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 G4 Dual 800 also... does this mean we can't load Leopard?
I have the G4 Dual 800 also... does this mean we can't load Leopard?
I suspect the 800MHz threshold is just that. Apple doesn't want to encourage users of older Macs into thinking that Leopard will give them a satisfying experience, so it raises the recommended bar for Leopard.
It's been my experience that unless there is a technical incompatibility between the MacOS and the Mac's processor/hardware, that older Macs should run Leopard, however responsively.
I once ran Tiger on a first generation G3 Bondi iMac with 96MB of memory, and it worked, but it wasn't pretty, and I went back to MacOS 9.2.2.
I'd wait for Leopard's release, borrow a friend's copy, and try it out on your older Mac. If you're satisfied with the experience, buy a copy and move on. If you're not, stick with Tiger, or replace your Mac with a faster machine.
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.
What you say?
Looks like my 1Ghz G4 is going to max out at 10.4, too close to the min spec for 10.5 to perform well, I suspect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
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.
Nice. I be those who dropped a few grand on a G5 just a couple of years ago feel the same as you.
Since you seem to be wanting to hang onto your G4 Sunflower? like I am, have you seen this G4 iMac CPU upgrade? It would upgrade your 800Mhz to 1.35Ghz. Costs nearly as much as a base Mini without keyboard, etc. though, so YMMV.
The Steve is being awful generous to let any G4 users install Leopard on their Macs.
i don't think generous is the word. i have owned my g4 less than two years. apple BETTER have support for it in leopard. even 10.6 actually.
unfortunately, i bought my PB g4 loaded because it was perfect for everything i needed it for at the time. i also figured apple would not be so dumb as to discontinue support after two years. they are not, but it is not being generous at all.
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.
~Josh
Yes it's time to retire that 1999 technology to something like a media server, bare OS with large hard drive on a network. You will be absolutely amazed with the new Intel C2D machines.
i don't think generous is the word. i have owned my g4 less than two years. apple BETTER have support for it in leopard. even 10.6 actually.
unfortunately, i bought my PB g4 loaded because it was perfect for everything i needed it for at the time. i also figured apple would not be so dumb as to discontinue support after two years. they are not, but it is not being generous at all.
Dude, it was a joke. Did you see the laughing emoticons?
LOL...must be a Linux troll rather than a MS troll.
That's exactly what I was thinking. No legacy hardware support from 6 years ago! You're turning into Microsoft! I can run Linux on my 20 year-old washing machine. If only it had speakers...and the processing power to play an MP3.
The funniest line of the rant is:
Quote:
They're doing the same thing Microsoft did: they're moving out of reach of their core consumers.
Right, because Apple's core consumers can't afford an upgrade after four years? Take my household as an example. We're squarely in the "creative middle class", and probably the definition of Apple's core consumers: affluent, but not wealthy middle aged adults with college and high school aged children. We average one upgrade every two years. The bottom of our chain is currently using a PowerBook G4 500mhz, and will need an upgrade to run Leopard. Can we afford $2000 to buy a new MacBook Pro after 6 years of use on the same computer? Yeah, and most of Apple's "core consumers" can too, if they aren't already on supported systems. Even without comparing to Microsoft, the $2000 investment for 6 years of use on that PowerBook is pretty nice.
The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Microsoft's "core consumers" are slightly less affluent and most computers bought even one year ago aren't compatible with Vista. Even though you might be able to buy a Vista-capable computer for about $500 now, this means the lowest ends of the Microsoft user base have had to shell out $1000 per user in the last year to keep up with the OS changes, whereas in my example the cost, even for the most upgrade-happy user (me) is about $1200 for three years, which of course includes better hardware and more capability than the Windows machines.
Bottom line, my 400mhz iMac G3 DV edition runs 10.3 very well, but I wouldn't upgrade it because it would be too slow. My 800mhz iMac G4 17" isn't going past 10.4, and I'm not expecting the 17" iMac G5 to make it past 10.5. My new MBP may go to 10.7, but only because I bought it a few months before the Leopard release. See the pattern? This phase-out is hardly unprecedented and is probably right in line with the upgrade trends of Apple's core consumers.
Decisions like these make me glad I opted for the 466MHz PowerMac in 2001 and not an iMac. 1.46GHz processor upgrade? Check. Radeon 9800 for Core Animation? Check. USB 2.0 (someone mentioned it...)? Check. Bring on Leopard
Since you seem to be wanting to hang onto your G4 Sunflower? like I am, have you seen this G4 iMac CPU upgrade? It would upgrade your 800Mhz to 1.35Ghz. Costs nearly as much as a base Mini without keyboard, etc. though, so YMMV.
I haven't seen this and it's very intruging... but two things.
1) I hate paying for labor! I've upgraded my Superdrive and HDD and RAM myself, and I'm sure I could do this upgrade myself as well. People just tend to be intimidated by the inside of the iMac.
2) I really want a media center that I can use eyeTV with... but that would require USB2... for which I don't beleive there's a solution for me.
The thing I love the most about my iMac is the form factor. I've thought about implanting a used Mac Mini inside and replacing the 15" monitor with a higher-res display... That would be a challengingly-fun project, I think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yikes600
Decisions like these make me glad I opted for the 466MHz PowerMac in 2001 and not an iMac. 1.46GHz processor upgrade? Check. Radeon 9800 for Core Animation? Check. USB 2.0 (someone mentioned it...)? Check. Bring on Leopard
How long do you presume these upgrades will preserve the life of your machine? Does the $$/year price of extending its life really cost much less than the $$/year of a new computer?
The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Microsoft's "core consumers" are slightly less affluent and most computers bought even one year ago aren't compatible with Vista. Even though you might be able to buy a Vista-capable computer for about $500 now, this means the lowest ends of the Microsoft user base have had to shell out $1000 per user in the last year to keep up with the OS changes, whereas in my example the cost, even for the most upgrade-happy user (me) is about $1200 for three years, which of course includes better hardware and more capability than the Windows machines.
Windows users in general don't seem to be very likely to upgrade the OS, it's cost prohibitive and an unnecessary hassle. Instead, they will generally replace the entire system when it fails. I'm actually in that camp too, for Windows. I don't know if I'll buy a Leopard upgrade or not, we'll have to see if it holds up to scrutiny.
The same goes to businesses too, many times they will lag in Windows OS by three years or more, simply because the new OS doesn't offer enough benefit for the hardware, labor, training & disruption expenses, as well as compatibility issues to the myriad software that they need to use. Businesses often skip revisions of Office for this reason too.
Long enough until we're all forced to make the Intel switch, I hope (so far so good).
It's worked out to around $100 a year... so absolutely.
$100/yr seems optimistic. How much are the upgrades you need, and many years of additional use are you really expecting out of the upgrade? The parts you note can easily cost more than $300 combined, and you expect to get more than three more years out of it? The machine is still not going to meet or beat a 4 yr. old G5. Maybe I was very lucky, but I bought an original G5 dual 2.0 for $400 a year ago.
Long enough until we're all forced to make the Intel switch, I hope (so far so good).
It's worked out to around $100 a year... so absolutely.
Plus the cost of Leopard? Plus the cost of iLife?
Remember, this software comes with a new Mac, so after just these two items, retail, a $599 Mac Mini would be about $390 more. Over 4 years, that's less than $100/year. And surprisingly the Mac Mini seems to be much more upgradable than iMacs, so you could probably get more than 4 years out of that as well...
I'm alright with this Mhz limitation. I had an 867Mhz Powerbook G4 but with 2 months left under Applecare it's onboard video shot craps. Apple couldn't scare up a mainboard for me and they replaced it with a new Macbook Pro. I don't think the PBG4 would have run Leopard very well, as Tiger wasn't fantastic on it with 768MB of RAM. I like a really, really zippy OS. I'm really looking forward to seeing what this machine with 2GB of RAM can do with Leopard (even if it's just a Core Duo and not a Core 2 Duo.)
Anyway, when you think about it (and a few others have mentioned this) I have seen BRAND NEW, out of the box PCs that Dell or HP, for some God forsaken reason, sold to our students with 512MB of RAM (and shared video RAM.) It was truly one of the most painful computing experiences of my life, and I have been in the support biz for about 13 years now. So, a 5 year old Mac actually being able to run the OS that is about to come out vs a brand new PC not effectively running the latest Microsoft OS from a few months ago, makes me feel pretty good that Apple has worked the > 800Mhz Macs into the mix.
Comments
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 G4 Dual 800 also... does this mean we can't load Leopard?
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.
-Clive
Well said.
I have the G4 Dual 800 also... does this mean we can't load Leopard?
I suspect the 800MHz threshold is just that. Apple doesn't want to encourage users of older Macs into thinking that Leopard will give them a satisfying experience, so it raises the recommended bar for Leopard.
It's been my experience that unless there is a technical incompatibility between the MacOS and the Mac's processor/hardware, that older Macs should run Leopard, however responsively.
I once ran Tiger on a first generation G3 Bondi iMac with 96MB of memory, and it worked, but it wasn't pretty, and I went back to MacOS 9.2.2.
I'd wait for Leopard's release, borrow a friend's copy, and try it out on your older Mac. If you're satisfied with the experience, buy a copy and move on. If you're not, stick with Tiger, or replace your Mac with a faster machine.
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.
What you say?
Looks like my 1Ghz G4 is going to max out at 10.4, too close to the min spec for 10.5 to perform well, I suspect.
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.
Nice. I be those who dropped a few grand on a G5 just a couple of years ago feel the same as you.
Since you seem to be wanting to hang onto your G4 Sunflower? like I am, have you seen this G4 iMac CPU upgrade? It would upgrade your 800Mhz to 1.35Ghz. Costs nearly as much as a base Mini without keyboard, etc. though, so YMMV.
The Steve is being awful generous to let any G4 users install Leopard on their Macs.
i don't think generous is the word. i have owned my g4 less than two years. apple BETTER have support for it in leopard. even 10.6 actually.
unfortunately, i bought my PB g4 loaded because it was perfect for everything i needed it for at the time. i also figured apple would not be so dumb as to discontinue support after two years. they are not, but it is not being generous at all.
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.
~Josh
Yes it's time to retire that 1999 technology to something like a media server, bare OS with large hard drive on a network. You will be absolutely amazed with the new Intel C2D machines.
i don't think generous is the word. i have owned my g4 less than two years. apple BETTER have support for it in leopard. even 10.6 actually.
unfortunately, i bought my PB g4 loaded because it was perfect for everything i needed it for at the time. i also figured apple would not be so dumb as to discontinue support after two years. they are not, but it is not being generous at all.
Dude, it was a joke. Did you see the laughing emoticons?
LOL...must be a Linux troll rather than a MS troll.
That's exactly what I was thinking. No legacy hardware support from 6 years ago! You're turning into Microsoft! I can run Linux on my 20 year-old washing machine. If only it had speakers...and the processing power to play an MP3.
The funniest line of the rant is:
They're doing the same thing Microsoft did: they're moving out of reach of their core consumers.
Right, because Apple's core consumers can't afford an upgrade after four years? Take my household as an example. We're squarely in the "creative middle class", and probably the definition of Apple's core consumers: affluent, but not wealthy middle aged adults with college and high school aged children. We average one upgrade every two years. The bottom of our chain is currently using a PowerBook G4 500mhz, and will need an upgrade to run Leopard. Can we afford $2000 to buy a new MacBook Pro after 6 years of use on the same computer? Yeah, and most of Apple's "core consumers" can too, if they aren't already on supported systems. Even without comparing to Microsoft, the $2000 investment for 6 years of use on that PowerBook is pretty nice.
The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Microsoft's "core consumers" are slightly less affluent and most computers bought even one year ago aren't compatible with Vista. Even though you might be able to buy a Vista-capable computer for about $500 now, this means the lowest ends of the Microsoft user base have had to shell out $1000 per user in the last year to keep up with the OS changes, whereas in my example the cost, even for the most upgrade-happy user (me) is about $1200 for three years, which of course includes better hardware and more capability than the Windows machines.
Bottom line, my 400mhz iMac G3 DV edition runs 10.3 very well, but I wouldn't upgrade it because it would be too slow. My 800mhz iMac G4 17" isn't going past 10.4, and I'm not expecting the 17" iMac G5 to make it past 10.5. My new MBP may go to 10.7, but only because I bought it a few months before the Leopard release. See the pattern? This phase-out is hardly unprecedented and is probably right in line with the upgrade trends of Apple's core consumers.
To quote a variation on the great Bob Uecker line from the movie Major League: "Juuuust a bit inside!".
.
Since you seem to be wanting to hang onto your G4 Sunflower? like I am, have you seen this G4 iMac CPU upgrade? It would upgrade your 800Mhz to 1.35Ghz. Costs nearly as much as a base Mini without keyboard, etc. though, so YMMV.
I haven't seen this and it's very intruging... but two things.
1) I hate paying for labor! I've upgraded my Superdrive and HDD and RAM myself, and I'm sure I could do this upgrade myself as well. People just tend to be intimidated by the inside of the iMac.
2) I really want a media center that I can use eyeTV with... but that would require USB2... for which I don't beleive there's a solution for me.
The thing I love the most about my iMac is the form factor. I've thought about implanting a used Mac Mini inside and replacing the 15" monitor with a higher-res display... That would be a challengingly-fun project, I think.
Decisions like these make me glad I opted for the 466MHz PowerMac in 2001 and not an iMac. 1.46GHz processor upgrade? Check. Radeon 9800 for Core Animation? Check. USB 2.0 (someone mentioned it...)? Check. Bring on Leopard
How long do you presume these upgrades will preserve the life of your machine? Does the $$/year price of extending its life really cost much less than the $$/year of a new computer?
-Clive
The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Microsoft's "core consumers" are slightly less affluent and most computers bought even one year ago aren't compatible with Vista. Even though you might be able to buy a Vista-capable computer for about $500 now, this means the lowest ends of the Microsoft user base have had to shell out $1000 per user in the last year to keep up with the OS changes, whereas in my example the cost, even for the most upgrade-happy user (me) is about $1200 for three years, which of course includes better hardware and more capability than the Windows machines.
Windows users in general don't seem to be very likely to upgrade the OS, it's cost prohibitive and an unnecessary hassle. Instead, they will generally replace the entire system when it fails. I'm actually in that camp too, for Windows. I don't know if I'll buy a Leopard upgrade or not, we'll have to see if it holds up to scrutiny.
The same goes to businesses too, many times they will lag in Windows OS by three years or more, simply because the new OS doesn't offer enough benefit for the hardware, labor, training & disruption expenses, as well as compatibility issues to the myriad software that they need to use. Businesses often skip revisions of Office for this reason too.
How long do you presume these upgrades will preserve the life of your machine?
Long enough until we're all forced to make the Intel switch, I hope (so far so good).
Does the $$/year price of extending its life really cost much less than the $$/year of a new computer?
It's worked out to around $100 a year... so absolutely.
Long enough until we're all forced to make the Intel switch, I hope (so far so good).
It's worked out to around $100 a year... so absolutely.
$100/yr seems optimistic. How much are the upgrades you need, and many years of additional use are you really expecting out of the upgrade? The parts you note can easily cost more than $300 combined, and you expect to get more than three more years out of it? The machine is still not going to meet or beat a 4 yr. old G5. Maybe I was very lucky, but I bought an original G5 dual 2.0 for $400 a year ago.
Long enough until we're all forced to make the Intel switch, I hope (so far so good).
It's worked out to around $100 a year... so absolutely.
Plus the cost of Leopard? Plus the cost of iLife?
Remember, this software comes with a new Mac, so after just these two items, retail, a $599 Mac Mini would be about $390 more. Over 4 years, that's less than $100/year. And surprisingly the Mac Mini seems to be much more upgradable than iMacs, so you could probably get more than 4 years out of that as well...
Food for thought.
-Clive
Isn't it about time for OS11?
Anyway, when you think about it (and a few others have mentioned this) I have seen BRAND NEW, out of the box PCs that Dell or HP, for some God forsaken reason, sold to our students with 512MB of RAM (and shared video RAM.) It was truly one of the most painful computing experiences of my life, and I have been in the support biz for about 13 years now. So, a 5 year old Mac actually being able to run the OS that is about to come out vs a brand new PC not effectively running the latest Microsoft OS from a few months ago, makes me feel pretty good that Apple has worked the > 800Mhz Macs into the mix.