Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 24th Sep 2007 20:01 UTC
Just weeks ahead of its public launch, Apple has updated the minimum system requirements for its next-generation Leopard operating system to exclude 800MHz PowerPC-based Macs, AppleInsider has learned. Apple has yet to officially announce the hardware requirements to run Leopard, due out in October, but had long stated in developer documentation that the software would require "an Intel processor or a PowerPC G4 (800MHz or faster) or G5 processor." According to people familiar with the matter, engineers for the company recently determined that Leopard installs on 800MHz PowerPC G4 systems ran "too slow". Support for those systems was subsequently pulled from the most recent pre-release copies of Leopard, which inform testers that the software "cannot be installed" on those computers. My take: Assuming this turns out to be true, there are going to be a lot of unhappy G4 owners - including yours truly.
Thread beginning with comment 274039
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: I hope Apple reconsiders
by biffuz on Mon 24th Sep 2007 23:06
in reply to "RE[2]: I hope Apple reconsiders"
Member since:2006-03-27
RE[4]: I hope Apple reconsiders
by eggs on Tue 25th Sep 2007 19:32
in reply to "RE[3]: I hope Apple reconsiders"
Member since:2006-01-23
RE[3]: I hope Apple reconsiders
by binarycrusader on Tue 25th Sep 2007 01:06
in reply to "RE[2]: I hope Apple reconsiders"
Member since:2005-07-06
Instead of making a completely baseless claim why don't you actually look it up?
Not baseless.
Your comparison isn't valid for a few reasons:
* The OS X desktop looks the same regardless of hardware, it may run slower, but it looks the same. Vista disables many graphical features and scales down the OS on older hardware. Yes I know core animation, etc. might run slower, but the apps work.
* An 800mhz x86 chip != an 800mhz powerpc chip
Perhaps you should actually look it up before calling someone's claims baseless...
Edited 2007-09-25 01:06
RE[4]: I hope Apple reconsiders
by smashIt on Tue 25th Sep 2007 01:14
in reply to "RE[3]: I hope Apple reconsiders"
Member since:2005-07-06
* An 800mhz x86 chip != an 800mhz powerpc chip
and as we all know, thanks to 2000 years of apple hype, 800mhz ppc are at least equal to 2ghz x86
well, i'm still using my 500mhz p3m laptop with xp-prof for office, internet, watching videos/dvds, image-editing and other random stuff i throw at it.
RE[4]: I hope Apple reconsiders
by n4cer on Tue 25th Sep 2007 05:02
in reply to "RE[3]: I hope Apple reconsiders"
Member since:2005-07-06
Not baseless.
Your comparison isn't valid for a few reasons:
* The OS X desktop looks the same regardless of hardware, it may run slower, but it looks the same. Vista disables many graphical features and scales down the OS on older hardware. Yes I know core animation, etc. might run slower, but the apps work.
Your comparison isn't valid for a few reasons:
* The OS X desktop looks the same regardless of hardware, it may run slower, but it looks the same. Vista disables many graphical features and scales down the OS on older hardware. Yes I know core animation, etc. might run slower, but the apps work.
No. He's right. Your claims are baseless. The GPU, not the CPU determines whether Vista disables Glass. Vista will run with Glass on an 800MHz CPU as long as your GPU is Shader Model 2.0 compliant or better.
Perhaps you should actually look it up before calling someone's claims baseless...
You should take your own advice.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-08-29
Instead of making a completely baseless claim why don't you actually look it up?
* 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
* Support for Super VGA graphics
* CD-ROM drive
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/sys...
I'd also point out that people have run Windows XP on machines that are below the minimum requirements (Microsoft doesn't actually lock them out), it just takes a lot of tuning to get acceptable performance.
Does this actually surprise anyone though? Apple has a long history of forced upgrading. For example, the iPod Touch requires Mac OS X 10.4.10 or later. What could it possibly need that wasn't included in 10.3 or 10.2? The answer is nothing... Apple just wants to force people to upgrade.