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
Not an iLife user so that's something that doesn't affect me.
Someone in my situation (2001) who purchased an iMac back then... probably isn't using it today. They would have purchased a G3/400 based CRT iMac... what is the likelihood they'd be using that today? If they planned on running modern software throughout the years (as I've been able to do), it just wouldn't be possible. The Mac Mini you're speaking of to enable them to run Leopard would likely be their third computer purchase. Total it all up and you'll see why upgrading just makes more sense. I agree that the Mac Mini of today with its upgradeable CPU is a huge step in the right direction, but the integrated graphics, lack of expansion slots and hard drive bays still would keep me from buying. I'm hopeful that my Digital Audio G4 can tide me over until Apple switches completely over to Intel (10.6?)... and then I'll be buying a Mac Pro for another good 7-8 years of use.
And to be fair this wasn't the Finder's fault anyway. The network filesystem plug-ins were far to synchronous and would simply block (e.g. pinwheel) whatever application you were using while it tried to re-connect to the server. The filesystem plug-ins, especially AFP's, are much improved.
My Quicksilver 933 has been working fine since 2002. While I'm glad to see it's supported in Leopard [for now], I never intended to upgrade...10.4 was it.
Well, I think G4 support is very important. But I am honestly, happy to draw the line at minimum G4 1.0ghz 512mb RAM.
I bought a 933MHz iBook G4, my first Mac, and now I am wishing I had gotten the 1GHz model. My choices were (a) 933MHz/40GB HDD for $1299 or (b) 1GHz/60GB HDD for $1499, and I decided the extra $200 was better spent on maxing the RAM so I went for option 'a'. I really can't complain because if I had purchased my iBook 3 weeks earlier I would have bought an iBook G3 with Jaguar.
My Dual 800MHz runs v.9.2.1 as well as X (up through Tiger). Makes good use of video capture boards that don't work in G5s, and SCSI boards for my old high-res scanner, and running old copies of programs like PageMaker that some thrifty clients still use. With PCI FW800, eSATA and gigabit ethernet cards, it's a very handy tool in my studio. I keep thinking I should upgrade to a faster processor card, but can't really justify it with any real need.
I'm in the process of moving my wife's Dual 500MHz running Jaguar to a Dual 1.8GHz G5 that I bought when Motion was first announced. Not sure what I'll do with the old Graphite CPU... probably sit it next to my Mac Plus in the basement, or load OS X Server 10.2 on it for dedicated file sharing.
An old 233MHz G3 still hums along running Apache as a test machine. (Getting tough to find those old SCSI boot drives, though.) My 867MHz 12" Al PowerBook G4 sits in the kitchen, hooked up to the counter-top LCD TV for email & web access via Tiger. My primary desktop runs Tiger, a G5 Dual 2GHz. It will go to Leopard when I get it, as will my MBP 2.33GHz.
My "FrankenMac" PowerTower Pro 225 (with a 500MHz G3 DayStar card and a bunch of other junk inside) could run OS X, but I just never felt the need.
When you can buy a 1.66GHz Mac Mini with a 1-year warranty for $429 from Apple today, how can you say a Mac upgrade is not affordable? What's Apple supposed to do... give away a free computer with every $129 copy of Leopard to people that think buying a computer every 6 years is enough to keep a good company in business?
"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."
So some people who bought their systems as recently as four years ago will be SOL, and everything older than six years is verboten.
But it does seem to be a technical requirement (not simply marketing), so I'll give Apple the benefit of the doubt and assume it's not just bloatware.
I remember some people still running Fat Macs ten years after they purchased them But I always recommend that people consider upgrading at least every four years anyway. If nothing else they're being dragged along by the Internet and browser compatibility, and if they upgrade other software they'll run into issues, too (slowness is common). My aunt has a PowerBook G3 (FIrewire), released in 2000, that's still running Classic. The latest available browsers for it fail on a lot of web pages. (It will soon get a face lift, but not to Leopard )
"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."
So some people who bought their systems as recently as four years ago will be SOL, and everything older than six years is verboten.
But it does seem to be a technical requirement (not simply marketing), so I'll give Apple the benefit of the doubt and assume it's not just bloatware.
I remember some people still running Fat Macs ten years after they purchased them But I always recommend that people consider upgrading at least every four years anyway. If nothing else they're being dragged along by the Internet and browser compatibility, and if they upgrade other software they'll run into issues, too (slowness is common). My aunt has a PowerBook G3 (FIrewire), released in 2000, that's still running Classic. The latest available browsers for it fail on a lot of web pages. (It will soon get a face lift, but not to Leopard )
? Andy
You forgot the PowerMac G4 Dual 800Mhz. I wonder if the the speed of the two processors makes a difference?
G4 imac 800MHz here, Tiger is great on my iMac, and - I know some of you will disagree - I don't see what's so great about Leopard's announced features. I skipped Panther, and I'd skip Leopard even if my iMac was included. So what's the current buzz about Cheetah ;-)
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.
That's not what people are complaining about. They just want to be able to run OS 10.5, without needing to replace a perfectly good Mac to do it, and without being subject to Apple's dictating to them what "slow" is.
All of the Quicksilver G4s, from the slowest (733 MHz) to the fastest (dual 1 GHz) have the same "machine ID": PowerMac3,5. And both of the 900 MHz iBook G3s have the same machine ID (Powerbook4,3) as some of the 800 MHz and slower iBooks. So if Apple prevents the OS 10.5 installer from running on the 800 MHz and slower Macs, then it will need to use some other identifying factor than the machine ID. That means it may be relying on the actual MHz speed of the Mac, and/or whether it has one or two procesors, to make this determination. If that's the case, then it might turn out that Macs that have had their processor speed boosted (either with a faster and/or dual processor board, or by moving the processor's speed-controlling surface-mount resistors up a notch), will take an OS 10.5 install. If this turns out to be the case, then there will be a temporary revival of the small market for do-it-yourselfers to increase their Mac's processor speed, to bump it past the 800 MHz mark.
Personally, I find OS 10.4.x to run annoyingly slow on anything below 867 MHz, so I can sort of see why Apple made this decision for 10.5, but when you get down to it, it's really the user's decision to make about what's too slow for them. Apple should let 10.5 install on any Mac that 10.4 can install on, and if a user decides it's too slow, THEN they can decide to buy a faster Mac.
Apple's stated support lifetime for their products is five years. Since some Macs running at 800 MHz were first manufactured less than five years ago this October, it seems Apple will be doing something they don't usually do (when was the last time that happened?? . (that's not a pimple, it's a period)
Comments
10.6? 10.7? Impssible, they ran out of cats! Only one left I can think of is Ocelot...
How about Sabretooth? Lynx? Cougar? Wildcat?
Not all of those are true 'big cats', but I doubt anyone much cares.
Apple can take the 'cat' naming convention all the way to 10.9, if they so choose.
The one that was REALLY funny was naming 10.0 'Cheetah'. It was anything but fast...
.
By the time 10.6 arrives it'll be 7 or 8 years old.
by the time time 10.6 arrives I'LL be older!... .6 is the last thing i wanna see coming around
10.6? 10.7? Impssible, they ran out of cats! Only one left I can think of is Ocelot...
Isn't it about time for OS11?
Here's some "cats" to think about. Still a lot more cat names to carry the Mac OS to XII.
* Genus Felis
o Chinese Mountain Cat (Felis bieti)
o Jungle Cat (Felis chaus)
o Pallas's Cat (Felis manul)
o Sand Cat (Felis margarita)
o Black-footed Cat (Felis nigripes)
o Wild Cat (Felis sylvestris) (including the Domestic Cat)
* Genus Prionailurus
o Leopard Cat (Prionailurus bengalensis)
o Iriomote Cat (Prionailurus iriomotensis)
o Flat-headed Cat (Prionailurus planiceps)
o Rusty-spotted Cat (Prionailurus rubiginosus)
o Fishing Cat (Prionailurus viverrinus)
* Genus Puma
o Cougar (Puma concolor)
o Jaguarundi (Puma yagouaroundi)
* Genus Acinonyx
o Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus)
* Genus Lynx
o Canadian Lynx (Lynx canadensis)
o Eurasian Lynx (Lynx lynx)
o Iberian Lynx (Lynx pardinus)
o Bobcat (Lynx rufus)
* Genus Leopardus
o Pantanal (Leopardus braccatus)
o Colocolo (Leopardus colocolo)
o Geoffroy's Cat (Leopardus geoffroyi)
o Kodkod (Leopardus guigna)
o Andean Mountain Cat (Leopardus jacobitus)
o Pampas Cat (Leopardus pajeros)
o Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis)
o Oncilla (Leopardus tigrinus)
o Margay (Leopardus wiedii)
* Genus Leptailurus
o Serval (Leptailurus serval)
* Genus Caracal
o Caracal (Caracal caracal)
* Genus Profelis
o African Golden Cat (Profelis aurata)
* Genus Catopuma
o Bay Cat (Catopuma badia)
o Asian Golden Cat (Catopuma temminckii)
* Genus Pardofelis
o Marbled Cat (Pardofelis marmorata)
# Subfamily Pantherinae
* Genus Neofelis
o Clouded Leopard (Neofelis nebulosa)
o Bornean Clouded Leopard (Neofelis diardi)
* Genus Panthera
o Lion (Panthera leo)
o Jaguar (Panthera onca)
o Leopard (Panthera pardus)
o Tiger (Panthera tigris)
* Genus Uncia
o Snow Leopard (Uncia uncia)
Most of those names are non-starters from a marketing POV, of course. Can't really see "Mac OS 10.6, Pallas's Cat."
.
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.
++
I don't see my Quad G5 not being capable of running recent OSs anytime soon!
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
Not an iLife user so that's something that doesn't affect me.
Someone in my situation (2001) who purchased an iMac back then... probably isn't using it today. They would have purchased a G3/400 based CRT iMac... what is the likelihood they'd be using that today? If they planned on running modern software throughout the years (as I've been able to do), it just wouldn't be possible. The Mac Mini you're speaking of to enable them to run Leopard would likely be their third computer purchase. Total it all up and you'll see why upgrading just makes more sense. I agree that the Mac Mini of today with its upgradeable CPU is a huge step in the right direction, but the integrated graphics, lack of expansion slots and hard drive bays still would keep me from buying. I'm hopeful that my Digital Audio G4 can tide me over until Apple switches completely over to Intel (10.6?)... and then I'll be buying a Mac Pro for another good 7-8 years of use.
The Steve is being awful generous to let any G4 users install Leopard on their Macs.
Well, I think G4 support is very important. But I am honestly, happy to draw the line at minimum G4 1.0ghz 512mb RAM.
Leopard doesn't choke on network shares.
And to be fair this wasn't the Finder's fault anyway. The network filesystem plug-ins were far to synchronous and would simply block (e.g. pinwheel) whatever application you were using while it tried to re-connect to the server. The filesystem plug-ins, especially AFP's, are much improved.
Well, I think G4 support is very important. But I am honestly, happy to draw the line at minimum G4 1.0ghz 512mb RAM.
I bought a 933MHz iBook G4, my first Mac, and now I am wishing I had gotten the 1GHz model. My choices were (a) 933MHz/40GB HDD for $1299 or (b) 1GHz/60GB HDD for $1499, and I decided the extra $200 was better spent on maxing the RAM so I went for option 'a'. I really can't complain because if I had purchased my iBook 3 weeks earlier I would have bought an iBook G3 with Jaguar.
I'm in the process of moving my wife's Dual 500MHz running Jaguar to a Dual 1.8GHz G5 that I bought when Motion was first announced. Not sure what I'll do with the old Graphite CPU... probably sit it next to my Mac Plus in the basement, or load OS X Server 10.2 on it for dedicated file sharing.
An old 233MHz G3 still hums along running Apache as a test machine. (Getting tough to find those old SCSI boot drives, though.) My 867MHz 12" Al PowerBook G4 sits in the kitchen, hooked up to the counter-top LCD TV for email & web access via Tiger. My primary desktop runs Tiger, a G5 Dual 2GHz. It will go to Leopard when I get it, as will my MBP 2.33GHz.
My "FrankenMac" PowerTower Pro 225 (with a 500MHz G3 DayStar card and a bunch of other junk inside) could run OS X, but I just never felt the need.
When you can buy a 1.66GHz Mac Mini with a 1-year warranty for $429 from Apple today, how can you say a Mac upgrade is not affordable? What's Apple supposed to do... give away a free computer with every $129 copy of Leopard to people that think buying a computer every 6 years is enough to keep a good company in business?
I thought it might be useful to look at the dates on the earliest compatible systems:
Power Mac G4 (Quicksilver)\t867 MHz\t07/18/2001
Xserve\t1 GHz\t05/14/2002
PowerBook G4\t1 GHz/867 MHz\t11/06/2002
iMac (17-inch)\t1 Ghz\t02/04/2003
eMac (ATI Graphics)\t1 Ghz\t05/06/2003
iBook G4\t1 GHz/ 933MHz\t10/22/2003
So some people who bought their systems as recently as four years ago will be SOL, and everything older than six years is verboten.
But it does seem to be a technical requirement (not simply marketing), so I'll give Apple the benefit of the doubt and assume it's not just bloatware.
I remember some people still running Fat Macs ten years after they purchased them
— Andy
"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."
I thought it might be useful to look at the dates on the earliest compatible systems:
Power Mac G4 (Quicksilver)\t867 MHz\t07/18/2001
Xserve\t1 GHz\t05/14/2002
PowerBook G4\t1 GHz/867 MHz\t11/06/2002
iMac (17-inch)\t1 Ghz\t02/04/2003
eMac (ATI Graphics)\t1 Ghz\t05/06/2003
iBook G4\t1 GHz/ 933MHz\t10/22/2003
So some people who bought their systems as recently as four years ago will be SOL, and everything older than six years is verboten.
But it does seem to be a technical requirement (not simply marketing), so I'll give Apple the benefit of the doubt and assume it's not just bloatware.
I remember some people still running Fat Macs ten years after they purchased them
? Andy
You forgot the PowerMac G4 Dual 800Mhz. I wonder if the the speed of the two processors makes a difference?
So some people who bought their systems as recently as four years ago will be SOL, and everything older than six years is verboten.
My 800MHz iBook G4 debuted in late '03, and was still on sale as new for a year after that (I know, 'cuz I bought it new off of Amazon in Q3 2004).
So, yep, you could've bought a NEW system as little as THREE YEARS ago, and still be hosed far as the Leopard update goes. I did.
So I say... boooo Apple on this one.
.
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.
That's not what people are complaining about. They just want to be able to run OS 10.5, without needing to replace a perfectly good Mac to do it, and without being subject to Apple's dictating to them what "slow" is.
Personally, I find OS 10.4.x to run annoyingly slow on anything below 867 MHz, so I can sort of see why Apple made this decision for 10.5, but when you get down to it, it's really the user's decision to make about what's too slow for them. Apple should let 10.5 install on any Mac that 10.4 can install on, and if a user decides it's too slow, THEN they can decide to buy a faster Mac.