Panther limits hardware supported

in macOS edited January 2014
Ohh. Let the bitching begin

Myself I think this is a non issue


  • Reply 1 of 7
    zapchudzapchud Posts: 844member
    I'm sure there will be a hack to work around this, just like for pre-G3-macs
  • Reply 2 of 7
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    In the past I've been very vocal about Apple's lack of hardware support but, I fully support them on leabing non-USB macs behind with Panther.

    BUT, only if they make sure that Jaguar supports all of the hardware it runs on. Right now I still don't think it does. Beige G3 owners and Powerbook G3 wallstreet owners are still lacking some hardware support.

    But, other than that, OS X was promised to run on G3 macs. it did with one exception. It was made relatively nice (Jaguar) on those macs.

    Now it's time to streamline and go full speed ahead on hardware that won't hold OS X back
  • Reply 3 of 7
    jaguar runs fine with my computer, albeit the internal floppy wont work (not complaining), and i dont think the scsi port works either. its a 266mhz beige g3, and i had major issues installing it. i guess its time to get a new computer then, eh?
  • Reply 4 of 7
    der kopfder kopf Posts: 2,275member
    I don't mind that really. After all the stories of woe I've seen installing X on those pre-USB macs (and after seeing the horrid performance of, what was then 10.1.3 on my 400 MHz Pismo) I have kind of decided to never install a flavor of X on an old beige G3 in my home that still gets regular use. And, like they say, there'll probably be a hack soon enough if I'd want to after all.
  • Reply 5 of 7
    phaasphaas Posts: 4member
    Just because a computer is pre-USB doesn't make it obsolete. I have a Wallstreet Powerbook, whith a 500MHz G4 upgrade, a USB card, lots of RAM and a Huge HD and Jaguar works great on it. I don't see why they couldn't continue to support their originally stated machines. If Panther is as much better and faster as people have been saying then there is no reason that it shouldn't run great on my machine too.

    I also have to admit that with the original 233MHz G3 processor performance is terrible. I suppose that I will be able to use a tool such as XPostFacto to hack the system onto my computer, but it would be nice to have native support.

    As a compromise I could live with it not being officially supported, but the installer shouldn't stop me from installing it if I want to.
  • Reply 6 of 7
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    well with me purchasing a new G5 this isn't a problem...but i think 5yrs is perfect because every 5 yrs at most users should upload

    saying your mac isn't obsolete cuz you upgraded it isn't fair because apple doesn't care about them, they care about you upgrading your machine
  • Reply 7 of 7
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Try XP on a 6 or 7 year old machine. Microsoft is much richer and bigger, shouldn't they afford to support older hardware? Even Win2000 puked on my 400mhz AMD K6 II with 128 RAM, very sloooow. Nothing beats Redhat 8 at being slow though. When I used Linux, I realized why no one is using it on PCs yet. OpenOffice takes minutes to load. \
Sign In or Register to comment.