I think one of the things that may be creating such high performance demands beyond actual need for technical computing power is political, and even beyond that just an understandable business decision: Apple wants to get out of PowerPC as quickly as possible. Although they have said that they will be supporting it for "years to come," let's face it, that was a couple years ago already when they first announced the switch to Intel silicon, and Apple's on the Intel bandwagon right now and for the foreseeable future. They want to shed all the PowerPC technology as quickly as possible because it will not only save them the cost of developing the OS for two architectures, but it will also allow them to move forward in their commitment and relationship with Intel. This makes a lot of sense for them since, barring some major disaster, Intel isn't going anywhere in the marketplace, and I - going out on a limb here - would surmise that Apple enjoys even more dedication from Intel on its technologies and co-development than it ever got from IBM and Moto who were focusing on communications and HPC rather than desktop applications. I think once Apple has ceased active development on the PPC code in their new releases (maybe as soon as 10.6 or 10.7), you will see a more even and less-aggressive support tree than with Leopard and -presumably- its superceding release. In short, I wouldn't go out and buy a G5, but I'd expect the first-generation MBP's to be around for a while (or, perhaps second-gen if 64-bit CPU's become a requirement). Right now they're just trying to find the most excusable strategy of leaving PPC behind.
I'm not making anything complicated. There was a question mentioning the Mac Pro. Ask that person why they are making this complicated.
No one who has a three year old machine has a concern about running the OS. What three year old Mac doesn't meet the new guidelines? I certainly don't know of any.
Me neither. This was the Mac lineup in October of 2004:
eMac - G4 1GHz, 1.25GHz; max RAM 1GB
iBook - G4 1GHz, 1.2GHz, 1.33GHz; max RAM 1.25GB
iMac - G5 1.6GHz, 1.8GHz; max RAM 2GB
Power Mac - G5 1.8GHz, 2GHz, 2.5GHz; max RAM 4 or 8GB
PowerBook - G4 1.33GHz, 1.5GHz; mac RAM 1.25 or 2GB
XServe - G5 2.0GHz; max RAM 8GB
While not all of these will necessarily run Leopard well, they certainly all meet the system requirements. So what's this guy's beef? I don't get it.
I think one of the things that may be creating such high performance demands beyond actual need for technical computing power is political, and even beyond that just an understandable business decision: Apple wants to get out of PowerPC as quickly as possible. Although they have said that they will be supporting it for "years to come," let's face it, that was a couple years ago already when they first announced the switch to Intel silicon, and Apple's on the Intel bandwagon right now and for the foreseeable future. They want to shed all the PowerPC technology as quickly as possible because it will not only save them the cost of developing the OS for two architectures, but it will also allow them to move forward in their commitment and relationship with Intel. This makes a lot of sense for them since, barring some major disaster, Intel isn't going anywhere in the marketplace, and I - going out on a limb here - would surmise that Apple enjoys even more dedication from Intel on its technologies and co-development than it ever got from IBM and Moto who were focusing on communications and HPC rather than desktop applications. I think once Apple has ceased active development on the PPC code in their new releases (maybe as soon as 10.6 or 10.7), you will see a more even and less-aggressive support tree than with Leopard and -presumably- its superceding release. In short, I wouldn't go out and buy a G5, but I'd expect the first-generation MBP's to be around for a while (or, perhaps second-gen if 64-bit CPU's become a requirement). Right now they're just trying to find the most excusable strategy of leaving PPC behind.
I fully expect 10.6 to support all G5's and most G4's.
10.7, depending when it comes out, might discontinue G4 support, but I would imagine it would still support the G5's.
I fully expect 10.6 to support all G5's and most G4's.
10.7, depending when it comes out, might discontinue G4 support, but I would imagine it would still support the G5's.
After that, it's a crapshoot.
Maybe at a core OS level, but I doubt that the G4 will continue to see feature-complete editions. The DVD player requirements at 1.6GHz already outstrips the highest G4's in clockspeed in factory configurations (1.42GHz duals). Sure, the dual 1.42's are probably quite capable, but who's to say Apple won't draw the line at clockspeed? The G4 is already close to out. Even the demands on the G5's are already high.
Maybe at a core OS level, but I doubt that the G4 will continue to see feature-complete editions. The DVD player requirements at 1.6GHz already outstrips the highest G4's in clockspeed in factory configurations (1.42GHz duals). Sure, the dual 1.42's are probably quite capable, but who's to say Apple won't draw the line at clockspeed? The G4 is already close to out. Even the demands on the G5's are already high.
I'm not sure what this "requirement " about DVD players is all about. Until recently, My wife had a G3 400 MHz B/W. She really didn't want me to replace it. The only problem is that without Altivec, it couldn't play H.264 Tv shows and such, and I couldn't update to 10.5.
But, watching DVD movies on the monitor at 1600 x whatever, worked just dandy, even with the computer rezing the DVD output up to the full 1600 width of the screen.
The lack of L3 slows the g4 800 down. Look on ebay for a g4 QS CPU. I got A 867 about a year ago for about $50
That's a great idea Dragon. My computer is an eMac though and I'm not sure I'd be able to swap the cpu out myself. Upgrading memory is about as far as I've gone in terms of working on computers.
Comments
I'm not making anything complicated. There was a question mentioning the Mac Pro. Ask that person why they are making this complicated.
No one who has a three year old machine has a concern about running the OS. What three year old Mac doesn't meet the new guidelines? I certainly don't know of any.
Me neither. This was the Mac lineup in October of 2004:
eMac - G4 1GHz, 1.25GHz; max RAM 1GB
iBook - G4 1GHz, 1.2GHz, 1.33GHz; max RAM 1.25GB
iMac - G5 1.6GHz, 1.8GHz; max RAM 2GB
Power Mac - G5 1.8GHz, 2GHz, 2.5GHz; max RAM 4 or 8GB
PowerBook - G4 1.33GHz, 1.5GHz; mac RAM 1.25 or 2GB
XServe - G5 2.0GHz; max RAM 8GB
While not all of these will necessarily run Leopard well, they certainly all meet the system requirements. So what's this guy's beef? I don't get it.
I think one of the things that may be creating such high performance demands beyond actual need for technical computing power is political, and even beyond that just an understandable business decision: Apple wants to get out of PowerPC as quickly as possible. Although they have said that they will be supporting it for "years to come," let's face it, that was a couple years ago already when they first announced the switch to Intel silicon, and Apple's on the Intel bandwagon right now and for the foreseeable future. They want to shed all the PowerPC technology as quickly as possible because it will not only save them the cost of developing the OS for two architectures, but it will also allow them to move forward in their commitment and relationship with Intel. This makes a lot of sense for them since, barring some major disaster, Intel isn't going anywhere in the marketplace, and I - going out on a limb here - would surmise that Apple enjoys even more dedication from Intel on its technologies and co-development than it ever got from IBM and Moto who were focusing on communications and HPC rather than desktop applications. I think once Apple has ceased active development on the PPC code in their new releases (maybe as soon as 10.6 or 10.7), you will see a more even and less-aggressive support tree than with Leopard and -presumably- its superceding release. In short, I wouldn't go out and buy a G5, but I'd expect the first-generation MBP's to be around for a while (or, perhaps second-gen if 64-bit CPU's become a requirement). Right now they're just trying to find the most excusable strategy of leaving PPC behind.
I fully expect 10.6 to support all G5's and most G4's.
10.7, depending when it comes out, might discontinue G4 support, but I would imagine it would still support the G5's.
After that, it's a crapshoot.
Me neither. This was the Mac lineup in October of 2004:
eMac - G4 1GHz, 1.25GHz; max RAM 1GB
iBook - G4 1GHz, 1.2GHz, 1.33GHz; max RAM 1.25GB
iMac - G5 1.6GHz, 1.8GHz; max RAM 2GB
Power Mac - G5 1.8GHz, 2GHz, 2.5GHz; max RAM 4 or 8GB
PowerBook - G4 1.33GHz, 1.5GHz; mac RAM 1.25 or 2GB
XServe - G5 2.0GHz; max RAM 8GB
While not all of these will necessarily run Leopard well, they certainly all meet the system requirements. So what's this guy's beef? I don't get it.
I don't get it either, unless he's misunderstanding what I've been saying, or forgetting the dates of machine shipments.
I fully expect 10.6 to support all G5's and most G4's.
10.7, depending when it comes out, might discontinue G4 support, but I would imagine it would still support the G5's.
After that, it's a crapshoot.
Maybe at a core OS level, but I doubt that the G4 will continue to see feature-complete editions. The DVD player requirements at 1.6GHz already outstrips the highest G4's in clockspeed in factory configurations (1.42GHz duals). Sure, the dual 1.42's are probably quite capable, but who's to say Apple won't draw the line at clockspeed? The G4 is already close to out. Even the demands on the G5's are already high.
Maybe at a core OS level, but I doubt that the G4 will continue to see feature-complete editions. The DVD player requirements at 1.6GHz already outstrips the highest G4's in clockspeed in factory configurations (1.42GHz duals). Sure, the dual 1.42's are probably quite capable, but who's to say Apple won't draw the line at clockspeed? The G4 is already close to out. Even the demands on the G5's are already high.
I'm not sure what this "requirement " about DVD players is all about. Until recently, My wife had a G3 400 MHz B/W. She really didn't want me to replace it. The only problem is that without Altivec, it couldn't play H.264 Tv shows and such, and I couldn't update to 10.5.
But, watching DVD movies on the monitor at 1600 x whatever, worked just dandy, even with the computer rezing the DVD output up to the full 1600 width of the screen.
That requirement is for de-interlacing. It doesn't limit the ability to play DVDs, it just strips support for better de-interlacing abilities.
I can assure you that if that is what it is all about, there is no visual difference.
http://www.compusa.com/products/prod...t_code&pfp=fod.
The G4 800 has no L3 the 867 and dual 800 does.
The lack of L3 slows the g4 800 down. Look on ebay for a g4 QS CPU. I got A 867 about a year ago for about $50
That's a great idea Dragon. My computer is an eMac though and I'm not sure I'd be able to swap the cpu out myself. Upgrading memory is about as far as I've gone in terms of working on computers.