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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
I have a MacBook and iMac G5 1.6 so I should be good for 10.5, but by the time 10.6 gets here it will be time for new computers anyways. I think they should have left the 800 G4's be apart of the party- just make it so they have to have a gb of ram. No matter what they do, its better then anything else.
Comments
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.