PDA

View Full Version : Leopard Under The Hood And Requirements Analysis




Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Oct 17, 2007, 03:32 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

With Mac OS 10.5 "Leopard's" formal announcement, many readers have been reading through Leopard's list of over 300 new features (http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/300.html) and their associated technical requirements (http://www.apple.com/macosx/techspecs/). With the list being quite extensive, we will attempt to analyze some of the less talked about points here.

Under The Hood
Leopard has seen many enhancements that many users may not be immediately aware of. AutoFS (http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/300.html#unix) claims to multi-thread the practice of mounting and dismounting network filesystems, which should virtually eliminate the familiar spinning beach ball network users may have become familiar with. Leopard will also include various security enhancements (http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/300.html#security) aimed at tracking applications (including potential malware), including application signing similar to what Microsoft has done in Windows.

System Requirements
Leopard is the first release of the Mac OS to exclude all G3 class machines, and it also will exclude many G4 class machines as well. In order to run Leopard, a user must have a G4 (867Mhz+), any G5, or any Intel processor. Also, while most features of Leopard appear to be universal, some will require more advanced system requirements or an Intel system. Below is a comparison chart comparing Tiger's system requirements (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301341) vs. Leopard's (http://www.apple.com/macosx/techspecs/).

Requirement : Mac OS 10.4 "Tiger" : Mac OS 10.5 "Leopard"
Processor : G3, G4, G5, Intel : G4 (867+), G5, Intel
RAM : 256 MB : 512 MB
Disk Space : 3 GB : 9 GB
Miscellaneous : Built-in Firewire required : Photobooth backdrop effects require Intel Core Duo or faster, Boot Camp requires Intel Mac, Front Row requires built-in IR, DVD Player requires 1.6 GHz processor for improved de-interlacing


If you plan on buying Leopard at a retail store on the night of the 26th, be sure to check our new Leopard Meetup forum (http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=114) to meet other MacRumors members.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/10/17/leopard-under-the-hood-and-requirements-analysis/)



zakatov
Oct 17, 2007, 03:33 PM
yay for faster network drive mounts!

Xenious
Oct 17, 2007, 03:36 PM
So does this mean front row will refuse to run without the IR port or that it will run and just not be as functional as it could be?

sigamy
Oct 17, 2007, 03:36 PM
A 1.6Ghz processor required for DVD Player deinterlacing? Ouch.

chrisdazzo
Oct 17, 2007, 03:37 PM
If only I had a car... I could be there 3 hours early. :(

j26
Oct 17, 2007, 03:38 PM
9 gigs for the OS? Boo!!!!!

pieman02
Oct 17, 2007, 03:38 PM
Well at least my new MBP won't have trouble running it :P

Anyone have any idea how much disk space Leopard requires without all the drivers/other language support etc?

longofest
Oct 17, 2007, 03:38 PM
So does this mean front row will refuse to run without the IR port or that it will run and just not be as functional as it could be?

I believe it to mean you don't get Front Row at all if you don't have a built-in IR port.

pdpfilms
Oct 17, 2007, 03:40 PM
So no Photobooth backdrops for G4s or G5s? I somehow have a hard time believing that my G5 Quad can't handle a backdrop.

gkarris
Oct 17, 2007, 03:40 PM
I asked this before but no one answered. Apple says the 800MHz machines are too slow, so why are the 867's okay? What kind of difference does 67MHz make?

i_am_a_cow
Oct 17, 2007, 03:40 PM
9 gigs!???

Glenny2lappies
Oct 17, 2007, 03:40 PM
What were the 'secret' features Jobs mentioned last year? I've lost track!

markfc
Oct 17, 2007, 03:40 PM
I believe it to mean you don't get Front Row at all if you don't have a built-in IR port.

It will run, you can assign a hot key or use the new frontrow icon...

tennismanclay
Oct 17, 2007, 03:41 PM
So does this mean it will take up 9 gigs of what i have, or will it take up 6 gigs since i wont be using tiger anymore?

Eidorian
Oct 17, 2007, 03:42 PM
yay for faster network drive mounts!Oh so true. NFS has had too many file ghosting issues lately in 10.4.10.

9 gigs for the OS? Boo!!!!!

9 gigs!???Drive space is cheap.

!¡ V ¡!
Oct 17, 2007, 03:44 PM
I believe it to mean you don't get Front Row at all if you don't have a built-in IR port.

It states that FrontRow will "refuse" to run, not that it will "never" run. I am sure a hack and a BlueTooth remote will fix that problem or maybe a WiiMote. :D

1.6GHz for DVD Player, so I am guessing that I can still play DVD except it will not include the advance de-interlacing feature. I am fine with that. :)

Some of these requirements are insane when compared to Tiger. :p

Krevnik
Oct 17, 2007, 03:44 PM
Well at least my new MBP won't have trouble running it :P

Anyone have any idea how much disk space Leopard requires without all the drivers/other language support etc?

3-4GB.

iBunny
Oct 17, 2007, 03:45 PM
9 gigs!???


9 Gigs... Why is this alot?

There are hard drives now that are 1TB large. Why is 9GB such a concern?

081440
Oct 17, 2007, 03:45 PM
So no Photobooth backdrops for G4s or G5s? I somehow have a hard time believing that my G5 Quad can't handle a backdrop.


I completely agree! I don't see how a 32 bit intel can out pace a 64 bit loaded G5 tower!? :eek:

I hope this little chart isn't the whole truth.

mkrishnan
Oct 17, 2007, 03:45 PM
I asked this before but no one answered. Apple says the 800MHz machines are too slow, so why are the 867's okay? What kind of difference does 67MHz make?

It is kind of odd, considering for instance that the 867MHz Powerbook G4 has an inferior (AFAIK) video card to the 800MHz iBook G4. Most likely it makes little or no difference, but they decided to draw a line (there are G4s in Cubes and other Macs well below 800 MHz, so it isn't like they only excluded the 800MHz iBook).

If it makes you feel better, 99%+ chance that something like XPostFacto will let you install Leopard on an 800MHz iBook if you so desire.

It's a tough tradeoff. Have you ever watched how Microsoft handles requirements? When XP came out, it was completely baffling whether or not it would work on a given computer unless you were told explicitly by your OEM that your model was supported. Vista likewise. So at least Apple is keeping it relatively simple.

Peace
Oct 17, 2007, 03:46 PM
It states that FrontRow will "refuse" to run, not that it will "never" run. I am sure a hack and a BlueTooth remote will fix that problem or maybe a WiiMote. :D

1.6GHz for DVD Player, so I am guessing that I can still play DVD except it will not include the advance de-interlacing feature. I am fine with that. :)

Some of these requirements are insane when compared to Tiger. :p

Unless Apple changed things Front Row will run.It's now an app in the applications folder.

Command-Escape

iBunny
Oct 17, 2007, 03:47 PM
I completely agree! I don't see how a 32 bit intel can out pace a 64 bit loaded G5 tower!? :eek:

I hope this little chart isn't the whole truth.

Why do you say this? Do you know anything technical about the processors?

Intel Processors use SSE, SSE2, and SSE3. Advanced instructions for multi-media. How do you know that these backdrops arent coded heavly with SSE? Thus, Making the G4/G5 unable to execute these tasks.

Foxglove9
Oct 17, 2007, 03:47 PM
9 Gb is crazy, all those features use up that much more hard drive space? Yikes. I'd like to know ram usage as well, on average if it will use more or about the same.

Either way, I can't wait to hear early reviews this should be a great upgrade!

Jim Campbell
Oct 17, 2007, 03:48 PM
... Whether the 10.4.10 Airport bug is eliminated in 10.5 ...?

I'm most impressed with many aspects of Leopard, and I can see definite advantages to upgrading my three-Mac network at home ...

Except that I've had to roll back two of the machines to 10.4.9 thanks to the Airport bug, and I'm not shelling out a wedge of cash for a multiple-seat license if it's going to break my wireless network.

Any news, people?

Thanks!

Jim

BornAgainMac
Oct 17, 2007, 03:49 PM
I bet this is the last version to support PPC. Universal apps will eventually disappear and one of the new secret 300 features for 10.6 is that the binaries are smaller and uses less memory.

thejadedmonkey
Oct 17, 2007, 03:49 PM
But why is it 9 gigs? What in the world did they do to the OS?:eek:

Transeau
Oct 17, 2007, 03:49 PM
I completely agree! I don't see how a 32 bit intel can out pace a 64 bit loaded G5 tower!? :eek:

I hope this little chart isn't the whole truth.

Well, to start with the Core Duo, Core 2 Duo and Xeon processors are all 64-Bit. Then you toss in the fact they they are more advanced and has the SSE, SSE2,SSE3 & SSE4 instructions for dealing with A/V processing....

!¡ V ¡!
Oct 17, 2007, 03:49 PM
So no Photobooth backdrops for G4s or G5s? I somehow have a hard time believing that my G5 Quad can't handle a backdrop.

I believe :apple: is covering there arse incase someone with a G5 says the backdrop feature does not run, and then get slapped with a class-action lawsuit. ;)

It might work, you have nothing to lose. :)

I asked this before but no one answered. Apple says the 800MHz machines are too slow, so why are the 867's okay? What kind of difference does 67MHz make?

Apparently 67MHz does make a big difference to :apple:. :D

9 gigs!???

9 gigs sounds more of a deafault/easy install, I am sure once you custom the install it will be around 5-6 gigs. Its mainly all those extra languages. :)

What were the 'secret' features Jobs mentioned last year? I've lost track!

Pick any of the 300+ features that were not mentioned in the Keynote and those my friend are the top secret features. :D

!¡ V ¡!
Oct 17, 2007, 03:51 PM
But why is it 9 gigs? What in the world did they do to the OS?:eek:

Maybe :apple: included a 32 bit PPC/x86 , 64 bit PPC/x86 version along with language localization. :)

Sandfleaz
Oct 17, 2007, 03:52 PM
This gives me the excuse to replace a couple of the older g4's at work!

Transeau
Oct 17, 2007, 03:53 PM
But why is it 9 gigs? What in the world did they do to the OS?:eek:

Well, it supports 4 different processors.

G4 (PPC 32Bit)
G5 (PPC 64Bit)
Intel 32Bit
Intel 64Bit

Though I'm not sure why they need the Intel 32Bit support as all of the Intel CPU's support 64Bit processing. Note from the moderator: This comment generated a number of replies correcting the statement (see below). Please don't post the same correction yet again.

So, that accounts for 2~4 gigs... (at least that was xslimmer comes up with)

Then you add in all the extra languages and the amount of new hardware it supports..

Maybe :apple: included a 32 bit PPC/x86 , 64 bit PPC/x86 version along with language localization. :)

exactly what I just said... just more concise.

Killyp
Oct 17, 2007, 03:54 PM
9 Gigs... Why is this alot?

There are hard drives now that are 1TB large. Why is 9GB such a concern?

Yeh but fast laptop HDDs stop at 200 gb, and if you use a laptop for your main machine like me, then you're already pretty pushed for space...

Telp
Oct 17, 2007, 03:55 PM
Unless Apple changed things Front Row will run.It's now an app in the applications folder.

Command-Escape

Or you can use your iPhone if you have one! I hacked frontrow on my 1G G5 and use my iPhone to control it. :D

!¡ V ¡!
Oct 17, 2007, 03:56 PM
Well, it supports 4 different processors.

G4 (PPC 32Bit)
G5 (PPC 64Bit)
Intel 32Bit
Intel 64Bit

Though I'm not sure why they need the Intel 32Bit support as all of the Intel CPU's support 64Bit processing.

So, that accounts for 2~4 gigs... (at least that was xslimmer comes up with)

Then you add in all the extra languages and the amount of new hardware it supports..

If I stand corrected, I believe the Core Duo were 32 bit processors. I remember people were complaining if it was wise to go with the Core 2 Duo or buy an older Core Duo due to the 32/64 bit situation. :)

joseph2166
Oct 17, 2007, 03:57 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Front Row requires built-in IR


Surely non-IR macs can instead use the keyboard shortcuts for frontrow (apple-escape etc.) - little point without IR of course.

dizastor
Oct 17, 2007, 03:57 PM
9 Gb is crazy...

I'm actually quite pleased. I'd be more upset if there were little or no change in the install size.

I'm not crazy about the application signing. I don't want my Mac to be on lockdown like my iphone.

!¡ V ¡!
Oct 17, 2007, 03:57 PM
Or you can use your iPhone if you have one! I hacked frontrow on my 1G G5 and use my iPhone to control it. :D

People have been using the WiiMotes as well. I am sure 3rd Party BlueTooth remotes will work as well. :)

081440
Oct 17, 2007, 03:58 PM
Why do you say this? Do you know anything technical about the processors?

Intel Processors use SSE, SSE2, and SSE3. Advanced instructions for multi-media. How do you know that these backdrops arent coded heavly with SSE? Thus, Making the G4/G5 unable to execute these tasks.

I'll admit I'm not a code junky, maybe you are. But if it is true that Apple could only have made the whole backdrops work with SSE then I think that they need to go back to the drawing board. This is the company that has long been able to simplify things and make it work, I can't see them making this so dependent on one processors abilities, although I can see the economic reasons for this.

I'm not whining that it won't work, I can for sure use the function on my laptop, but I would think that a fairly new G5 would handle this using some other codes.

!¡ V ¡!
Oct 17, 2007, 03:59 PM
Surely non-IR macs can instead use the keyboard shortcuts for frontrow (apple-escape etc.) - little point without IR of course.

IR was a terrible choice to begin with, it should have come with a BlueTooth remote, that way an IR sensor would not have been required thus cutting cost. :apple: is a mystery at times. :)

morespce54
Oct 17, 2007, 04:01 PM
9 gigs for the OS? Boo!!!!!

yes, that seems pretty huge IMO...

joseph2166
Oct 17, 2007, 04:01 PM
If I stand corrected, I believe the Core Duo were 32 bit processors. I remember people were complaining if it was wise to go with the Core 2 Duo or buy an older Core Duo due to the 32/64 bit situation. :)

I always thought the original intels - plain old duos - weren't 64bit - the idea being that multi-cores were the way of the future. I thought that was why the core2duos were such a 'big' deal when they arrived. Anyway actually know for sure?!

longofest
Oct 17, 2007, 04:01 PM
Well, to start with the Core Duo, Core 2 Duo and Xeon processors are all 64-Bit. Then you toss in the fact they they are more advanced and has the SSE, SSE2,SSE3 & SSE4 instructions for dealing with A/V processing....

Core Duo = 32bit.

!¡ V ¡!
Oct 17, 2007, 04:01 PM
I'll admit I'm not a code junky, maybe you are. But if it is true that Apple could only have made the whole backdrops work with SSE then I think that they need to go back to the drawing board. This is the company that has long been able to simplify things and make it work, I can't see them making this so dependent on one processors abilities, although I can see the economic reasons for this.

I'm not whining that it won't work, I can for sure use the function on my laptop, but I would think that a fairly new G5 would handle this using some other codes.

I believe the major reason is $$$, if you want the feature :apple: is forcing you unintentionally to upgrade your hardware to run it. I personally have a 2GHz G5 and a 2.4GHz SR and could care less for the feature. Its amusing, fun and exciting at first however like PhotoBooth visual effects it gets old pretty fast. :)

BTW
Oct 17, 2007, 04:03 PM
I asked this before but no one answered. Apple says the 800MHz machines are too slow, so why are the 867's okay? What kind of difference does 67MHz make?

They had to draw the line somewhere and I'm sure the 867MHz would be just as bad as the 800MHz.

Blubbert
Oct 17, 2007, 04:04 PM
Well, to start with the Core Duo, Core 2 Duo and Xeon processors are all 64-Bit. Then you toss in the fact they they are more advanced and has the SSE, SSE2,SSE3 & SSE4 instructions for dealing with A/V processing....

Core Duo processors and Core Solo processors are both 32 bit. Only Core 2 and Xeon are 64 bit.

iBunny
Oct 17, 2007, 04:04 PM
I'll admit I'm not a code junky, maybe you are. But if it is true that Apple could only have made the whole backdrops work with SSE then I think that they need to go back to the drawing board. This is the company that has long been able to simplify things and make it work, I can't see them making this so dependent on one processors abilities, although I can see the economic reasons for this.

I'm not whining that it won't work, I can for sure use the function on my laptop, but I would think that a fairly new G5 would handle this using some other codes.

Well Intel makes it alot easier to code new progams with software they offer for developers. Multimedia programs are now heavly coded with SSE etc making it much much simpler to code for. Many of the SSE instructions combine 2 or more instructions into one SSE instruction. Im sure the G5 is "Fast Enough" however it may not process the right code. Many of these new programs are fairly complex. What this sounds like to me is that this "Backdrop" thing is so complicated, once it was coded for with an Intel System, They would have to recode the entire program just to run on the PPC architecture. Im sure it could have been done, but im also sure that it would have taken alot more time.

If apple could, im sure they would drop PPC support all together, and just build Intel only (x86) code from now on. They wouldn't look too good, but it would be easier and save alot of R&D $ to code for both architectures.

Naimfan
Oct 17, 2007, 04:04 PM
If I'm reading the chart correctly, Leopard will run on my PB G4 1.33 GHz, but DVD player won't work? Or is the earlier poster correct when they say that only the advanced interleaving won't work? I'm a bit confused on that one!

0racle
Oct 17, 2007, 04:04 PM
There are hard drives now that are 1TB large. Why is 9GB such a concern?

Because people don't have 1TB drives and 9GB in many cases is 10% or more of their HDD space.

toontra
Oct 17, 2007, 04:05 PM
9 Gigs... Why is this alot?


You've heard of laptops? The basic Macbook has an 80g drive. 9g for the OS, 15% for system swap files (which I always leave empty) and that's only 59g left.

This is bloatware. I sincerely hope that I will have the choice to leave a lot of this stuff out on install.

longofest
Oct 17, 2007, 04:06 PM
Why do you say this? Do you know anything technical about the processors?

Intel Processors use SSE, SSE2, and SSE3. Advanced instructions for multi-media. How do you know that these backdrops arent coded heavly with SSE? Thus, Making the G4/G5 unable to execute these tasks.

Apple has developed the Accelerate Framework (http://developer.apple.com/performance/accelerateframework.html), where one of its specific advantages is that it can run on both Altivec (for PPC) and SSE* (for Intel) without architecture-specific commands.

morespce54
Oct 17, 2007, 04:08 PM
9 Gigs... Why is this alot?

There are hard drives now that are 1TB large. Why is 9GB such a concern?

It's not that space is expensive but geez, we are talking about a system here, not any i-media-pro-sound-video app... :eek:

My iBook (1.33 GHZ) has a HD of 30 GB... take out 9... :confused:

Of course, I got a few external HDs but still... :D

evawkcohs
Oct 17, 2007, 04:11 PM
9 Gb is crazy, all those features use up that much more hard drive space? Yikes. I'd like to know ram usage as well, on average if it will use more or about the same.

Either way, I can't wait to hear early reviews this should be a great upgrade!

This article has a little info on 64bit computing: http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/10/16/64-bit_more_than_just_the_ram/5

It may give a little insight on why full 64bit programs (which I believe all the leopard programs are) would be bigger. Basically, low level processor instructions and data blocks are twice as large. This doesn't necessarily make the programs larger, but it can.

Sorry, but this is the price of progress.

BTW
Oct 17, 2007, 04:11 PM
9 gigs for the OS? Boo!!!!!

Hopefully that's more to do with higher rez wallpaper and icons than bloatware. Did Apple sell out to Google and Yahoo for some Leopard real estate? :eek:

!¡ V ¡!
Oct 17, 2007, 04:12 PM
You've heard of laptops? The basic Macbook has an 80g drive. 9g for the OS, 15% for system swap files (which I always leave empty) and that's only 59g left.

This is bloatware. I sincerely hope that I will have the choice to leave a lot of this stuff out on install.

Language localization is one thing I will be removing, printer drivers (except GIMP), TimeMachine (if the option is given). That should save me plenty of space. I am on the fence with the DevTools. I only use 1.6-2.1 Gigs to install Tiger at present so I am hoping the 10.5 install come in around 6 Gigs. :)

iBunny
Oct 17, 2007, 04:12 PM
Because people don't have 1TB drives and 9GB in many cases is 10% or more of their HDD space.

You have to look at it like this. We are moving forward in computing. You cant stay the same forever. How does 1 expect faster better performance, more features, and all that at a reduced cost of HDD space? You cant perform miracles.

Would you be happy with 16MB of Ram? No? But you had it 10 years ago.... You have to expand is what im trying to say here.

In Retrospect, 9GB may seem alot compared to Tiger. But When you look at it with todays eyes, 9GB is not alot of HDD space whatsoever.

The technical reason has got to be 64 bit code is larger than 32 bit code. And didnt apple say that Leopard will be 64 bit around the board for CPU's that can support it? Im sure thats the reason. XP 64 Bit was larger than XP 32 Bit. Even more so for Vista.

morespce54
Oct 17, 2007, 04:12 PM
Or you can use your iPhone if you have one! I hacked frontrow on my 1G G5 and use my iPhone to control it. :D

You, freaky Geek! ;):D:D

Amdahl
Oct 17, 2007, 04:12 PM
I completely agree! I don't see how a 32 bit intel can out pace a 64 bit loaded G5 tower!? :eek:

I hope this little chart isn't the whole truth.

SSE3. Altivec either can't do the instant-image motion comparisions, or APple can't be bothered.

SSE3, (or SSSE3) have some instructions specifically targeting this type of thing for video encoding. Background detection is a similar problem.

Amdahl
Oct 17, 2007, 04:13 PM
It is kind of odd, considering for instance that the 867MHz Powerbook G4 has an inferior (AFAIK) video card to the 800MHz iBook G4. Most likely it makes little or no difference, but they decided to draw a line (there are G4s in Cubes and other Macs well below 800 MHz, so it isn't like they only excluded the 800MHz iBook).



I think it is more about the cache size and memory bus on those machines.

iBunny
Oct 17, 2007, 04:13 PM
It's not that space is expensive but geez, we are talking about a system here, not any i-media-pro-sound-video app... :eek:

My iBook (1.33 GHZ) has a HD of 30 GB... take out 9... :confused:

Of course, I got a few external HDs but still... :D

Well look at it this way. maybe you should stay on Tiger then. Or get a new computer.

Amdahl
Oct 17, 2007, 04:15 PM
Though I'm not sure why they need the Intel 32Bit support as all of the Intel CPU's support 64Bit processing.


Unfortunately, that isn't the case. Core Duo is 32-bit. I think it was a mistake of Apple to allow x86 in their OS. It should have been AMD64 only from the very beginning. 64-bit mode has twice as many registers as x86, while PowerPC has twice as many as AMD64. Going to 32-bit x86 was a huge shock.

Cameront9
Oct 17, 2007, 04:15 PM
So, if I'm going to upgrade (NOT archive and install and NOT fresh install) a Tiger installation, is it really going to take 9gigs? I'm a little confused.... I've only got about 12 gig free on my laptop drive right now...

Snide
Oct 17, 2007, 04:23 PM
Or you can use your iPhone if you have one! I hacked frontrow on my 1G G5 and use my iPhone to control it. :D

I have a a G5 iMac and an iPhone. Can you tell me how it's done?

Amdahl
Oct 17, 2007, 04:23 PM
You've heard of laptops? The basic Macbook has an 80g drive. 9g for the OS, 15% for system swap files (which I always leave empty) and that's only 59g left.

This is bloatware. I sincerely hope that I will have the choice to leave a lot of this stuff out on install.

You might be able to lipo the OS or something like that. I think it is larger because it can boot and run PPC or x86. I don't know if x86 10.4 did that as well, but it will definitely be new to PPC users.

Amdahl
Oct 17, 2007, 04:24 PM
Apple has developed the Accelerate Framework (http://developer.apple.com/performance/accelerateframework.html), where one of its specific advantages is that it can run on both Altivec (for PPC) and SSE* (for Intel) without architecture-specific commands.

:apple:If you believe in magic...:apple:

Apple can't invent instructions that don't exist.

By which I mean, if SSE3/SSSE3 has an instruction that is not directly matched in Altivec, then Accelerate Framework is basically useless. Oh sure, maybe they could emulate it in software, but if it was that simple, you wouldn't need Altivec or SSE3 in the first place.

0racle
Oct 17, 2007, 04:25 PM
In Retrospect, 9GB may seem alot compared to Tiger. But When you look at it with todays eyes, 9GB is not alot of HDD space whatsoever.

The technical reason has got to be 64 bit code is larger than 32 bit code. And didnt apple say that Leopard will be 64 bit around the board for CPU's that can support it? Im sure thats the reason. XP 64 Bit was larger than XP 32 Bit. Even more so for Vista.
Leopard is 3 times the size of Tiger.

9GB is over 10% of my MacBooks drive, a machine that is 1 year old. I'm not asking for it to fit on the 20MB HDD that was in my SE, but yes, tripling the size of the OS alone bugs me.

Tiger is 64bit on G5's. Installing it on G5's did not produce 3GB install compared to a 1GB on a 32bit Intel. The OS got 3 times larger, that it supports 64bit operations on 2 processors does not come close to explaining it.

FreeState
Oct 17, 2007, 04:25 PM
If I'm reading the chart correctly, Leopard will run on my PB G4 1.33 GHz, but DVD player won't work? Or is the earlier poster correct when they say that only the advanced interleaving won't work? I'm a bit confused on that one!

No the DVD Player will work - just not the advanced de-interlacing.


http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/300.html#dvdplayer
Video Quality Improvements
Enjoy even higher-quality video with Adaptive Video Analyzation technology that applies deinterlacing and inverse 3:2 pulldown on demand.


http://www.apple.com/macosx/techspecs/
DVD Player requires a 1.6GHz processor or faster for improved de-interlacing.

morespce54
Oct 17, 2007, 04:27 PM
Well look at it this way. maybe you should stay on Tiger then. Or get a new computer.

Well, lucky me, I got two more that I can update :D
I guess this will be a chance to see how Leopard and Tiger can work together, on the same network! :rolleyes:

GFLPraxis
Oct 17, 2007, 04:27 PM
Well, it supports 4 different processors.

G4 (PPC 32Bit)
G5 (PPC 64Bit)
Intel 32Bit
Intel 64Bit

Though I'm not sure why they need the Intel 32Bit support as all of the Intel CPU's support 64Bit processing.

So, that accounts for 2~4 gigs... (at least that was xslimmer comes up with)

Then you add in all the extra languages and the amount of new hardware it supports..

The Core Duo doesn't support 64-bit, so my MacBook wouldn't run Intel 64-bit binaries.

Peace
Oct 17, 2007, 04:28 PM
Because people don't have 1TB drives and 9GB in many cases is 10% or more of their HDD space.

Leopard is 3 times the size of Tiger.

9GB is over 10% of my MacBooks drive, a machine that is 1 year old. I'm not asking for it to fit on the 20MB HDD that was in my SE, but yes, tripling the size of the OS alone bugs me.

Tiger is 64bit on G5's. Installing it on G5's did not produce 3GB install compared to a 1GB on a 32bit Intel. The OS got 3 times larger, that it supports 64bit operations on 2 processors does not come close to explaining it.


you can save HD space on your Macbook by not installing things like various localizations and Garage Band sample loops. etc..

That in itself will save 2 gigs.

and Tiger is not 64-bit.

Naimfan
Oct 17, 2007, 04:30 PM
Excellent! Thanks very much! :)

No the DVD Player will work - just not the advanced de-interlacing.


http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/300.html#dvdplayer
Video Quality Improvements
Enjoy even higher-quality video with Adaptive Video Analyzation technology that applies deinterlacing and inverse 3:2 pulldown on demand.


http://www.apple.com/macosx/techspecs/
DVD Player requires a 1.6GHz processor or faster for improved de-interlacing.

MrCrowbar
Oct 17, 2007, 04:30 PM
Well, it supports 4 different processors.

G4 (PPC 32Bit)
G5 (PPC 64Bit)
Intel 32Bit
Intel 64Bit

Though I'm not sure why they need the Intel 32Bit support as all of the Intel CPU's support 64Bit processing.

So, that accounts for 2~4 gigs... (at least that was xslimmer comes up with)

Then you add in all the extra languages and the amount of new hardware it supports..

Errr... my Macbook here is running a 2.0 GHz Core Duo. This thing is 32 bit... It would make sense though to skip the parts of the OS that are PPC when installing on an intel machine and vice versa. Or maybe it isn't to make it cross compatible, i.e. backup your intel machine, destroy your intel machine, restire the system on a PPC machine. Makes sense.

And 9 GB is not that much, Tiger is pretty close to that actually. Either way, did you miss that macrumors story of 1TB laptop drives in a few years? There are already 250GB 5400rpm drives on the market so... yea ;)

geerlingguy
Oct 17, 2007, 04:32 PM
yay for faster network drive mounts!

AutoFS/separate threads is probably the best thing to happen for networking on Macs since the integration of SMB mounting!!!

SiliconAddict
Oct 17, 2007, 04:36 PM
OK I know we can assume around 2GB of disk cache and x for safe sleep, where X is the amount of RAM you have. That would typically leave at least 5GB of used space. What in the name of all that is good and holy is Apple using 5GB of space for? Drivers? Maybe...if they have every driver known to man since the dawn of time. Possibly some of the more potent indexing that is being done with Time Machine and Spotlight. But even then...Gah. That being said I have a 160GB hard drive. So while I can run it without any problems....the amount is still high nonetheless.

AutoFS/separate threads is probably the best thing to happen for networking on Macs since the integration of SMB mounting!!!

Yah this is easily the single biggest thing that interests me in Leopard. The concept of no more BBoD when I wake from sleep and it can't find the share makes me all tingly in the pants. :p OK maybe not but the idea of me not wanting to throw my MBP across the room in frustration is a happy thought. Tiger and I have not gotten along very well. :\

p0intblank
Oct 17, 2007, 04:39 PM
No Photo Booth backdrops for me? No DVD Player? No Front Row? Ouch! :(

I can't believe I will not even be able to use DVD Player. That's a bit much, isn't it? Not a big deal since there are other apps I can use, but still.

With those small complaints aside, I still can't wait for Leopard. :D

Le Big Mac
Oct 17, 2007, 04:41 PM
Surely non-IR macs can instead use the keyboard shortcuts for frontrow (apple-escape etc.) - little point without IR of course.

What about the IR remote and an external isight?

Telp
Oct 17, 2007, 04:43 PM
No Photo Booth backdrops for me? No DVD Player? No Front Row? Ouch! :(

I can't believe I will not even be able to use DVD Player. That's a bit much, isn't it? Not a big deal since there are other apps I can use, but still.

With those small complaints aside, I still can't wait for Leopard. :D

Front row im pretty sure you can use (either with bluetooth, a wireless keyboard, or iphone) or networked keyboard but you just wont be able to do anything if your not at the computer. DVD player you will be able to use, just not with the deinterlacing.

What about the IR remote and an external isight?

whats the external iSight have to do with it?

Le Big Mac
Oct 17, 2007, 04:43 PM
whats the external iSight have to do with it?

Doesn't the internal isight receive the IR remote signals?

joeconvert
Oct 17, 2007, 04:43 PM
IR was a terrible choice to begin with, it should have come with a BlueTooth remote, that way an IR sensor would not have been required thus cutting cost. :apple: is a mystery at times. :)

IR sensor likley costs apple a quarter. The remote would likely cost twice as much if it used Bluetooth, plus the battery drain would likely end up being enormous.

Sedulous
Oct 17, 2007, 04:44 PM
So how about dual 800 G4 towers? Seems to me that is more than "800".

Eidorian
Oct 17, 2007, 04:45 PM
So how about dual 800 G4 towers? Seems to me that is more than "800".My guess is that it looks at clock speed.

Edot
Oct 17, 2007, 04:45 PM
No Photo Booth backdrops for me? No DVD Player? No Front Row? Ouch! :(

I can't believe I will not even be able to use DVD Player. That's a bit much, isn't it? Not a big deal since there are other apps I can use, but still.

With those small complaints aside, I still can't wait for Leopard. :D

Please read the thread about DVD player.

Telp
Oct 17, 2007, 04:47 PM
Doesn't the internal isight receive the IR remote signals?

you said external

Sussman
Oct 17, 2007, 04:49 PM
With all this being said, I don't really care how big it is, I still can't wait! Leopard is going to be sick!!!

Amdahl
Oct 17, 2007, 04:51 PM
I am most interested in seeing whether Leopard makes the 8-core run right.

I said in April that the 8-core was supposed to be released with Leopard, and that the horrible performance it gave was the proof.

Now that it is known that Leopard has a new scheduler, we'll get to see what the 8-core can really do when it isn't running a 25 year old scheduler. (Mach is old stuff, folks.)

0racle
Oct 17, 2007, 04:53 PM
you can save HD space on your Macbook by not installing things like various localizations and Garage Band sample loops. etc..

That in itself will save 2 gigs.1 maybe, Garageband is not included with OS X. Though I know you already knew that.

and Tiger is not 64-bit.
http://developer.apple.com/macosx/64bit.html

There is a reason Leopard was marketed as 64bit on everything and not just 64bit.

Even if none of Tigers binaries were 64bit apps most of an OS is libraries, and since Tiger allowed both 32 and 64bit development there are both 32 and 64bit libraries in that 3GB install.

mcdermd
Oct 17, 2007, 04:56 PM
So how about dual 800 G4 towers? Seems to me that is more than "800".

If it won't install on my Dual 800mhz Quicksilver, I'll be breaking out my conductive pen and doing a bump to 867mhz (http://power-mac-g4.com/g4quicksilverclockup.html)

Stridder44
Oct 17, 2007, 04:59 PM
9 Gigs... Why is this alot?

There are hard drives now that are 1TB large. Why is 9GB such a concern?


The only people that are concerned (at least those are the only people that should be) are users like me with older machines (80GB). But yeah, I'm not gonna complain about it. 9 GB is nothing nowadays. Doesn't Vista take up about the same amount of space?

Manatee
Oct 17, 2007, 05:01 PM
9GB? I'm glad I put that 250GB in my MacBook Pro. On my old 160GB, I only had 11GB free on the OS X side, and about 8GB free on the Vista side.

Mykbibby
Oct 17, 2007, 05:05 PM
Come on Apple! You can't get a PowerPC G5 Quad 2.5ghz with 14GB or memory to add photobooth backdrops, and you can get an Macbook to do it? WTF?!?

sushi
Oct 17, 2007, 05:05 PM
but I would think that a fairly new G5 would handle this using some other codes.
I believe this is more due to the time issue. Anything can be programmed within reason. The issue is the manpower that it takes to accomplish this task.

If apple could, im sure they would drop PPC support all together, and just build Intel only (x86) code from now on.
Yes this would greatly simplify their OS model. But at the same time would alienate many PPC users who still have viable and useful hardware that are not ready to upgrade yet, but also want to run Leopard.

My guess is that the next OS upgrade will publicly be Intel only.

Apple has developed the Accelerate Framework (http://developer.apple.com/performance/accelerateframework.html), where one of its specific advantages is that it can run on both Altivec (for PPC) and SSE* (for Intel) without architecture-specific commands.
I think Accelerate Framework was used as more of a stopgap measure. Eventually, it will be easier for Apple to focus on one platform for future OS upgrades to tweak out the maximum performance from the available hardware.

Doctor Q
Oct 17, 2007, 05:06 PM
Will Mac OS X 10.6 run on any G4 models? Or G5s?

Yeah, I know it's a little soon to ask, but I'm already wondering: For which of the Macs in my collection will Leopard be the last stop?

FJ218700
Oct 17, 2007, 05:09 PM
If it won't install on my Dual 800mhz Quicksilver, I'll be breaking out my conductive pen and doing a bump to 867mhz (http://power-mac-g4.com/g4quicksilverclockup.html)

I'd try via T-mode from a supported machine

any dev's tried this yet?

Peace
Oct 17, 2007, 05:09 PM
Personally I don't think there's going to be a 10.6

11.0

Dagless
Oct 17, 2007, 05:12 PM
So my iMac will sit pretty with Leopard running under the hood whereas my PowerBook will curse the day Microsoft released Vista.

sushi
Oct 17, 2007, 05:18 PM
Will Mac OS X 10.6 run on any G4 models? Or G5s?

Yeah, I know it's a little soon to ask, but I'm already wondering: For which of the Macs in my collection will Leopard be the last stop?
My guess is that it will not.

With ZFS and other features that Apple will want to introduce, I think that it will be easier for them and developers if they focus only on the Intel platform.

Mac OS X Ocelot
Oct 17, 2007, 05:23 PM
Will Mac OS X 10.6 run on any G4 models? Or G5s?

Yeah, I know it's a little soon to ask, but I'm already wondering: For which of the Macs in my collection will Leopard be the last stop?

I would be a little sore if this dinosaur of a machine (iMac G4) doesn't run well with Leopard, but I'll accept no PPC support for the next OS because hopefully I'll have a new one by then. Hopefully.

johncallen
Oct 17, 2007, 05:25 PM
I see Java is listed in the tech req. Anyone know which version is going to be in Leopard?

MacsAttack
Oct 17, 2007, 05:36 PM
9 gigs for the OS? Boo!!!!!

Piffle! I've got two 1TB disks arriving tomorrow to join the 1.5TB I have at the moment. One will become a Time Machine archive, the other becomes the system disk. The existing two 750MB drives will be my Raid 0 scach disk.

Then I've got the 2 1TB FW800 drives I use for external backups...

9 gigs isn't that much...

objc
Oct 17, 2007, 05:36 PM
I bet this is the last version to support PPC. Universal apps will eventually disappear and one of the new secret 300 features for 10.6 is that the binaries are smaller and uses less memory.

Well speaking as a developer, Intel-only binaries would certainly be smaller on disk, but as far as using less memory (if you mean RAM), this is not true. Universal binaries are simply fat binaries. They are an archive containing separate binaries for both architectures.

For example, if I turn on both Intel and PowerPC builds in my code, it does twice the compiling and then archives both sets of object code (executable and library) into one fat binary. This is why when I'm doing incremental compiling (building and testing as I code), I'll usually just build for one architecture, because the build completes faster.

When you launch a fat binary, the operating system's loader simply picks the correct one for the machine's instruction set and the other code is ignored.

mjonson
Oct 17, 2007, 05:37 PM
any word on how it will affect battery life, postively, negatively.... on a G4 powerbook

liberty4all
Oct 17, 2007, 05:37 PM
So I have a Dual 450 MHz G4, so would that = 900 MHz i.e. > 867 MHz G4 -- would 10.5 therefore install?

What happens, does 10.5 fail to install on lower CPU Macs?

ppc_michael
Oct 17, 2007, 05:43 PM
I remember when you could fit an entire OS on a floppy. But then again, it couldn't deinterlace my DVDs, so I guess there's a trade-off.
:p

mjonson
Oct 17, 2007, 05:44 PM
looks like canadian prices for 10.5 are the same as the American ones for the OS. nice to see, i wonder when/if hardware prices will follow.

liberty4all
Oct 17, 2007, 05:46 PM
Hmm, if so, I smell the revival of Xpostfacto!!! ;-)

See:
http://eshop.macsales.com/OSXCenter/XPostFacto/Framework.cfm?page=XPostFacto3.html

and:
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/11168

My guess is that it looks at clock speed.

CWallace
Oct 17, 2007, 05:48 PM
9 gigs for the OS? Boo!!!!!

I would hope this is the "default" install size and once you have at it with something like OMNI DiskSweeper, you can prune a few GBs off.


I asked this before but no one answered. Apple says the 800MHz machines are too slow, so why are the 867's okay? What kind of difference does 67MHz make?

I admit to not being up on my PowerPC processors like I used to, but did the 867MHz models have a faster FSB or memory ratio? That might explain why Leopard works on the 867MHz and not the 800Mhz. I agree that just 67MHz of raw clock speed shouldn't be a deal-breaker...

elppa
Oct 17, 2007, 05:58 PM
If it won't install on my Dual 800mhz Quicksilver, I'll be breaking out my conductive pen and doing a bump to 867mhz (http://power-mac-g4.com/g4quicksilverclockup.html)

Please check before you start messing with the pen.

If the installer looks at the model identifier or something other than clock-speed to determine whether it can install, then it will be a fruitless exercise and you'd be better off with a software solution like XPostFacto.

Luap
Oct 17, 2007, 05:58 PM
I remember when you could fit an entire OS on a floppy. But then again, it couldn't deinterlace my DVDs, so I guess there's a trade-off.
:p

Good point..

I remember the days when the word "deinterlace" didn't even exist. And now in 2007 where it does exist. I dont even know what it means :D :eek:

Project
Oct 17, 2007, 06:01 PM
Personally I don't think there's going to be a 10.6

11.0

I don't. I think the 10.x designation will be mostly phased out. OSX is the brand now.

ChrisA
Oct 17, 2007, 06:06 PM
Why do you say this? Do you know anything technical about the processors?

Intel Processors use SSE, SSE2, and SSE3. Advanced instructions for multi-media. How do you know that these backdrops arent coded heavly with SSE? Thus, Making the G4/G5 unable to execute these tasks.

This was exactly what I was thinking. They needed to hand code the background stuff using SSE. They could have supported the G5 with it's atlavec (sp?) but Apple perhaps just did not want to spend the money to pay for this. Or the feature could depend on a cleaver trick that works for SSE but has no equivalent on the G5. If you think about what is being done. It's a lot of work. They are comparing two images and generating a mask where they differ then using the mask to composite the live feed and background. and this has to happen once per frame at 30fps even with mini DV firewire camera running 480i. It works out to tens of millions of pixels per second. Likely the G5 is not up to the task.

Foxglove9
Oct 17, 2007, 06:13 PM
9 gigs isn't that much...

No it's not much at all. But for an OS that was only about 3 gigs before it's a big jump in file size. And as someone posted before, if you bought your macbook last year you have a 60-80 gb hard drive. That really makes things extremely tight. Nevermind if you have a laptop older than 1 year old, time to upgrade.

When I installed Tiger on my old G4 it took about an hour. I can only imagine how long it would take to install Leopard. Eep!

dethl
Oct 17, 2007, 06:20 PM
Photobooth backdrop effects require Intel Core Duo or faster

Ouch. Any reason why this is an Intel-only feature?

ChrisA
Oct 17, 2007, 06:20 PM
I don't. I think the 10.x designation will be mostly phased out. OSX is the brand now.

I think the "X" will continue to be used as the name of the OS that is based on BSD UNIX with the stuff from Next added. When/if they move to a completely different architecture we will see "OS XI".

I don't expect to see a change like that for at least a decade. After all
the current system has roots going back to the late 60's.

mcdermd
Oct 17, 2007, 06:22 PM
Please check before you start messing with the pen.

If the installer looks at the model identifier or something other than clock-speed to determine whether it can install, then it will be a fruitless exercise and you'd be better off with a software solution like XPostFacto.

The pen comes off with alcohol and then you're back to square one. I'd think target disk mode would work for install, but not too sure the installed OS would boot off of the old G4 hardware afterward. I would probably get the circle/slash.

mdriftmeyer
Oct 17, 2007, 06:33 PM
So I have a Dual 450 MHz G4, so would that = 900 MHz i.e. > 867 MHz G4 -- would 10.5 therefore install?

What happens, does 10.5 fail to install on lower CPU Macs?

Nice sense of humor. If not, don't quit your day job.

mkrishnan
Oct 17, 2007, 06:33 PM
I don't expect to see a change like that for at least a decade. After all the current system has roots going back to the late 60's.

I think reinventing the wheel is going to get less and less appetizing over time. Since we've reached the point where the Unix paradigm can scale all the way from even basic embedded devices to supercomputers, although I think we'll still see periodic Symbian's and so on, I think the day of whole new paradigms in operating systems is basically over, at least until there's a big paradigm change in how computers work at a basic mechanistic level (i.e. at some point, if wholly new OS ideas are necessary for quantum or organic computing). Modulo, perhaps, whatever becomes of the few outliers out there -- that teetering house of cards, Windows, and the other holdouts that are not Unix-like architectures such as Symbian, PalmOS, etc.

twoodcc
Oct 17, 2007, 06:40 PM
yay for faster network drive mounts!

agreed :)

but 1.6 ghz for watching dvds?

mkrishnan
Oct 17, 2007, 06:42 PM
but 1.6 ghz for watching dvds?

There's another thread that goes into much more detail about this... DVDs play like they do now on pretty much any computer they'll play on now. There's an advanced de-interlacing / upscaling engine (for better video quality) that you can only use if you have the >1.6GHz processor.

Eidorian
Oct 17, 2007, 07:03 PM
Hmm, if so, I smell the revival of Xpostfacto!!! ;-)

See:
http://eshop.macsales.com/OSXCenter/XPostFacto/Framework.cfm?page=XPostFacto3.html

and:
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/11168Imaging/cloning might be a work around as well.

nakile
Oct 17, 2007, 07:10 PM
9GB of HDD space isn't too much, at least for all the stuff the OS can do. I find if kind of... small.

Compare it to Vista Home Premium. It needs 15GB of space and doesn't do half the stuff Leopard does. I really don't know how Microsoft can use up all that space.

FJ218700
Oct 17, 2007, 07:10 PM
So I have a Dual 450 MHz G4, so would that = 900 MHz i.e. > 867 MHz G4 -- would 10.5 therefore install?

What happens, does 10.5 fail to install on lower CPU Macs?

I'm soooo glad I went with the dual 867 MDD a few years back. Waited so long. So worth it now.

Eidorian
Oct 17, 2007, 07:13 PM
I'm soooo glad I went with the dual 867 MDD a few years back. Waited so long. So worth it now.The Mirrored Drive Door was the greatest Power Mac in my opinion. ;)

Transeau
Oct 17, 2007, 07:17 PM
No Photo Booth backdrops for me? No DVD Player? No Front Row? Ouch! :(

I can't believe I will not even be able to use DVD Player. That's a bit much, isn't it? Not a big deal since there are other apps I can use, but still.

With those small complaints aside, I still can't wait for Leopard. :D

read closely.
You will not be able to do progressive output. You can still watch a dvd, just not deinterlace.

FJ218700
Oct 17, 2007, 07:22 PM
The Mirrored Drive Door was the greatest Power Mac in my opinion. ;)

I'm a believer. It's my main computer at work. Has been running not stop for a few years now. With 2 GB or RAM and an upgraded video card, this thing is begging for Leopard.

Eidorian
Oct 17, 2007, 07:24 PM
I'm a believer. It's my main computer at work. Has been running not stop for a few years now. With 2 GB or RAM and an upgraded video card, this thing is begging for Leopard.What video card do you have?

I might bug you about the performance on a G4 when it ships.

madmax_2069
Oct 17, 2007, 07:32 PM
I asked this before but no one answered. Apple says the 800MHz machines are too slow, so why are the 867's okay? What kind of difference does 67MHz make?


I was wondering that myself, but i originally i thought it was to x out a complete system model at first ( since they list the QS as vintage), but i looked again at everymac just to learn there is a Quicksilver model with a 867mhz cpu in it, so that blew that theory out of the water in some way's. so there is only half support still for the QS G4 model. and what about the QS MP 800 system. one would think that the 867mhz QS would be slower then the MP 800mhz QS. but if the system requirements are 867mhz then it would x out the QS MP 800 system wouldn't it.

That would make the QS models a bit easier to get Leopard to install then others, since the machine ID check might see the QS 867mhz model as ok , then if thats the case the QS model's have the go ahead by the machine ID check, so the only thing that is holding the QS 800mhz and slower models is the virtual cpu speed limit in the installer. so all you would need to do is bump up the cpu past the 867mhz mark, or wait for a work around.


i think apple should have allowed any system (with AGP) that can meet or go above the 867mhz requirement (VIA cpu upgrade) to enable it to install leopard, and not lock out the systems by machine ID. i don't like the fact that apple does this, and never have and never will

UltraNurd
Oct 17, 2007, 07:37 PM
So, does this mean it definitely won't work on my PBG4/400, or is simply not supported and might be a pain to use?

Le Big Mac
Oct 17, 2007, 07:40 PM
you said external

Why is this hard to understand? If I have an external isight instead of an internal isight, could it not just as well as the internal receive IR signals from an apple remote to control Front Row? I'm not saying it will, I'm asking if it will, because it's not as if the internal isight is a totally different concept than the external.

Eidorian
Oct 17, 2007, 07:40 PM
I was wondering that myself, but i originally i thought it was to x out a complete system model at first ( since they list the QS as vintage), but i looked again at everymac just to learn there is a Quicksilver model with a 867mhz cpu in it, so that blew that theory out of the water in some way's. so there is only half support still for the QS G4 model. and what about the QS MP 800 system. one would think that the 867mhz QS would be slower then the MP 800mhz QS. but if the system requirements are 867mhz then it would x out the QS MP 800 system wouldn't it.


i think apple should have allowed any system (with AGP) that can meet or go above the 867mhz requirement (VIA cpu upgrade) ti enable it to install leopard, and not lock out the systems by machine ID.The 800 MHz minimum requirement didn't drop as many machines as the 867 MHz does now.

A lot of revised machines started off at the low end at 800 MHz. The Quicksilver and iBook are shining examples. I guess I really wanted to push new hardware sales. :rolleyes:

So, does this mean it definitely won't work on my PBG4/400, or is simply not supported and might be a pain to use?You might be able to get past the installer check by imaging or cloning Leopard onto it.

Your mileage my vary on actually being able to use it though.

JackAxe
Oct 17, 2007, 07:55 PM
What's the difference between this Leopard deinterlacing and what GPUs have been doing for years?

SSE 1 and 2 are not up to Alitivec spec by any means -- It's odd that they were even mentioned -- and from what I understand SSE3 still has its weaknesses in comparison to AV. From my experience, AMD's SIMD was better at 3D, AV for video, SSE* was only better when Intel worked with a software company to artificially enhance benchmarks. SSE4 should be better than AV on all fronts, but it's taken them this many years to catch up.

I can buy the point that Apple focused its efforts on SSE* for certain Leopard features and that's why they didn't support them on a G5, but stating things like the G5 is not up to the task is FUD. A 64-bit proc like a G5 can handle "way" more pixels than any 32-bit Intel proc.

<]=)

madmax_2069
Oct 17, 2007, 08:09 PM
they are trying to push people off of PPC hardware and onto intel hardware. no matter if you got the quad G5 or not. they don't seem to care that you put allot of money into that system. they want to force you to buy every new model that comes about. if you ask me a dual G4 (upgraded cpu) could and should be enough to handle those effects just fine. there could be a work around for that as well

suneohair
Oct 17, 2007, 08:11 PM
So I have a Dual 450 MHz G4, so would that = 900 MHz i.e. > 867 MHz G4 -- would 10.5 therefore install?

What happens, does 10.5 fail to install on lower CPU Macs?

To give you a real answer. Yes the install will fail. I have good news for you though. There is a work around you can do. If you want details PM me.

Many people have hit on why 867Mhz, which is they have to draw the line somewhere. But let me show the logic for those who don't get it.

Apple Customer: You say it needs to be 867Mhz? That is only 67Mhz more than my 800. Surely it should work on my 800Mhz.
Apple: Fine, 800Mhz.
Apple Customer 2: I hear you told 800Mhz he could run Leopard, that is only 67Mhz more than my 733Mhz. Surely it should work on my 733Mhz.
Apple: Fine, 733Mhz.
Apple Customer 3:..... you get the point, I hope.

This would go on until we hit 1, hell someone could argue 0 but lets not go there. The line has to be drawn and Apple did it. Would it work fine on your 800Mhz, probably, then again maybe it will work on 733, or 677 etc. So lets not beat a dead horse, the line has been drawn.

uaaerospace
Oct 17, 2007, 08:17 PM
Why is this hard to understand? If I have an external isight instead of an internal isight, could it not just as well as the internal receive IR signals from an apple remote to control Front Row? I'm not saying it will, I'm asking if it will, because it's not as if the internal isight is a totally different concept than the external.

The IR remote has nothing to do with the iSight (internal or external). The IR receiver is completely separate from the iSight.....two different devices.

saxman
Oct 17, 2007, 08:31 PM
Better mounting/dismounting network volumes will be nice. It seems to have gotten worse with 10.4.10.

It's also interesting that Apple has been so forthcoming with details. Looks like they've come to play

SiliconAddict
Oct 17, 2007, 08:40 PM
So I have a Dual 450 MHz G4, so would that = 900 MHz i.e. > 867 MHz G4 -- would 10.5 therefore install?

What happens, does 10.5 fail to install on lower CPU Macs?

Dual CPU's don't work that way. So no.

lamerlizer
Oct 17, 2007, 08:50 PM
9 gigs for the OS? Boo!!!!!



with the hard drive capacity constantly increasing, i feel that its alright to have an OS with a 9GB space. the new technology in leopard compensates it anyway.

akac
Oct 17, 2007, 08:50 PM
What's the difference between this Leopard deinterlacing and what GPUs have been doing for years?

SSE 1 and 2 are not up to Alitivec spec by any means -- It's odd that they were even mentioned -- and from what I understand SSE3 still has its weaknesses in comparison to AV. From my experience, AMD's SIMD was better at 3D, AV for video, SSE* was only better when Intel worked with a software company to artificially enhance benchmarks. SSE4 should be better than AV on all fronts, but it's taken them this many years to catch up.

I can buy the point that Apple focused its efforts on SSE* for certain Leopard features and that's why they didn't support them on a G5, but stating things like the G5 is not up to the task is FUD. A 64-bit proc like a G5 can handle "way" more pixels than any 32-bit Intel proc.

<]=)

Actually you're wrong. 64-bit vs 32-bit means nothing here. How is 64-bit going to help you with a pixel processing? In no way at all is the answer. None of the pixel processing uses 64-bit integers or requires more than 4GB of RAM. That's what 64-bit helps with. Let me give you an interesting comparison. My 2.0 Ghz 32-bit Core Duo is faster than my dual processor 2Ghz G5 at many things. Not everything, but many many many things. Its quite noticeable. Especially for video processing (like Final Cut Pro)

And while Altivec was very powerful, and more powerful than SSE1-3 mostly, SSE *did* include some instructions that AltiVec did not have that are helpful for video in this very specific case. So in this very specific case the SSE might be better.

stephenli
Oct 17, 2007, 09:18 PM
So no Photobooth backdrops for G4s or G5s? I somehow have a hard time believing that my G5 Quad can't handle a backdrop.


same here..
"Photobooth backdrop effects require Intel Core Duo or faster"...
does it mean that Intel Core Duo faster than my Quad G5....

grayskies
Oct 17, 2007, 09:37 PM
-I have a QS sans DVD drive (tried to save some money when I configured, you know)

I have current Macs, but it was my baby for so long that I can't take it out of use. Is there going to be a disc swap for CDs?

If not that really sucks. :mad:

Thertel88
Oct 17, 2007, 09:55 PM
I have 2 questions

What time should I get to the apple store in the Palisades Mall to get a decent spot on line?

What type of things do they do to hype up the event at the store? Contests?

tortoise
Oct 17, 2007, 10:08 PM
SSE 1 and 2 are not up to Alitivec spec by any means -- It's odd that they were even mentioned -- and from what I understand SSE3 still has its weaknesses in comparison to AV.

That very much depends on the generation of chip it is implemented on and the specific application. AV's killer feature is the multiply-add instruction, which made it much faster than SSE2 for DSP-like operations. On the other hand, for a lot of non-DSP code the SSE2 is actually superior; there are some high-performance codes that will run on SSE2 but for which AV lacks necessary capabilities.

Altivec was very good at some things, but it was not universally better than SSE*. It depends on the application and a bunch of other factors.


A 64-bit proc like a G5 can handle "way" more pixels than any 32-bit Intel proc.

Non sequitur (or just plain wrong -- your choice). And in any case, the Achille's Heel of the G5 is its obscenely slow memory architecture. For most STREAM-bound high-performance codes, which is a major percentage of them, an x86 CPU contemporaneous to the G5 would spank the G5 in most cases. The G5 is only fast for DSP-like high-performance codes, but the memory architecture is too slow otherwise; 32-bit Intel processors contemporaneous to the G5 soundly beat it for most supercomputing applications.


I don't know if this is relevant to the case here, and this particular application does not strike me as the kind of thing a G5 could not run, but we benchmarked G5s for a lot high-performance codes back when they were new, and the performance was frequently mediocre compared to the 32-bit Intel chips unless the particular app could use the aforementioned Altivec multiply-add. We actually wrote the supercomputing code on a bunch of G5s, but the heavy lifting was done on Intel because it was faster most days.

BigJohno
Oct 17, 2007, 10:10 PM
Everyone who has computers that are just at the edge of working or not working needs to get new computers. Why do you still have those old machines??????? Whats the point. their so slow compared to the new intels...

TPALTony
Oct 17, 2007, 10:16 PM
No it's not much at all. But for an OS that was only about 3 gigs before it's a big jump in file size. And as someone posted before, if you bought your macbook last year you have a 60-80 gb hard drive. That really makes things extremely tight. Nevermind if you have a laptop older than 1 year old, time to upgrade.

When I installed Tiger on my old G4 it took about an hour. I can only imagine how long it would take to install Leopard. Eep!

I think the explanation is quite simple.

Tiger existed in two flavors. An Intel version and a PPC version. You have never been able to BUY Intel Tiger. Every Intel Mac in existence runs Tiger. The boxes on the shelves in the stores, are PPC Tiger.

So, the Intel discs install Intel binaries. The PPC discs install PPC binaries.

And with Leopard, we all get "Universal Binaries" in other words BOTH copies of the bytecode. The loader determines which set to load based on the processor architecture. So in essence, you get most everything twice, once for an architecture you don't use. Why? Because this is much simpler for Apple to manage. Build a loader that can tell the difference, provide both and let the loader figure it out.

It works. We've all be using it for ages, since we first installed a universal binary. It's just that everything is universal now.

Universal binaries aren't new. NeXT had them. In fact by the time they were finished I think there were 4 binaries in every UB. Thus the comical name "Humongous Binaries."

This is clearly a bummer for those with a small hard disk to contend with, but we already knew this was coming. To quote Steve "There isn't a 64bit and a 32bit version. There's just one version."

be well

t

psychofreak
Oct 17, 2007, 10:19 PM
Everyone who has computers that are just at the edge of working or not working needs to get new computers. Why do you still have those old machines??????? Whats the point. their so slow compared to the new intels...

And money grows on trees...

LMO
Oct 17, 2007, 10:27 PM
Compare it to Vista Home Premium. It needs 15GB of space and doesn't do half the stuff Leopard does. I really don't know how Microsoft can use up all that space.
Vista requiress 15GB during install because it unpacks everything to the hard drive and installs from there. The actual installed footprint is much smaller; the Vista Ultimate install I have under Boot Camp takes something over 6GB.

eXan
Oct 17, 2007, 10:28 PM
Everyone who has computers that are just at the edge of working or not working needs to get new computers. Why do you still have those old machines??????? Whats the point. their so slow compared to the new intels...

Really! Why do people still use those ancient Macs like 700-800 MHz G4s or even 450 Mhz ?

On my experience when I went from a 700 Mhz G4 eMac to my current 2 Ghz G5 iMac, the boost in CPU speed ranged from 3x to 15x (15x was at encoding video to H.264 O_O) and recently when I got my current Core2Duo 2ghz MacBook, CPU processing has sped up from iMac 3-5 times (ripping DVD to H.264 for example). And all that is just CPu speed.

New Macs are ULTRA fast, even compared to such seemingly new Macs as a 2.5 year old iMac G5 I have atm.

What are using those old Macs for? Playing music in iTunes? Surfing net? Cant think of another use... even disk storage was slow.

AppleMatt389
Oct 17, 2007, 10:49 PM
Really! Why do people still use those ancient Macs like 700-800 MHz G4s or even 450 Mhz ?

On my experience when I went from a 700 Mhz G4 eMac to my current 2 Ghz G5 iMac, the boost in CPU speed ranged from 3x to 15x (15x was at encoding video to H.264 O_O) and recently when I got my current Core2Duo 2ghz MacBook, CPU processing has sped up from iMac 3-5 times (ripping DVD to H.264 for example). And all that is just CPu speed.

New Macs are ULTRA fast, even compared to such seemingly new Macs as a 2.5 year old iMac G5 I have atm.

What are using those old Macs for? Playing music in iTunes? Surfing net? Cant think of another use... even disk storage was slow.

As someone else said, money grows on trees doesn't it. My PowerBook 400 mhz does everything I want it to. So it takes one extra second to open Safari..OMG!>!@>!@!!!@!11!!11111

We can't all afford top of the range brand new macs, some of us are students who's parents don't buy us everything we want.

:apple:Matt

BigJohno
Oct 17, 2007, 10:52 PM
As someone else said, money grows on trees doesn't it. My PowerBook 400 mhz does everything I want it to. So it takes one extra second to open Safari..OMG!>!@>!@!!!@!11!!11111

We can't all afford top of the range brand new macs, some of us are students who's parents don't buy us everything we want.

:apple:Matt

I worked and sold my powerbook G4 to get my MBP. There are ways to get new computers. Trust me if you spend time on a new machine you start to ask yourself why I waited so long. mmmm I love my MBP and Im gona love leopard. mmmmmm and safari sucks.

iPhil
Oct 17, 2007, 11:02 PM
Everyone who has computers that are just at the edge of working or not working needs to get new computers. Why do you still have those old machines??????? Whats the point. their so slow compared to the new intels...




I'm typing on a 7 yr old system.. why exactly, well i'll tell ya because this 7 yr old system is still fast for my needs for the cash.. :p



I use an intel CD mini for my elgato tv device and i use a vga switch to swap between them ..



Some people think i'm crazy of my setup but it works for me .. :cool:




edit: bought the 7yr system @ dual 450 mhz base unit ..

yes i dropped couple hundred into it but its dual 1.0 Ghz/1.5GB ram/700GB (2 drives-SATA)

FJ218700
Oct 17, 2007, 11:03 PM
^^^^ personally I like the challenge and pride of keeping old machines running for as long as possible. I picked up a Sawtooth 6 yrs back for free from a University surplus warehouse (with 2 GB of RAM) and for less than $300 US in upgrades since then, my 500 MHz (original, now dual 1.3 GHz) Sawtooth is still sufficient to run Leopard and all the applications I need.

Kwill
Oct 17, 2007, 11:07 PM
A 1.6Ghz processor required for DVD Player deinterlacing? Ouch.

This requirement appears to be somewhat arbitrary. Is 1.6GHz the same for G4, G5, Intel Duo and Xeon? Of course not. Does two 1.25GHz processors trump a single 1.6GHz? Does a video card with 256MB VRAM improve performance over one with 32MB? :confused:

SthrnCmfrtr
Oct 17, 2007, 11:13 PM
Really! Why do people still use those ancient Macs like 700-800 MHz G4s or even 450 Mhz ?

What are using those old Macs for? Playing music in iTunes? Surfing net? Cant think of another use... even disk storage was slow.

Playing music, surfing the net, checking email, IM, PIM functions? You mean, like, the stuff for which the vast majority of non-pro users actually use their computers?

For most purposes, there's not much real justification to buying a new, more expensive computer if the older one still works fine. The only reason I have three CD/C2D machines is that I do a massive amount of video/music file transcoding.

AppleMatt389
Oct 17, 2007, 11:17 PM
I worked and sold my powerbook G4 to get my MBP. There are ways to get new computers. Trust me if you spend time on a new machine you start to ask yourself why I waited so long. mmmm I love my MBP and Im gona love leopard. mmmmmm and safari sucks.

Yeah I work too. I've worked this whole year and saved up more than enough for a new MacBook. But I'd much rather spend it on travelling than on a new machine. This old machine still works fine for my needs and I get to travel. If I bought the MacBook, no travel for me.

I'm glad you think safari sucks, I quite like how it doesn't take 10 minutes to load one website.

:apple:Matt

Snowy_River
Oct 17, 2007, 11:30 PM
The IR remote has nothing to do with the iSight (internal or external). The IR receiver is completely separate from the iSight.....two different devices.

Hmm. I guess I'd ask the question, why? Why do I need to have an IR port to be able to run Front Row? In point of fact, I don't. I have had Front Row installed on my PB G4 for a long time. I love it. Do I need a remote? No. What's so great about it? Well, it makes it easy to watch video files, and if I have to stop part way through, it remembers where I left off. So, this requirement annoys me. I'll look forward to the point at which someone figures out how to install the new Front Row on non-IR port Macs like mine.

-I have a QS sans DVD drive (tried to save some money when I configured, you know)

I have current Macs, but it was my baby for so long that I can't take it out of use. Is there going to be a disc swap for CDs?

If not that really sucks. :mad:

Or you could spring for a DVD ROM drive. You know, they cost a bank-breaking $18, or less. (A CD disc swap would probably cost you $20 anyway, and you'd get a lot less out of it...)

guerro
Oct 18, 2007, 12:37 AM
Okay, so why is Leopard 116 bucks at the Apple online store for education but its only 109 for everyone over at Amazon ??????????????????????????:confused:

BrokenChairs
Oct 18, 2007, 02:25 AM
"We can't all afford top of the range brand new macs, some of us are students who's parents don't buy us everything we want.

Matt"

Rock on Matt...I hear ya. Go the students! And thanks to all those people who ruined the Education prices :p shame on you hehe

Manic Mouse
Oct 18, 2007, 02:29 AM
Students at University can access the Higher Education store and get Leopard at the same old cheap price. I did that and I have no idea why everyone else is whining. Leopard was £60 for me, the same edu discount as Tiger.

koobcamuk
Oct 18, 2007, 02:30 AM
Okay, so why is Leopard 116 bucks at the Apple online store for education but its only 109 for everyone over at Amazon ??????????????????????????:confused:

Buy it on Amazon then. :rolleyes:

esaleris
Oct 18, 2007, 02:43 AM
I have a PowerMac G4 533Mhz (Digital Audio). I would like to use it as the server for Time Machine - and therefore, must be operated with Leopard (according to Apple site).

Will Leopard allow me to install on a slower machine - I am only using it as a Personal File server. If not, if I upgrade my G4 with a Sonnet or 3rd party CPU upgrade, to something above 867Mhz, will I be able to install Leopard?

FerrisWorld
Oct 18, 2007, 02:43 AM
What about Dual G4s? Can't a dual 500 beat a single 1000 in some cases?

Mr. Amiga500
Oct 18, 2007, 03:06 AM
^^^^ personally I like the challenge and pride of keeping old machines running for as long as possible.
...

Yes, same here. Besides that, think of the waste of millions of people trashing their computers just so they can get a little incremental speed increase or a fancy (but useless) new 3D effect. Does anybody remember when speed increases came from optimized code rather than new hardware? (yes, I know... there's far more money in hardware sales)

I think in future people will have to keep their computers longer or else we'll all be drowning in piles of waste electronics.

(Don't get me wrong. I've been waiting to get a nice new Mac with Leopard. But I expect it to last me at least 10 years.)

MacBiscuit
Oct 18, 2007, 03:13 AM
I'm not so bothered about the disk space, but I DID notice the increase in minimum memory requirement. Does this mean the standard memory footprint of the OS has increased markedly? This might impact many more people with recent or indeed brand new machines.

Tiger runs quite nicely on 1Gb. Will Leopard be slower? I'd note that previous upgrades in some cases improved performance. Going from 10.2 to 10.3 for example. So is Apple finally succumbing to the Microsoft disease of adding features at the expense of performance?

Does anyone with Leopard have a comparison of memory usage compared with Tiger?

tallyho
Oct 18, 2007, 03:41 AM
There are ways to get new computers.
Are you Stefano from the iPhone ad? Bada bing bada boom, capisce...

Cloudsurfer
Oct 18, 2007, 03:42 AM
Those new specs aren't for the faint of heart, now I look at it. You need an Intel Mac to get most out of your system. Even the Core Solo Mac mini won't do everything.

Tymmz
Oct 18, 2007, 03:47 AM
Sorry if that has been already covered.

But does that mean I won't be able to play DVDs on my 12'' PB?

xUKHCx
Oct 18, 2007, 03:51 AM
Sorry if that has been already covered.

But does that mean I won't be able to play DVDs on my 12'' PB?

you'll be able to play them you just won't be able to use the new deinterlacing feature (unless of course you got one of those fabled G5 powerbooks)

Cromulent
Oct 18, 2007, 04:20 AM
Unfortunately, that isn't the case. Core Duo is 32-bit. I think it was a mistake of Apple to allow x86 in their OS. It should have been AMD64 only from the very beginning. 64-bit mode has twice as many registers as x86, while PowerPC has twice as many as AMD64. Going to 32-bit x86 was a huge shock.

The only two 32bit processors that Apple used were the Core Solo and the Core Duo mainly because at the time they were the lower end CPUs available and fitted well into the iMac, Mac Book and the Mac Mini.

The vast majority of Intel Macs have the Core 2 Duo or the Xeon in them which are 64bit.

I really have no idea why you would want Apple to go purely with AMD. Their CPUs are losing badly in the speed stakes. The advantages that you laid out above are hardly cause to use a slower CPU.

Queso
Oct 18, 2007, 04:25 AM
So no Photobooth backdrops for G4s or G5s? I somehow have a hard time believing that my G5 Quad can't handle a backdrop.

I completely agree! I don't see how a 32 bit intel can out pace a 64 bit loaded G5 tower!? :eek:

Intel Processors use SSE, SSE2, and SSE3. Advanced instructions for multi-media. How do you know that these backdrops arent coded heavly with SSE? Thus, Making the G4/G5 unable to execute these tasks.

Come on Apple! You can't get a PowerPC G5 Quad 2.5ghz with 14GB or memory to add photobooth backdrops, and you can get an Macbook to do it? WTF?!?
I think it's relatively obvious. Intel rather than Apple have written the backdrop code. Check out the video effects that come bundled with the latest Dell XPS laptops. It's an Intel written app, but it goes way beyond the backdrops feature in iChat. As an example, you can give every person in the picture cartoon eyes, which then stay with them, even tilting away from the screen as they move their heads.

Leopard is going to be sick!!!
Gross. Antelope cubes all over the place :p

bartelby
Oct 18, 2007, 04:31 AM
I not worried about any of the fancy crap not running on my PowerBook G4. I'm not really in an rush to upgrade either.



Gross. Antelope cubes all over the place :p

Don't forget the carrots!!!

gnasher729
Oct 18, 2007, 04:52 AM
A 1.6Ghz processor required for DVD Player deinterlacing? Ouch.

Ahem.... you are quoting this wrong. There are two ways to do deinterlacing. Cheap and cheerful, with visible artefacts (mouse teeth), and high quality deinterlacing, which requires calculating motion vectors within each frame, adjusting for them, and filtering, giving a pleasant result at enormous processor cost.

Yes, you need a 1.66GHz processor for _enhanced_ deinterlacing.

gnasher729
Oct 18, 2007, 04:56 AM
really have no idea why you would want Apple to go purely with AMD. Their CPUs are losing badly in the speed stakes. The advantages that you laid out above are hardly cause to use a slower CPU.

Adding to that: When the x86 Macs were announced, one could have reasonably argued from the publicly available knowledge that Apple should have gone with AMD instead of Intel.

But at this point in time, Apple going with AMD could have only be called an absolute disaster. Apple joined forces with Intel exactly at the moment in time when Intel turned around and started moving ahead of AMD.

gnasher729
Oct 18, 2007, 05:04 AM
read closely.
You will not be able to do progressive output. You can still watch a dvd, just not deinterlace.

You can deinterlace, but you can't use the new, enhanced deinterlacing algorithms (without 1.6GHz).

Tymmz
Oct 18, 2007, 05:05 AM
you'll be able to play them you just won't be able to use the new deinterlacing feature (unless of course you got one of those fabled G5 powerbooks)

Great! I thought all that hassle putting a G5 chip into my PB was for nothing.

-cheers

gnasher729
Oct 18, 2007, 05:14 AM
They had to draw the line somewhere and I'm sure the 867MHz would be just as bad as the 800MHz.

Wherever Apple draws the line, there will be two kinds of complaints: "I have this Macintosh and can't install Leopard because the installer says my computer is too slow", and "I installed Leopard, but it runs too slow on this machine".

Move the line up, and you get more complaints of type A. Move the line down, and you get more complaints of type B. And you have to do more quality testing; if Apple says it runs on a 667 MHz G4 machine, then someone has spent lots of time trying every single feature on such a machine.

The 867MHz is probably the result of a spreadsheet trying to minimise the number of complaints and the testing requirements. And anyway, if you really want to install on an 800MHz machine, it is not really difficult.

urbandryad
Oct 18, 2007, 05:41 AM
Hm, 9GB doesn't seem that bad. How much room do the competitors take up? XP and Vista?

It doesn't botehr me since I'll be getting an intel Macbook. 80GB of space. Woot! :D On my current windows laptop I only have 20GB, of which about 5 is used for Win2k. -.-

Sounds like this is going to be awesome sOS :P

Queso
Oct 18, 2007, 05:46 AM
It doesn't botehr me since I'll be getting an intel Macbook. 80GB of space. Woot! :D
If you start doing anything in iLife you'll quickly find you need 80GB just for scratch space, and don't forget you may want to create a BootCamp partition. So if you can stretch to it go for at least 120GB, or even better 160.

urbandryad
Oct 18, 2007, 05:49 AM
If you start doing anything in iLife you'll quickly find you need 80GB just for scratch space, and don't forget you may want to create a BootCamp partition. So if you can stretch to it go for at least 120GB, or even better 160.

Can I physically upgrade a HD in a Macbook on my own or do I need that space right from the get-go when I buy? Probably won't have the money until January or Febuary anyways, but that gives me time at least to keep my options open too.

:)

Queso
Oct 18, 2007, 06:02 AM
Can I physically upgrade a HD in a Macbook on my own or do I need that space right from the get-go when I buy? Probably won't have the money until January or Febuary anyways, but that gives me time at least to keep my options open too.

:)
Installing it on your own would invalidate the warranty, which you don't want to do. If you're not buying until January you may find that 120GB becomes the default size anyway. But really, the 80GB drives only stay useful for those that have a second computer or external drive to store all their data on.

schmoogol
Oct 18, 2007, 06:27 AM
Installing it on your own would invalidate the warranty, which you don't want to do. If you're not buying until January you may find that 120GB becomes the default size anyway. But really, the 80GB drives only stay useful for those that have a second computer or external drive to store all their data on.

I believe that the warranty would only be invalidated if you damaged anything in the process of replacing the HD. Not having replaced one myself I don't know how easy/hard it would be to cause damage.

Link (http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/MacBook_13inch_HardDrive_DIY.pdf) to HD upgrade PDF.

Eriamjh1138@DAN
Oct 18, 2007, 06:29 AM
9GB is a lot for an OS, but without reading every post above, doesn't anyone realize this is the first Universal retail Mac OS? Just about every program (I'm sure some where missed) is likely twice the size it needs to be in order to support PPC and Intel.

There are programs (search teh intarweb) that can strip out the Intel or PPC code from the OS which will effectively cut out about half of it's "bloat". Strip out extra languages, unused printer drivers, etc. and you'll have a 3GB OS in no time.

edesignuk
Oct 18, 2007, 06:32 AM
Beach balls from network issues (remote mounted drive going off-line) drive me crazy, I'll be glad to see this hopefully resolved.

AidenShaw
Oct 18, 2007, 07:52 AM
Unfortunately, that isn't the case. Core Duo is 32-bit. I think it was a mistake of Apple to allow x86 in their OS. It should have been AMD64 only from the very beginning. 64-bit mode has twice as many registers as x86, while PowerPC has twice as many as AMD64. Going to 32-bit x86 was a huge shock.

The only two 32bit processors that Apple used were the Core Solo and the Core Duo mainly because at the time they were the lower end CPUs available and fitted well into the iMac, Mac Book and the Mac Mini.

The vast majority of Intel Macs have the Core 2 Duo or the Xeon in them which are 64bit.

I really have no idea why you would want Apple to go purely with AMD. Their CPUs are losing badly in the speed stakes. The advantages that you laid out above are hardly cause to use a slower CPU.

I argued Amdahl's case since long ago. Apple should have skipped using the 32-bit Yonah, and made all MacIntels 64-bit Merom and later. That would have meant that with 10.5, *all* MacIntels would be 64-bit. 32-bit Intel would be unneeded after 10.4 - and obese binaries could shrink a bit.

Cromulent, I assume that Amdahl meant "64-bit instructions" when he used "AMD64", not to use AMD chips. "AMD64" is one of the common abbreviations for the 64-bit mode in Intel and AMD processors.

happydude
Oct 18, 2007, 07:52 AM
any word on if/what time in store events will be on the 26th? mine is already preordered . . . but any free t-shirts or mouse pads given out?! apple store is right on the way home from work, would love to wait in line for the excitement of the grand unveiling! :apple::apple:

peeeter
Oct 18, 2007, 09:11 AM
I hope the new advanced deinterlacing will be used also by iMovie 08 that is now just dropping half of the lines.

METOO999
Oct 18, 2007, 09:21 AM
A 1.6Ghz processor required for DVD Player deinterlacing? Ouch.

Yeah, I'm glad I got a Macbook C2D 2.0 GHz when I did, but still, eek! I watch a lot of VIDEO_TS folders on my LCD from my Macbook, so the extended de-interlacing is a welcome feature.

Queso
Oct 18, 2007, 09:27 AM
A 1.6Ghz processor required for DVD Player deinterlacing? Ouch.
My guess as to why they've done this is because only the very top end G4s have the data throughput to cope with the program due to that processor's FSB bottleneck. Even then, the 1.67GHz G4s will struggle far more than the 1.6Ghz G5s will and I bet if there were a lower rated G5, say a 1.2GHz with a 400MHz FSB it would cope easily.

Poor Motorola processor design.

Cromulent
Oct 18, 2007, 09:42 AM
I argued Amdahl's case since long ago. Apple should have skipped using the 32-bit Yonah, and made all MacIntels 64-bit Merom and later. That would have meant that with 10.5, *all* MacIntels would be 64-bit. 32-bit Intel would be unneeded after 10.4 - and obese binaries could shrink a bit.

Cromulent, I assume that Amdahl meant "64-bit instructions" when he used "AMD64", not to use AMD chips. "AMD64" is one of the common abbreviations for the 64-bit mode in Intel and AMD processors.

Intel already use the AMD 64bit instruction set in their consumer processors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64

x86-64 is a 64-bit superset of the x86 instruction set architecture. The x86-64 instruction set natively supports Intel's x86 and was designed by Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), who have since renamed it AMD64. This architecture has been cloned by Intel under the name Intel 64 (formerly known as Yamhill, Clackamas Technology (CT), IA-32e, and EM64T).[1] This leads to the common use of the names x86-64 or x64 as more vendor-neutral terms to collectively refer to the two nearly identical implementations.

Edit : Bah I guess that is what he already stated. Should have read what I originally quoted again. Still the fact remains that they didn't.

The machines that these 32bit processors were put into are unlikely to ever be used in a way that could actually take full advantage of 64 bit processors anyway. The Mac Pro / Mac Book Pro are the machines that are likely to be used by people who will eventually need the extra RAM and other benefits associated with 64 bit computing. I'm really not sure it was such a bad decision thinking about it.

Gzilirion
Oct 18, 2007, 09:43 AM
+

psychofreak
Oct 18, 2007, 09:45 AM
I did not found resolution independence mentioned nowhere. :confused:

The interface is not truly scaleable unfortunately in this release...it should come in 10.6

jrpvt
Oct 18, 2007, 10:28 AM
But why is it 9 gigs? What in the world did they do to the OS?:eek:

maybe it's full of secret features. several gigs worth :cool:

Queso
Oct 18, 2007, 10:29 AM
maybe it's full of secret features. several gigs worth :cool:
That IS the secret feature. iSpacefiller :)

norville
Oct 18, 2007, 11:27 AM
After reading all 8 pages so far, there have been a number of comments that I would consider misinformation. I'm not an insider, and I haven't had access to any Leopard betas, but I am a software developer.

Someone argued that Tiger was 64-bit, so you couldn't attribute much or any of the disk space requirements to Leopard's 64-bitness. This is not really true. Tiger was a 32-bit operating system (whether on Intel or PPC), but it included some low-level libraries in 64-bit versions so you could write non-GUI (command-line and daemon) apps in 64-bit. (Apple's marketing really made the most of this!) There are NO 64-bit GUI apps on Tiger, because the GUI libraries (carbon, cocoa) are 32-bit. You might occasionally find a 32-bit GUI app that communicates on the sly with a 64-bit faceless app in the background, but this was rather messy.

The big change with Leopard is that the universal binaries for most of the system frameworks and toolkits are now "more universal": they are compiled for 32-bit and 64-bit, as well as Intel and PPC. (Well, the GUI portions of Carbon are still 32-bit only, but most of everything else is 32-bit and 64-bit universal.) So I do think the more complete 64-bitness of Leopard is probably a significant contributing factor in the enlarged disk space requirements.

The OS is also localized for several additional languages/cultures, so that's part of the disk bloat as well. There will no doubt be ways (either from Apple during installation, or from 3rd parties afterwards) to trim out some of the unnecessary code & resources.

As far as the much-ballyhooed "backdrop" feature not running on PPC. As others have noted, SSE3 (and even SSE2) have a few features that AltiVec does not, and AltiVec has a few features that SSE does not. Apple's Accelerate Framework could only be either a) wrapping only the features that both architectures have in common, or b) providing less-performant alternate methods for operations that one architecture has built-in but the other does not. So just because Apple released this framework (back with Tiger, incidentally), doesn't mean that it would necessarily provide enough functionality to make backdrops work on AltiVec.

Lastly, on the processor speed issue. Clearly Apple's website says an 867 MHz G4 or faster is "required." But do we know for certain that Leopard will refuse to install on something slower? Some posters have stated this is the case, but are they speaking from experience or assumption? I don't know one way or the other, but I do know that many Apple software packages (such as iLife '05 and '06) have stated requirements of 800MHz or 867MHz G4, but have installed just fine (without any hacking or complaint) on both my 450MHz and 500MHz Dual G4s. Of course, certain features run so slowly as to be impractical, but they still run. I wonder if Leopard's stated speed requirements are more of the same: more of a disclaimer than an actual requirement? (i.e. "Slow machines are not supported; don't try any class action lawsuits saying we slowed down your machine, because we told you so, etc.") I'm curious to find out on this one.

Orng
Oct 18, 2007, 11:28 AM
Really! Why do people still use those ancient Macs like 700-800 MHz G4s or even 450 Mhz ?


If I had to answer that in a word, it would be... groceries. I like groceries, I like having them in my house. For various reasons; they taste good, they fill me up, they keep me healthy.

All in all, I think my enthusiasm for maintaining a smallish selection of foodstuffs in my home is probably at the core of why I'm still using an 800 mhz QuickSilver.

What are using those old Macs for? Playing music in iTunes? Surfing net? Cant think of another use... even disk storage was slow.

You can't think of another use? How's this: I use my old mac for Photoshop, Flash, After Effects, a bit of Final Cut Pro. I also play music on iTunes and surf the net a bit. A friend of mine does a lot of audio recording on his G4, but I guess his is a 867, so it doesn't qualify as "old" does it?

Orng
Oct 18, 2007, 11:36 AM
you'll be able to play them you just won't be able to use the new deinterlacing feature (unless of course you got one of those fabled G5 powerbooks)

Fabled? Here's the photographic proof

http://www.theapplecollection.com/design/macdesign/images/17085pBookG5.jpg

MattJessop
Oct 18, 2007, 12:11 PM
Fabled? Here's the photographic proof

http://www.theapplecollection.com/design/macdesign/images/17085pBookG5.jpg

Is it weird that I think that looks REALLY cool?

:( It just looks really.....comfortable.....and not easy to break... oh well.

tadunne
Oct 18, 2007, 12:23 PM
9GB is a lot for an OS, but without reading every post above, doesn't anyone realize this is the first Universal retail Mac OS? Just about every program (I'm sure some where missed) is likely twice the size it needs to be in order to support PPC and Intel.

There are programs (search teh intarweb) that can strip out the Intel or PPC code from the OS which will effectively cut out about half of it's "bloat". Strip out extra languages, unused printer drivers, etc. and you'll have a 3GB OS in no time.

Actually they could be up to 4 times bigger as leopard uses quad binaries. 32bit ppc, 64bit ppc, 32nit x86 and 64bit x86

backdraft
Oct 18, 2007, 01:31 PM
I'll admit I'm not a code junky, maybe you are. But if it is true that Apple could only have made the whole backdrops work with SSE then I think that they need to go back to the drawing board. This is the company that has long been able to simplify things and make it work, I can't see them making this so dependent on one processors abilities, although I can see the economic reasons for this.

I'm not whining that it won't work, I can for sure use the function on my laptop, but I would think that a fairly new G5 would handle this using some other codes.

Optimizing for Altivec or SSE only requires the use of the Accelerate Framework which basically calls the appropriate instructions depending on the hardware.

Accelerate Frameworks (http://developer.apple.com/performance/accelerateframework.html)

Altivec/SSE (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Performance/Conceptual/Accelerate_sse_migration/index.html)

"Most work involving vector-oriented calculations can be done via Apple’s Accelerate frameworks, which provide higher-level functions for image processing, signal processing, linear algebra, vector math, and operations on large numbers. The advantage of using these frameworks is that the hardware dependencies are abstracted away by highly optimized library code that will be maintained not only for PowerPC and Apple’s initial Intel processors, but also for future processors."

-backdraft

Amdahl
Oct 18, 2007, 02:06 PM
The only two 32bit processors that Apple used were the Core Solo and the Core Duo mainly because at the time they were the lower end CPUs available and fitted well into the iMac, Mac Book and the Mac Mini.Yes, but by selling them as the only Intel Macs available, they have attached a ball & chain to Mac apps that probably won't go away for 5 years, because I don't think you're going to see many developers choose to support 64-bit only.

The vast majority of Intel Macs have the Core 2 Duo or the Xeon in them which are 64bit.A huge chunk of Intel Macs have 32-bit, unless you are claiming Apple didn't sell any computers for most of 2006. A growing number, and possibly the majority, have 64-bit.

I really have no idea why you would want Apple to go purely with AMD. Their CPUs are losing badly in the speed stakes. The advantages that you laid out above are hardly cause to use a slower CPU.AMD64 is the name of the 64-bit instruction set. Intel calls their version EM64T. AMD is producing the fastest x64 chip, so they aren't losing badly. They have lost their dominance in the mid-range, and therefore have diminished profits. But they still sell every chip they can make, hence their attention to the high end of the market.

Amdahl
Oct 18, 2007, 02:22 PM
Optimizing for Altivec or SSE only requires the use of the Accelerate Framework which basically calls the appropriate instructions depending on the hardware.
-backdraft

There's that "magic" claim again. Sorry, doesn't work.

TurboSC
Oct 18, 2007, 02:24 PM
oh I can't wait anymore. argh. gimme teh leopards.

Ugg
Oct 18, 2007, 02:51 PM
9 Gigs... Why is this alot?

There are hard drives now that are 1TB large. Why is 9GB such a concern?

My PowerBook has a 60 gig harddrive. To me that is a concern.

Telp
Oct 18, 2007, 02:57 PM
My PowerBook has a 60 gig harddrive. To me that is a concern.

Well just dont install everything. Don't install printer drivers you dont need and language packs you dont need, and anything else you dont need. That should take several GBs off.

j26
Oct 18, 2007, 03:58 PM
9 Gigs... Why is this alot?

There are hard drives now that are 1TB large. Why is 9GB such a concern?

This is why. If I can slim it down its fine, but otherwise I'm losing all my free space.

Plymouthbreezer
Oct 18, 2007, 04:00 PM
If I had to answer that in a word, it would be... groceries. I like groceries, I like having them in my house. For various reasons; they taste good, they fill me up, they keep me healthy.

All in all, I think my enthusiasm for maintaining a smallish selection of foodstuffs in my home is probably at the core of why I'm still using an 800 mhz QuickSilver.



You can't think of another use? How's this: I use my old mac for Photoshop, Flash, After Effects, a bit of Final Cut Pro. I also play music on iTunes and surf the net a bit. A friend of mine does a lot of audio recording on his G4, but I guess his is a 867, so it doesn't qualify as "old" does it?
So true. I find it comical when I hear people say that older machines don't have any life left in them.

Look at my sig for example.... Nothing, aside from my newly ordered MBP (which I ordered last night, due in on the 25th!), every machine in my possession is over 4 years old. My iMac G4, currently my main computer, sees professional photography work (in Photoshop Lightroom), Final Cut video editing for my Film Class, and heavy graphics work in illustrator. Additionally, I do recordings from time to time of live music, and it does all these tasks in a manner in which I'm still highly productive.

Now, my 400MHz TiBook is really a web-email-word processor unit due to its slow processor speed and minimal RAM (384MB), and with its pooped screen and fussy keyboard, it will be retired once my MacBook Pro comes in. Nontheless, in the past two years I've owned it, I've used that computer on a daily basis for my on-the-go needs. It's also signed by Steve Woz... Pretty awesome artifact of Apple History.

My G4 Tower, displaying on a lovely 17" Apple Studio, is my parents main computer, and they use it for everything that any mid 50s baby boomers would use a computer for: they have no complaints. 466MHz is still uber capable, provided you know what you're doing: run the right OS (Panther), and have the RAM.

Anyway, my point is, old computers are still useful, especially older Macs. I sincerely have no complains with my current system as a whole, and my only complaints are in the fact that until now, I didn't have a useful on-the-go machine. With my 15" MBP (2GB RAM, 160GB HD, iWork '08, Non-glossy screen) due in next week, I will defiantly be happy, but at the same time a bit sad. This will be my first Mac that will not run Classic or OS 9... Kinda a big step for someone who has been a Mac person since 1994; someone who moaned and thought the world was ending when the PPC to Intel transition was announced. Oh, oh, the irony!

Telp
Oct 18, 2007, 04:10 PM
This is why. If I can slim it down its fine, but otherwise I'm losing all my free space.

You can slim down no problem. Youll still be cutting it close (i think). I would try and get rid of as much as you can. Either way you should be fine.

hugodrax
Oct 18, 2007, 04:23 PM
But why is it 9 gigs? What in the world did they do to the OS?:eek:

Its 9 Gigs if you install the ******** of printerdrivers. If you do a custom install and chose only your brand of printer it cuts almost 2GB of installs and there is a ton more used by the extra languages.

Last I remember when I installed. it was 5.8GB without the languages and only the HP driver set.

FJ218700
Oct 18, 2007, 04:24 PM
What video card do you have?

I might bug you about the performance on a G4 when it ships.

Radeon 9200, nothing special, but better than the original 32 MB card

Eidorian
Oct 18, 2007, 04:26 PM
Radeon 9200, nothing special, but better than the original 32 MB cardI thought you had Core Image.

It is a fine card though.

FJ218700
Oct 18, 2007, 04:35 PM
I thought you had Core Image.

It is a fine card though.

I'll probably drop the 9200 into my dual 1300 Sawtooth and get upgrade the dual 867 again to a core image capable card in November. Have to keep my tech purchases under $200 a month avg. (wife).

Eidorian
Oct 18, 2007, 04:36 PM
I'll probably drop the 9200 into my dual 1300 Sawtooth and get upgrade the dual 867 again to a core image capable card in November. Have to keep my tech purchases under $200 a month avg. (wife).That's understandable.

Mac video cards aren't cheap most of the time.

Transeau
Oct 18, 2007, 05:23 PM
I asked this before but no one answered. Apple says the 800MHz machines are too slow, so why are the 867's okay? What kind of difference does 67MHz make?

It's a different CPU. The 867MHz G4 was the first that had the ability to execute two separate AltiVec instructions at the same time. The 800MHz cpus that Apple used did not support this. The AltiVec is critical to the G4's and G5 to be able to support the new OS.

Techies... Please correct me if I'm wrong.

blackcrayon
Oct 18, 2007, 05:32 PM
It's a different CPU. The 867MHz G4 was the first that had the ability to execute two separate AltiVec instructions at the same time. The 800MHz cpus that Apple used did not support this. The AltiVec is critical to the G4's and G5 to be able to support the new OS.

Techies... Please correct me if I'm wrong.

It was the PowerPC 7450 that introduced that capability, and that started (in macs at least) with the 733 Mhz PowerMac G4...

The 800 and 867 mhz chips are probably both PowerPC 7450s.

Headrush69
Oct 18, 2007, 06:13 PM
That's understandable.

Mac video cards aren't cheap most of the time.

That's why you flash a PC one. (very easy to do)

I've got a PC Radeon 9800 in my G4 and latest Leopard beta runs fine.

(And no it doesn't need 9GB HD space, the drive I'm running it on is an old XBOX HD that is only 8GB pre-formatting!)

DakotaGuy
Oct 18, 2007, 07:51 PM
It was the PowerPC 7450 that introduced that capability, and that started (in macs at least) with the 733 Mhz PowerMac G4...

The 800 and 867 mhz chips are probably both PowerPC 7450s.

Didn't the 867 Mhz have a faster FSB though? I was thinking that all 867 and above had a 133Mhz FSB and later G4's had a 167Mhz FSB. Weren't 800 Mhz models and below equipped with only a 100Mhz FSB? This might be some of the reason.

FJ218700
Oct 18, 2007, 07:54 PM
By the way, 10.5 will run on sub 867's (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=371144)

madmax_2069
Oct 18, 2007, 08:24 PM
Didn't the 867 Mhz have a faster FSB though? I was thinking that all 867 and above had a 133Mhz FSB and later G4's had a 167Mhz FSB. Weren't 800 Mhz models and below equipped with only a 100Mhz FSB? This might be some of the reason.



the Digital Audio was the first to have the 133mhz system bus (and 4x AGP) and it continued up to the first few models of the MDD (which all still had 4xAGP) then it went to 167mhz system bus and the MDD G4's was the first to have DDR ram (which didnt have much of a performance gain from it, if at all due to the system bus)

the B&W G3/Yikes G4 (same mobo PCI only), sawtooth (2x AGP), cube (2xAGP), GBE (2xAGP), any Powermac between the B&W G3 and Gigabit ethernet G4 used a 100mhz system bus.

Counter
Oct 18, 2007, 09:45 PM
9gigs for the OS? Top secret features = hidden porn?

FJ218700
Oct 18, 2007, 10:12 PM
9gigs for the OS? Top secret features = hidden porn?

yeah, Masher500 and his girlfriend.

basqarl
Oct 18, 2007, 10:18 PM
So when I order my MBP, should I get the 2 GB of RAM or 4 GB Ram (for about $700 more), now that Leopard will be the operating system?

Eidorian
Oct 18, 2007, 10:22 PM
9gigs for the OS? Top secret features = hidden porn?Lots of binaries and libraries for PowerPC and Intel. :p

CWallace
Oct 18, 2007, 10:56 PM
Fabled? Here's the photographic proof

http://www.theapplecollection.com/design/macdesign/images/17085pBookG5.jpg

You forgot to add the puddle of leaking coolant. :p

madmax_2069
Oct 18, 2007, 10:58 PM
You forgot to add the puddle of leaking coolant. :p


and also forgot to add the bacon and eggs on top of the KB

FJ218700
Oct 18, 2007, 11:29 PM
So when I order my MBP, should I get the 2 GB of RAM or 4 GB Ram (for about $700 more), now that Leopard will be the operating system?

you can save a few hundred by buying the lowest RAM configuration and then adding 3rd party RAM

mdriftmeyer
Oct 18, 2007, 11:35 PM
This is why. If I can slim it down its fine, but otherwise I'm losing all my free space.

I assume this is for a laptop?

If so, I just threw in a 160Gig for my 1Ghz G4 14" iBook. Next is a 1Gig PC 2700 Ram chip.

tortoise
Oct 19, 2007, 12:34 AM
I really have no idea why you would want Apple to go purely with AMD. Their CPUs are losing badly in the speed stakes. The advantages that you laid out above are hardly cause to use a slower CPU.

Unless, of course, you need the wicked fast memory of AMD, which matters for a surprising number of applications. Until Intel gets an onboard memory controller and a decent ccNUMA architecture, AMD will spank them quite thoroughly.

Mind you, AMD has been doddling on their new architecture, but their chip design largely pisses all over Intel if they can ever manage to get it out on a decent fab process. AMD's ass has been saved over and over by superior CPU design on mediocre silicon.

guerro
Oct 19, 2007, 01:30 AM
Buy it on Amazon then. :rolleyes:

That doesn't answer my question.

Plymouthbreezer
Oct 19, 2007, 05:44 AM
By the way, 10.5 will run on sub 867's (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=371144)
This is good to know!

JFreak
Oct 19, 2007, 07:13 AM
I bet this is the last version to support PPC. Universal apps will eventually disappear and one of the new secret 300 features for 10.6 is that the binaries are smaller and uses less memory.

UB means that the application bundle has both binaries, yes, that costs some hard drive space. But as application bundle is nothing more than a special folder, there is absolutely zero reason to actually *load* everything inside the bundle into main memory.

So while I haven't actually checked this, I could bet that the system only loads whichever binary version it needs; because wrong binary cannot be executed, so it doesn't need to sit in the memory either. Somebody that has hard facts, please confirm this: getting rid of PPC binaries will not make memory footprint smaller, right?

antdgar
Oct 19, 2007, 07:30 AM
I currently have 1GB RAM in my macbook. I use it for web browsing, watching video, using MS office, viewing photos etc.

Is 1GB RAM ok for Leopard?

JFreak
Oct 19, 2007, 07:33 AM
Didn't the 867 Mhz have a faster FSB though? I was thinking that all 867 and above had a 133Mhz FSB and later G4's had a 167Mhz FSB. Weren't 800 Mhz models and below equipped with only a 100Mhz FSB? This might be some of the reason.

One could guess that:
400/450/500/550MHz G4 (VGA TiBook era) used the 100MHz bus
667/800/867/1000MHz G4 (DVI TiBook era) used the 133MHz bus
1.25/1.33/1.50/1.67GHz G4 (AlBook era) used the 167MHz bus

So, FSB speed is likely not the reason...

Is 1GB RAM ok for Leopard?

System requirements say 512MB is enough, so I bet it'll run single app decently with that and begin to struggle if you multitask heavily. Your memory is double the minimum recommended, so I bet you will be fine with some multitasking as well, if you don't run lots of PPC code.

If most your work is done via Rosetta, I suggest you either buy another gig of ram or upgrade the software to Intel-native UB version. But that issue would be on your face right now running Tiger, so I think you're okay with the gig.

Queso
Oct 19, 2007, 07:38 AM
I currently have 1GB RAM in my macbook. I use it for web browsing, watching video, using MS office, viewing photos etc.

Is 1GB RAM ok for Leopard?
It'll run, but MS Office in particular will run much quicker for you if you stick an extra 1GB in there. The 1GB modules are quite cheap now (under £20 cheap), so it's definitely worth it.

JFreak
Oct 19, 2007, 07:41 AM
Apple should have skipped using the 32-bit Yonah, and made all MacIntels 64-bit Merom and later. That would have meant that with 10.5, *all* MacIntels would be 64-bit. 32-bit Intel would be unneeded after 10.4 - and obese binaries could shrink a bit.

Yes! I also could not understand why they had to use 32-bit Intels in the first place. I say stupid decision! But hey, they had to release something, didn't they? Stockholders would not have been pleased if Apple had waited for the 64-bit Intels to arrive.

Oh, well... money talks. I guess the 32-bit Intel 2nd hand hardware don't keep their value very well :)

It'll run, but MS Office in particular will run much quicker for you if you stick an extra 1GB in there.

You mean the older non-Intel versions, right? The soon-to-be-released UB Office will not require Rosetta translation thus I guess it will run smoothly with lesser memory as well.

And besides, 1GB is plenty.

Why do people still use those ancient Macs like 700-800MHz G4s or even 450MHz? What are using those old Macs for? Playing music in iTunes? Surfing net? Cant think of another use... even disk storage was slow

Because they just work and keep on working for many years to come.

People keep using old computers for whatever they wanted to use it for at the time they bought the hardware in the first place. Many computer users only use the computer for email and web surfing, so you don't need a supercomputer for that, do you.

And besides; slow disk storage doesn't mean much. You can run almost everything with a 4200rpm 15GB laptop hard drive, because whatever is loaded to memory will be faster than streaming from any hard drive out there. If you have too little memory, you just don't multitask that much.

Orng
Oct 19, 2007, 08:17 AM
And besides; slow disk storage doesn't mean much. You can run almost everything with a 4200rpm 15GB laptop hard drive, because whatever is loaded to memory will be faster than streaming from any hard drive out there. If you have too little memory, you just don't multitask that much.

I agree with most of what you say, except that a 4200 rpm drive won't cut it for video editing. Well, maybe in iMovie, but for actual editing, 5400 is at the low end of acceptable. 7200 if you can get it is ideal. This is why you don't see a lot of lap tops at the heart of editing suites.

goosnarrggh
Oct 19, 2007, 08:56 AM
Intel already use the AMD 64bit instruction set in their consumer processors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64
Sort of. Intel had Pentuim 4 class chips available in 2004 which supported most of the AMD64 instruction set. But at the time they still weren't actively pushing 64-bit at the consumer level, and they had no notebook class 64-bit processor.

Intel's first notebook-class 64-bit CPU (and all Intel Macs except the XServe and the Mac Pro use notebook-class CPUs, even the iMac, probably due to cooling concerns) wasn't released until mid-2006. By that time a fair number of 32-bit Macs had already been released.

The machines that these 32bit processors were put into are unlikely to ever be used in a way that could actually take full advantage of 64 bit processors anyway. The Mac Pro / Mac Book Pro are the machines that are likely to be used by people who will eventually need the extra RAM and other benefits associated with 64 bit computing. I'm really not sure it was such a bad decision thinking about it.

Well, the argument could be made that, had Apple waited until it could release all of its Intel-based Macs using 64-bit processors, they could have made their own lives simpler. They could have made do with a 3-architecture Universal Binary system (32- and 64-bit PPC, 64-bit Intel) instead of now being stuck with supporting a 4-architecture system - both 32- and 64-bits for both Intel and PPC.

My hope is that software vendors will be inclined to stick with 32-bit binaries only, except in the extreme circumstance where 64-bits is required to perform acceptably. At least under that scheme, we'd still end up with applications being released with no more than 1 superfluous architecture included inside most fat binaries.

antdgar
Oct 19, 2007, 10:55 AM
Cool. I just ordered some more RAM to get me to 2GB.
I wonder how long until Leopard is released on P2P..

CWallace
Oct 19, 2007, 11:07 AM
I currently have 1GB RAM in my macbook. I use it for web browsing, watching video, using MS office, viewing photos etc.

Is 1GB RAM ok for Leopard?

More is always better.

Seriously.

Queso
Oct 19, 2007, 11:14 AM
I wonder how long until Leopard is released on P2P..
Two days after you buy a copy.


And not a second before.

paja
Oct 19, 2007, 11:19 AM
It's not that space is expensive but geez, we are talking about a system here, not any i-media-pro-sound-video app... :eek:

My iBook (1.33 GHZ) has a HD of 30 GB... take out 9... :confused:

Of course, I got a few external HDs but still... :D


Vista requires 15GB - Leopard 9GB. Your choice.:)

EagerDragon
Oct 19, 2007, 01:42 PM
9 Gigs... Why is this alot?

There are hard drives now that are 1TB large. Why is 9GB such a concern?

According to MS, users should never need more than 640K of memory and 10 megs disk drives is plenty for anything you may want to store. Dating myself?

EagerDragon
Oct 19, 2007, 01:46 PM
9 Gb is crazy, all those features use up that much more hard drive space? Yikes. I'd like to know ram usage as well, on average if it will use more or about the same.

Either way, I can't wait to hear early reviews this should be a great upgrade!

Eye candy takes a lot of room, LOL. It is Halloweeen, get a bigger sack.

EagerDragon
Oct 19, 2007, 01:54 PM
I bet this is the last version to support PPC. Universal apps will eventually disappear and one of the new secret 300 features for 10.6 is that the binaries are smaller and uses less memory.

It is also the last 32 bit OSX version. 10.6 will be exclusive to 64 bit Intel. Version for phone an other devices will exist, but DVD for MAC's will likely be limited to 64 bit Intel only.

Those of us on PPC are falling farther behind.

Butthead
Oct 19, 2007, 03:31 PM
It is kind of odd, considering for instance that the 867MHz Powerbook G4 has an inferior (AFAIK) video card to the 800MHz iBook G4. Most likely it makes little or no difference, but they decided to draw a line (there are G4s in Cubes and other Macs well below 800 MHz, so it isn't like they only excluded the 800MHz iBook).

If it makes you feel better, 99%+ chance that something like XPostFacto will let you install Leopard on an 800MHz iBook if you so desire.

It's a tough tradeoff. Have you ever watched how Microsoft handles requirements? When XP came out, it was completely baffling whether or not it would work on a given computer unless you were told explicitly by your OEM that your model was supported. Vista likewise. So at least Apple is keeping it relatively simple.

I do not like how Apple is keeping it relatively simple and restrictive. Apple's installer checks for required hardware and refuses to install if you don't have that requirment.

I say that Apple should give people a choice, list a minimum recommended hardware requirement, as has been done with many a software package, and that those systems the don't meet the required hardware spec's are not supported, at the users risk of disappointing performance of non-functional parts of the OS, but how difficult is it to remove the Mhz requirement? It only means that for a slower G4, the OS runs slower than Apple's performance police desire.

Who is Apple to mandate how fast their OS runs on a particular system? Bravo for XPF for making it possible to run OSX on slower/less capabile machines. If OSX runs too slow for the person who installs it on such a non-approved Apple computer, they have a choice of either living with that limitation, or better for Apple, this sluggish performance causes the user to upgrade to a newer faster system...how dumb can Apple be?

Apple should actually be paying XPF a percentage for every system non-supported system that XPF lets a user install the the latest OSX of their choice on, as it's only good for Apple in the long run.

BTW, I do not agree with MR /arn for posting system requirements as though they are fact at this point (even if this turns out to be 100% correct). At present, until OSX 10.5 ships, only Apple knows what the system requirements are. Notation should still be given that this info is still rumored/alleged, not accepted as "fact".

As to the 9GB install, yes it's a pig, growing almost as fast as excessive bloatware M$ ships- sad day, 3x the size, without 3x the benefits. And how long does this install take in minutes, compared to the prior one? I mean, what happens when you need to do a full re-install, is it going to take 3x as long :( ??? So what if HD storage is cheap, would you be just as enthusiastic if the install was 20GB and took 4+hrs each time you had to do it? And think about the updates, will they now be 3x the size...10.5.1 will be what, a 1+GB update???, meaning that unless you have a 5mbs internet connection, you might as well give up on doing the software update panel, and go to an Apple store to get a CD copy of any updates.

Sloppy inefficient coding make for faster hardware requirements and huge bloatware files.

aswitcher
Oct 19, 2007, 03:35 PM
The interface is not truly scaleable unfortunately in this release...it should come in 10.6

Really? I thought this was meant to be a key thing...could it comes as a 10.5.X update or is it to big and needs a new OS?

gnasher729
Oct 19, 2007, 04:21 PM
UB means that the application bundle has both binaries, yes, that costs some hard drive space. But as application bundle is nothing more than a special folder, there is absolutely zero reason to actually *load* everything inside the bundle into main memory.

So while I haven't actually checked this, I could bet that the system only loads whichever binary version it needs; because wrong binary cannot be executed, so it doesn't need to sit in the memory either. Somebody that has hard facts, please confirm this: getting rid of PPC binaries will not make memory footprint smaller, right?

Getting rid of PowerPC binaries will buy you nothing but a small amount of harddisk space (and less than you think, because for many applications the code is not the biggest part) and the potential for major annoyance if for some reason you need to use a PowerPC Macintosh, plus more annoyance if the tool you use to get rid of PowerPC code doesn't work as expected.

Today external harddisk space costs about 14 pence per Gigabyte. Getting rid of PowerPC binaries is not worth the effort. And it doesn't make any difference at all to RAM usage. Actually, if you don't use some features of an application, then the code for these features will not be loaded into RAM anyway.

psychofreak
Oct 19, 2007, 04:23 PM
Getting rid of PowerPC binaries will buy you nothing but a small amount of harddisk space (and less than you think, because for many applications the code is not the biggest part) and the potential for major annoyance if for some reason you need to use a PowerPC Macintosh, plus more annoyance if the tool you use to get rid of PowerPC code doesn't work as expected.

Today external harddisk space costs about 14 pence per Gigabyte. Getting rid of PowerPC binaries is not worth the effort.

I use XSlimmer (http://www.xslimmer.com/), and it has saved me a good few GBs...not so little if you're using a disk almost to the full...

gnasher729
Oct 19, 2007, 04:25 PM
It is also the last 32 bit OSX version. 10.6 will be exclusive to 64 bit Intel. Version for phone an other devices will exist, but DVD for MAC's will likely be limited to 64 bit Intel only.

That is completely wrong. 10.6 will have to support 32 bit applications. Dropping 32 bit support would be suicide, just as dropping support for PowerPC apps 18 months ago would have been suicide. Even in ten years time, many apps will be 32 bit.

gnasher729
Oct 19, 2007, 04:27 PM
My hope is that software vendors will be inclined to stick with 32-bit binaries only, except in the extreme circumstance where 64-bits is required to perform acceptably. At least under that scheme, we'd still end up with applications being released with no more than 1 superfluous architecture included inside most fat binaries.

At the moment Apple still seems to refuse to release a 64 bit version of Carbon. That guarantees there will be 32 bit apps around for the next ten years :-)

gnasher729
Oct 19, 2007, 04:45 PM
Unless, of course, you need the wicked fast memory of AMD, which matters for a surprising number of applications. Until Intel gets an onboard memory controller and a decent ccNUMA architecture, AMD will spank them quite thoroughly.

Mind you, AMD has been doddling on their new architecture, but their chip design largely pisses all over Intel if they can ever manage to get it out on a decent fab process. AMD's ass has been saved over and over by superior CPU design on mediocre silicon.

From what I have read, AMD memory access is actually _not_ faster than Intel's. It is beaten both on latency and on bandwidth, and to top it, Intel has absolutely massive amounts of L2 cache that AMD can only dream of, 8MB shared between four processors instead of 0.5MB per processor. And that is server chips, where AMD used to be ahead. There is nothing from AMD that comes close to the Core2 chips for laptops.

tortoise
Oct 20, 2007, 01:27 AM
From what I have read, AMD memory access is actually _not_ faster than Intel's.

Since when? Intel has closed the gap a bit, but they are not there. I just looked it up to see if anything has changed since we were measuring it; it hasn't in any significant way. AMD is the memory latency champ and has a very well-balanced memory architecture. While Intel does have higher theoretical memory bandwidth by some computations, in practice the higher latency means that the real bandwidth is substantially less and no better than AMD. The memory architectures are sufficiently different that "memory bandwidth" is not easily comparable; when you throw multiple processors into the mix the AMD destroys Intel thanks to the very fast and much more scalable ccNUMA fabric.

It is beaten both on latency and on bandwidth, and to top it, Intel has absolutely massive amounts of L2 cache that AMD can only dream of, 8MB shared between four processors instead of 0.5MB per processor.

You realize, of course, that L2 cache is compensation for poor latency, right? And that the extra cache on the Intel apparently doesn't buy that much, right? AMD intelligently made the choice that if you spend silicon on wicked fast memory, you don't need an L2 cache and it will still be fast for those applications that a larger L2 cache doesn't help on. Since AMD purchased a supercomputing memory fabric design, they had interesting options.

The fact remains that AMD still manages about 20-30% better memory latency than current Intel for high-performance computing apps, which is actually a significant improve for Intel (it used to be more like 70-80%). Unfortunately for Intel, AMD is beating them using a five-year-old memory design that is getting replaced in a matter of months with the next generation.

It really is a pity that AMD can't get their act together with the fab processes. Their CPU designs are top-shelf, but they have serious difficulty getting them built on modern processes.

j26
Oct 20, 2007, 02:00 AM
I assume this is for a laptop?

If so, I just threw in a 160Gig for my 1Ghz G4 14" iBook. Next is a 1Gig PC 2700 Ram chip.

Yes, it's a laptop.
I would throw in larger drive, and was planning to some time soon, but I am about to spend several thousand on a new bike, so I'd rather not have to go to the expense of a new hd as well as Leopard right now. I might have to wait for Leopard for a while until I have the funds for both.
On the other hand it has some features I want (quickview, revamped finder annotating pdf's, etc.), so I might just have to bite the bullet.

DakotaGuy
Oct 20, 2007, 10:16 AM
I have a feeling that that Leopard is going to run like a dog on anything except an Intel processor. I am sure all of the optimization and fine tuning was done with Intel in mind and that the PowerPC version was just slapped together to keep some customers happy. It is in Apple's best interest to get the PowerPC customers to buy new hardware so the user base shifts at a quick pace. I'd think it is safe to say that Leopard will perform much better then Tiger on the Intel based Macs and it will perform worse then Tiger on the PowerPC Macs.
We will know by next week if it is time for the PowerPC owners to upgrade to new hardware.

I'm even a little worried myself running an Intel Core Duo because I am not sure how a 32 bit processor is going to handle an operating system that was designed for 64 bit. Well I guess I will know by next week since I ordered a copy.