sped up Quartz 2D, for example, by a large amount. Leopard will probably be faster still. It's getting native 64-bit support, more finely-grained locking is being implemented in the kernel, etc.

Re:for Developers

[prockcore]

PCs from 2001 would barely run XP, let alone Vista.

XP came out in 2001.. I'd say a PC built in 2001 would have no problem running XP.

And thus for Consumers

[SuperKendall]

I feel that most of the features in Leopard are of interest to developers.

Yes, who will then go on to build newer and more interesting applications based on these features, which Consumers will enjoy.

Not that there aren't some consumer things of interest in the release as well...

Apple traditionally also quickly has their own applications take advantage of new OS features so consumers could see new applications fairly quickly that would be compelling on Leopard.

Re:Death knell for PPC Mac Mini

[soupforare]

It's OSX.
On a PPC.
I think he'll be alright.

Re:for Developers

[DECS]

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]

Big Deal.

[ehinojosa]

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.

OT: troll, not flamebait

[gujo-odori]

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:There is some concern with upgrade paths

[crmarvin42]

I think a big part of what everyone is forgetting is the slow rate at which apple made clockspeed increases during the period in which the 800MHZ machines were released. Most people will admit that while power/watt was a valid reason for the architecture change, Power itself was also an issue to consider. The late G4 and G5's didn't increase in clock all that fast so with the change to Intel and the associated jump in clock speed is going to result in a shorter half-life for those machines that were released toward the end of the PPC days. I'm not saying I'm happy about it but I'm also not going to sweat it too much. I have a 400MHZ G3, an 800MHZ powerbook and a brand new intel. I'm already supporting 2 OS's (the G3 is a B&W which doesn't have a DVD drive and cannot boot off of an external DVD drive, or in target disk mode to upgrade from 10.3 to 10.4. The machines and OS's are still good enough for what I use them for. I'd rather have the speed and stability of an older OS than slower performance with bells and whistles I don't actually need. I would be very surprised if we don't eventually get back to a 7 year life span we've enjoyed until now.

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

[swillden]

Honestly, I can hardly tell the various 10.x versions apart on a Mac (though I rarely use one), but I'm sure anyone can tell that Vista is a drastic change from XP, and it was quite a change from Windows 2000.

That's only because Microsoft has a habit of radically changing the look of their UI with each release. Apple prefers to maintain a consistent look, making only changes that improve the system's usability. On the other hand, the functional differences between Apple's releases are arguably larger than those between Microsoft's releases.