or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Updated Leopard requirements to exclude 800MHz systems
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Updated Leopard requirements to exclude 800MHz systems

post #1 of 83
Thread Starter 
Just weeks ahead of its public launch, Apple Inc. has updated the minimum system requirements for its next-generation Leopard operating system to exclude 800MHz PowerPC-based Macs, AppleInsider has learned.

The Cupertino-based company has yet to officially announce the hardware requirements to run Leopard, due out in October, but had long stated in developer documentation that the software would require "an Intel processor or a PowerPC G4 (800MHz or faster) or G5 processor."

According to people familiar with the matter, engineers for the company recently determined that Leopard installs on 800MHz PowerPC G4 systems ran "too slow." Support for those systems was subsequently pulled from the most recent pre-release copies of Leopard, which inform testers that the software "cannot be installed" on those computers.

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.

Looking ahead, those people familiar with Apple development cycles speculate that Mac OS X 10.6 will exclude support for PowerPC-based Macs entirely, requiring that users have one of the company's Intel-based systems which first began making their way to market in early 2006.

Over the weekend, Apple provided developers with Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard build 9A559. The build contained only two known issues and is believed to be one of the first candidates for release.
post #2 of 83
That drops my daughter's iMac from the list. My plan though is to install it anyway by putting it in Firewire Disk Target mode and install it from another system. I wonder how my Tangerine iBook will work with Leopard.
-JD
-- "If Apple wasn't so greedy, they would build G6's and give them away!"
Reply
-JD
-- "If Apple wasn't so greedy, they would build G6's and give them away!"
Reply
post #3 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwdawso View Post

That drops my daughter's iMac from the list. My plan though is to install it anyway by putting it in Firewire Disk Target mode and install it from another system. I wonder how my Tangerine iBook will work with Leopard.

Even if you use Firewire Target mode to install it, during bootup it will say "Your system isn't supported." You will have to wait for XPostFacto (did I say it right) to come out with a hack.

Intel Mac for 10.6? WOW that's sooner then I expected. I thought it would be G5 required for 10.6 then Intel for 10.7. All those people who bought systems in first half of 2005 prior to Intel announcement, will be SOL only 4 years after there system was new and even less for people who bought a new PowerPC Mac in 2006.
Quote:
Get busy living or get busy dying--Stephen King
Reply
Quote:
Get busy living or get busy dying--Stephen King
Reply
post #4 of 83
I have no idea about current plans for 10.6 but it makes sense to ditch the PPC platform only if there are major changes which require high performance CPU and PPC are outdated by that time. Such major changes would take a lot of time as well - 2+ years. This places 10.6 at the beginning of 2009 earliest. In this case, cutting out PPC will be made based on performance, not cross-platform issues. I doubt they will make this, however, because some G5 systems still should be good enough.
Besides, Apple makes decisions on supported hardware based on the standard configurations when they were originally shipped. Almost in all cases adding RAM makes them faster than higher-specked standard configuration.
There could be other reasons like CPU/GPU integration but that is a problem that they will need to address on older Intel hardware as well (especially minis).
Ah, one more thing: if they plan a new filesystem (bootable ZFS or something) that may be a blocker: PPC hardware uses different partition map!
post #5 of 83
The Steve is being awful generous to let any G4 users install Leopard on their Macs.





post #6 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Write View Post

Even if you use Firewire Target mode to install it, during bootup it will say "Your system isn't supported." You will have to wait for XPostFacto (did I say it right) to come out with a hack.

No! When the mac is attached as a FireWire disk the installer will check the hardware it runs on, that is, the computer to which the disk is attached to. The only thing you can not make is to install OS on PPC mac from Intel system - the installer will assume incompatible partition map and install the wrong OS version anyway (at least for Tiger, they are different)
post #7 of 83
i suspect 10.6 will run on G5s at least. the community backlash would be so strong that i think apple will want to play it safe. my guess is that it will even run on late powerbook G4s.

it's relevant to note that leopard is the most significant upgrade to os x that apple has ever done. even then, it still supports most macs since late 2002, which puts the lifecycle of those machines at almost 5 years exactly. it's sad to see those machines get dropped, as mac hardware tends to last forever, but tiger is still very usable, and most new apps that will require leopard are probably gonna be a bit too steep to run on machines that old anyways.
post #8 of 83
I know there'd be a backlash, but frankly I'd love it if 10.6 was Intel only if it meant a really tight kernel rewrite. Also a Finder that doesn't choke on network shares. I am really quite happy with the Finder feature-wise at this point - those two things and, I suppose, native support for something like WINE would be pretty much the only remaining things I want at that point. OS X is looking great on features and performance so it's time to make it even better by purging legacy code and rethinking the interfaces of certain apps (iTunes and Quicktime, especially iTunes' SoundJam code from 1997, I'm looking at you).
post #9 of 83
Well I have a dual 800mhz G4 tower, which is definitely faster then an 867mhz G4. Heck the 867mhz was the mid-range and the dual 800mhz was the top of the line when I bought it, so if I could not put leopard on it I would be pretty pissed off when I could on a slower computer.
post #10 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

The Steve is being awful generous to let any G4 users install Leopard on their Macs.

I know of old Macs with their users still happy on OS 9. I even have a friend with a PowerBook 100 in great condition and still runs on System 7 (I think) although it is showing signs of poor battery power retention.

My own iMac G5 20" will be happy to see out its days on a diet of Leopard. Actually, its this very feature, that made me comfortable with going with the iMac in the first place.

You can get a lot of years out of an Apple system. I was even tempted recently to bid on a working Apple Lisa, a developers model (Lisa XL), but pulled out for a lack of space to present it. It went for about $1100.

Pete
post #11 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by atticusdsf View Post

i suspect 10.6 will run on G5s at least. the community backlash would be so strong that i think apple will want to play it safe. my guess is that it will even run on late powerbook G4s.

it's relevant to note that leopard is the most significant upgrade to os x that apple has ever done. even then, it still supports most macs since late 2002, which puts the lifecycle of those machines at almost 5 years exactly. it's sad to see those machines get dropped, as mac hardware tends to last forever, but tiger is still very usable, and most new apps that will require leopard are probably gonna be a bit too steep to run on machines that old anyways.

Damn you Apple!!!!! I was hoping to run my iMac G4 800 MHz for a while longer yet. It runs plenty good enough on Tiger.

Don't tell me Apple is copying MS in bringing out more bloatware. Let's hope they manage to refine the final version enough to speed it up, before it ships.
post #12 of 83
meh. bloatware shmoatware. leopard is a modern os with modern features, and there's a tradeoff for that. i think we should be thankful that it supports computers as old as it does, unlike vista, which chokes on even some current computers.
post #13 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by reallynotnick View Post

Well I have a dual 800mhz G4 tower, which is definitely faster then an 867mhz G4. Heck the 867mhz was the mid-range and the dual 800mhz was the top of the line when I bought it, so if I could not put leopard on it I would be pretty pissed off when I could on a slower computer.

I have the same G4, and to be honest, I wouldn't install 10.5 on it regardless. Mine is over 6 years old, and I doubt that it would run teh snappy at all with Leopard. For day-2-day useability, really wouldn't run Leopard on any G4 <1Ghz - YMMV.
post #14 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by atticusdsf View Post

i suspect 10.6 will run on G5s at least. the community backlash would be so strong that i think apple will want to play it safe. my guess is that it will even run on late powerbook G4s.

If the current pattern holds, 10.6 is two and a half to three years away anyway. If you bought a G5 tower in Summer of 06, that would be about four to four and a half years before an OS is released that might not support a G5.
post #15 of 83
It depends what Apple plans for 10.6.
If it is not a major overhaul there is no need to drop PPC. If it is, it will take long time for development and PPC will become outdated anyway.
I think the situation, from marketing point of view, is as follows:
10.5, after the first couple of dot.dot updates, will become a mature and stable OS. Most likely, this will happen before Microsoft puts it's acts together with Vista and forthcoming (Feb. 27, 2008) Longhorn Server release. There are LOT's of features in Leopard which will take time to be implemented in most mainstream applications by developers. There are some unfinished areas as well: it seems Apple will not support resolution independence with 10.5.0 but it is unlikely they will put it off till 10.6. So, there is no need for Apple to urge with 10.6. They may decide a substantial update for mid 2009 or later. If this is the case, the PPC systems will be faded out gradually, at a normal pace.
I still believe (as I mentioned in previous posts on other threads) that Apple will keep it's code base cross-platform because:
- it is a huge advantage they have over Windows
- if broken, it will be huge disadvantage over Linux
If you look at processor architecture updates, they happen more often than some basic stuff deep in the OS. A lot of code in the UNIX core of Mac OS is older than current Intel and PPC architectures. Also, many people do not understand that 32 bit - 64 bit port was much harder than PPC - Intel.
Apple decided to drop 64 bit Carbon with 10.5 (at WWDC 2006 they still intended to port it). I am not sure this is final (there may be push from Adobe and others) but this is the only non-cross-platform friendly code in Apple legacy.
post #16 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by deanbar View Post

Damn you Apple!!!!! I was hoping to run my iMac G4 800 MHz for a while longer yet. It runs plenty good enough on Tiger.

Then just keep it running Tiger, there is nothing forcing you to upgrade. Regardless of what the minimum requirement is I suspect 10.5 will run very poorly on any G4.
post #17 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow View Post

No! When the mac is attached as a FireWire disk the installer will check the hardware it runs on, that is, the computer to which the disk is attached to. The only thing you can not make is to install OS on PPC mac from Intel system - the installer will assume incompatible partition map and install the wrong OS version anyway (at least for Tiger, they are different)

I meant that once you booted that un-supported Mac and not in Firewire Target mode, Leopard wouldn't boot as it would say un-supported system.

I am now starting to re-think the idea of 10.6 due fall 2009/winter 2009/2010 that this would allow for complete PPC code purging and other serious optimization of the entire OS, apps etc. This would also piss off G5 owners, and some G4 owners (PowerBook and oh ya us DP 1.25GHZ+ owners). To do this though Apple should give us the heads up at WWDC08 and state "Although we won't be talking about 10.6 today heads up that it will require an Intel based Mac" which will give people a good 18 months warning for G5 owners. Only in the extremely money tight situations (like mine) would 18 months not be enough time to save up for a new system if they/us want to continue using the latest software (since that is easier to stay on top of vs. hardware.
Quote:
Get busy living or get busy dying--Stephen King
Reply
Quote:
Get busy living or get busy dying--Stephen King
Reply
post #18 of 83
my iBook won't run Liger?
post #19 of 83
Will systems that shipped with a slower cpu but have been upgraded with a faster CPU apple or 3rd party work? Or will you need a hack?
post #20 of 83
Oh well. My poor, old 400 MHz Blue & White G3 is going to need to be replaced after all these years. I knew it was coming. I guess I'll have to buy a new Mac after the expo in January.

I'm really more concerned, though, about something that I haven't heard mentioned in a while. (I posted about this in another forum recently but haven't heard back from anyone yet.)

To those using the latest build of Leopard: Did Apple scrap the anti-phishing features that were being developed for Safari, or is there phishing protection in the latest builds? Aside from Safari, does Mail now have anti-phishing features? These features are both present in Vista's browser and mail client, and it would really pain me to see Apple slip behind in operating system security and keeping users protected. Right now, Apple's is the only major browser that doesn't have phishing protection built in, which I think is a crying shame, especially since Apple has built up their reputation of being the safer platform.

BTW, if anyone who's using the latest Leopard build is interested, I would like to have a guest on the Tech Pulse podcast to discuss some of the upcoming (and lesser-known) features of Leopard. If you're interested, please e-mail me at my first name at techpulsepodcast dot com.

~Josh
Tech Pulse Podcast - Tech News, Reviews, Tips and Tricks, Picks, and More!
Reply
Tech Pulse Podcast - Tech News, Reviews, Tips and Tricks, Picks, and More!
Reply
post #21 of 83
I just don't see 2ghz machines being dropped. My dual PowerMac G5 is only 4 years old and I'll be one of the backlashers.
post #22 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post

Will systems that shipped with a slower cpu but have been upgraded with a faster CPU apple or 3rd party work? Or will you need a hack?

Joe, I believe the way Apple has always done it in the past is that unless your system came with a particular processor factory-installed by Apple, a CPU upgrade doesn't cut it for meeting OS upgrade requirements. I would guess that Apple's installer queries the system ID of the machine, and rejects installation if it's one of the "incompatible" models.

In other words, you're going to need a hack if you want to try to get it to work. Good luck, and let me know what you find out. I'd love to run Leopard on my G3/400 as long as there's a way to turn off some of the eye-candy features (I'm sure the totally unnecessary floating starscape in Time Machine, for example, would bring my poor machine to a crawl, even though the recovery feature itself really shouldn't slow it down at all).
Tech Pulse Podcast - Tech News, Reviews, Tips and Tricks, Picks, and More!
Reply
Tech Pulse Podcast - Tech News, Reviews, Tips and Tricks, Picks, and More!
Reply
post #23 of 83
I don't mind upgrading - just not every 6 months
ipod.rules
Reply
ipod.rules
Reply
post #24 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Write View Post

I meant that once you booted that un-supported Mac and not in Firewire Target mode, Leopard wouldn't boot as it would say un-supported system.

It could happen in System 7 - System 9 days when the proper System Enabler was not found. Never heard of this in OS X. The system will not perform the check at all I think, only installer does. As far as the partition map is compatible you can try to boot but, in the worst case scenario, you may see a hang/crash/kernel panic. I've seen Tiger running on unsupported G3s (no FireWire etc.) without problem. If you put more RAM it is OK for basic tasks. If you disable journaling and/or spotlight it gets even faster but you are loosing important features.
post #25 of 83
Why bother to dump it. You can still use it. It just won't be running Leopard.

I don't need any old machine that doesn't use an Intel processor. I'll only need three machines. A Intel MacPro, my trusty Intel MacBook Pro and possibly an Intel MacMini. I'll probably dump all my G4s next year since they can't run Windows.
post #26 of 83
I'd wait a bit before becoming upset over the minimum requirements for Leopard. Typically, unless there's a hardware incompatibility, each processor version of MacOS X has run just fine on previous generation processors. I don't mean as fast, but simply that they ran. I've installed and run MacOS X 10.4 on a first generation Bondi iMac with 96MB RAM, and it worked, sluggishly but successfully.

I've never seen a MacOS installer refuse to install, unless there was a hardware incompatibility. So, before throwing away those 800MHz Macs, borrow a disk from someone and give it a try. If it works well enough for you, purchase the upgrade, and move along. If it's not good enough, then replace the hardware with the free upgrade to Leopard.

- Dave Marsh
iMac Intel 27" 3.4GHz, iPad Air 64GB, iPhone 5 32GB

Reply

- Dave Marsh
iMac Intel 27" 3.4GHz, iPad Air 64GB, iPhone 5 32GB

Reply
post #27 of 83
I am the owner of an 800 MHz G4 iMac. It was the first of the swivel-neck models and top-of-the-line. I got it at the end of my senior year of high school as a graduation present. I am now two years out of college. The computer continues to serve me well. I use Garage Band extensively and as long as I lock tracks and monitor my system resources, the computer runs just fine. It's loaded with Tiger and is certainly slower than new PCs, but it's definitely still operable. Surprizingly, one of the greatest drawbacks is not the processor speed, but the lack of USB2.

I agree with those saying that an 800 MHz system would choke to death on Leopard. That doesn't make it an obsolete machine. In fact, I still have an old graphite G3 iMac. It runs 9.2.2 like a champ and is great for playing some really great older games. Eventually, I will retire the G3 and convert it into an iMacquarium. When I finally have to retire the G4, I plan to keep the shell and put a Mac Mini inside.

That day has not come yet and I will continue to use my G4 with very few modern tech limitations. Considering it's still operable after Intel transition as well as generational advances in both the PPC and Intel families, I am very pleased with the life of this computer. I may spring for a new Mac this winter but I don't have any real pressing need to. My upcomming Apple purchases will be a 8GB 2nd gen nano to replace my stolen 40gig 4th gen. and an iPhone for Christmas. It may seem as though I'm stingy with my technology, but you'll surprised at the money you'll save by streching that tech just a little bit longer and most importantly realizing that even if it isn't brand new, it isn't obsolete.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deanbar View Post

Damn you Apple!!!!! I was hoping to run my iMac G4 800 MHz for a while longer yet. It runs plenty good enough on Tiger.

Then don't upgrade. Simple as that. Almost all software written today will continue to work on 10.4.11 for a good year. That gives you enough time to save up for a new Mac.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deanbar View Post

Don't tell me Apple is copying MS in bringing out more bloatware. Let's hope they manage to refine the final version enough to speed it up, before it ships.

Bloatware? One of the main factors in the massive size of Leopard is the legacy code which allows new software to run on G4s>800MHz, and G5s, which in turn must be compatible with all software capable of being run on those machines. That includes (as some mentioned earlier) Carbon APIs and the old SoundJam (proto-iTunes) code. Anyone who still programs in Carbon needs to move on. Save resources and file size. Cut the chord on old systems. Anyone expecting to run new software on old computers is just kidding themselves... especially someone who expects to run new software on OS 9... Ridiculous!

Anyway. It's not bloatware. You just have an old computer. A new PC in the Win 98 era might have been able to run Win 2k, and even had a slim chance of running XP... but certainly would not be able to run Vista. Many XP systems can't even run Vista. I got a laptop a year before the Vista betas. I installed RC1 and the computer wouldn't support Aero, which is litterally the only reason to upgrade to Vista. Trust me. Vista broke more things than it fixed. But it looks damn sparkly and clean.

If a 1-year-old computer can't run a new OS, THAT'S bloatware. If a 6-year old Mac can't run Leopard, that's bloatware too? You've got to be joking.

Enough of this. Either stretch your computer's life (like me) or buy a new Mac and shut up about it.

-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #28 of 83
It wouldn't surprise me if Leopard installs and runs on G4s less than 800MHz. This may simply be a suggested requirement and not something Apple technically prohibits.
post #29 of 83
I can see how people can believe OS X 10.6 will be Intel only, but I do not see that happening. Come October 29, 2007 it will have been 2.5 years since Tiger was released, and if it takes another 2.5 years to get 10.6 out that will bring us to April 29, 2010, which will be 3 months shy of 4 years since the G5 (PowerMac, Xserve) was discontinued. I fully expect the G5 to be supported by 10.6, but the G4 will see the last of OS X with Leopard. This will be easy enough to do by preventing a 32-bit PPC application from getting compiled if 10.6 specific features are used.

Steve said OS X is hardware agnostic so they will keep some PPC machines around, in addition to the AMD machines that are in their secret lab.
post #30 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

I just don't see 2ghz machines being dropped. My dual PowerMac G5 is only 4 years old and I'll be one of the backlashers.

By the time 10.6 arrives it'll be 7 or 8 years old.
post #31 of 83
Well, shouldn't they have decided this a little bit EARLIER????!?!? Seriously, why change the tech requirements so soon before the release? It doesn't make any sense to do this so soon, Apples going to lose tons of customers that rely on Apple to support their older hardware, they even use it in their motto and tag lines. This is just really stupid.
~Dion Rodrigues
~MacBook Pro, 15 inch, C2D 2.16 Ghz 1 GB RAM
~Canada
~http://bdamanempire.phpnet.us/ - Webmaster
~http://www.oceans-alive.com/ - Webmaster
Reply
~Dion Rodrigues
~MacBook Pro, 15 inch, C2D 2.16 Ghz 1 GB RAM
~Canada
~http://bdamanempire.phpnet.us/ - Webmaster
~http://www.oceans-alive.com/ - Webmaster
Reply
post #32 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

The Steve is being awful generous to let any G4 users install Leopard on their Macs.







Oh I'm sure that's true. I already knew long ago that my G3 wouldn't be going along for the ride. So Leopard will be a good excuse to upgrade to a new system.

Hopefully the new systems that ship with Leopard won't have some wacked-out build that you can't get in retail. That would mean certain bugs could be liimited to factory installed systems only.

Anyway, I'll just be happy with a newer system. Bye bye iBook.
post #33 of 83
Their latest betas already did this BTW. They're doing the same thing Microsoft did: they're moving out of reach of their core consumers. They make a system that too many people can't upgrade to because of hardware requirements. And these hardware requirements have people wondering. Isn't sloppy inefficient code copyright Microsoft Corporation? What's really bad here is that Microsoft had their chance - sort of - and blew it. They couldn't be ready for last holiday season shoppers so that entire period was a big dud for them. Now they have nothing left to wow holiday shoppers with this year. Guess who's left? And so what are they doing? Moving in cool and casual all like and cleaning up the field? Nope - they're making the same mistakes as Microsoft. It's typical and it's totally unnecessary.
post #34 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by psychodoughboy View Post

I know there'd be a backlash, but frankly I'd love it if 10.6 was Intel only if it meant a really tight kernel rewrite. Also a Finder that doesn't choke on network shares.

Leopard doesn't choke on network shares.
post #35 of 83
Well, time to sell my PowerBook 100.
post #36 of 83
Don't sell it, just set it on the shelf next to your Mac 128K. It's art.

- Dave Marsh
iMac Intel 27" 3.4GHz, iPad Air 64GB, iPhone 5 32GB

Reply

- Dave Marsh
iMac Intel 27" 3.4GHz, iPad Air 64GB, iPhone 5 32GB

Reply
post #37 of 83
Leopard seems faster than tiger on the same hardware, provided there is enough RAM.

Why exclude 800MHz G4s, which run Tiger pretty darn well? Leopard may acually be a bit faster, since they've done so much optimization. But noooo.... Apple wants you to buy a new Mac.

Figures.
post #38 of 83
It wouldn't make any sense if Apple dropped PPC support for 10.6. Right now 10.5 will run on computers more than 5 years old, and Apple has always been known for their products to have a slower consumer turnover rate (people keep them longer).

If 10.6 comes out in two years (though I would guess probably less), computers only slightly over three years old wouldn't be able to run it.

That doesn't correspond to Apple's mentality...
post #39 of 83
Listen children, when a piece of software comes out somewhere in the world that your computer can't run it doesn't mean your machine automatically dies. That's just the older kids messin' with your head. Your computer does exactly what it always does! Amazing.
post #40 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairly View Post

Their latest betas already did this BTW. They're doing the same thing Microsoft did: they're moving out of reach of their core consumers. They make a system that too many people can't upgrade to because of hardware requirements. And these hardware requirements have people wondering. Isn't sloppy inefficient code copyright Microsoft Corporation? What's really bad here is that Microsoft had their chance - sort of - and blew it. They couldn't be ready for last holiday season shoppers so that entire period was a big dud for them. Now they have nothing left to wow holiday shoppers with this year. Guess who's left? And so what are they doing? Moving in cool and casual all like and cleaning up the field? Nope - they're making the same mistakes as Microsoft. It's typical and it's totally unnecessary.

LOL...must be a Linux troll rather than a MS troll.

I have a 800Mhz G4 Quicksliver. Much as I like the thing its 5 bloody years old and beach balls enough on Tiger that I didn't have that much desire to move it to Leopard until 10.5.3 or whatever when they start working on performance over functionality.

Its not "sloppy and inefficient" code as much as greater levels of abstractions allowing higher programmer productivity. Leading to more functionality at lower costs than software from 2002. Software today does so much more than it did before because we now have the time within the same product cycle to build more functionality vs lower level coding.

The cost is slower code that uses more system resources. If you're happy with 2002 functionality, don't upgrade past 2002 apps. Doesn't matter which OS you favor.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Updated Leopard requirements to exclude 800MHz systems