Well, a guess a lot of G3 users will breath a sigh of relief:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/64bit.html
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/64bit.html
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Leopard will support PPC G3!
- Thread starter Mr. Dee
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sweeet. It's on Macbook too, no freakin waaay! I just barely got Macbook, and I knew the new OS was around the corner, and wanted to wait and see what happens, but I need it for school. I'm so happy. This may even be like Windows Vista. What I mean by that is, windows vista will actually run better than Windows Xp on most machines, becuase of the way it does it's work. So, it may, MAY run better on Macbook, or any other than OSX runs on them, becuase of the "base" or "core" of the operating system. This is amazing. Thanks for the hook up, I saw the site earlier today, and I didnt' see that, you made my day!. 
I'm a bit confused about the above post, but anyways:
I thought that they would include it, but it is not definite. They have a disclaimer on the bottom, "All features referenced in the Mac OS X Leopard Sneak Peek are subject to change."
I thought that they would include it, but it is not definite. They have a disclaimer on the bottom, "All features referenced in the Mac OS X Leopard Sneak Peek are subject to change."
Neither Panther nor Tiger support all G3 models... each of those systems came with other hardware requirements, and I doubt Leopard is going to be much different.Mr. Dee said:
Odds are they are going to aim at the last G3 based systems Apple produced... the G3 based iBooks.
Ok, what I was saying...
So, it used to be, in order to upgrade ur OS, you had to get a much faster computer. This was true for Win 98 to Win XP, and OS9 to OS10.
But, now, we are seeing the cores of OS'es being developed with more ground breaking technology, like Vista's base that gives more work to the graphics card, rather than having the CPU do all the work. This will let the overall performance be a lot better, giving older machines an oppurtunity to be able to run that newest OS. Which is awesome, tht you can run it, and it will still be very fast. Now, there are some downfalls of these things. To run vista, you need a good graphics card, but otherwise, you can run the stripped down vista, which is still better than it's predecessor XP. So, it actually runs faster than XP does on my machine, becuase of the way the OS utitlizes my hardwares full potential.
I hope someone out there understands where I'm going with this...
So, it used to be, in order to upgrade ur OS, you had to get a much faster computer. This was true for Win 98 to Win XP, and OS9 to OS10.
But, now, we are seeing the cores of OS'es being developed with more ground breaking technology, like Vista's base that gives more work to the graphics card, rather than having the CPU do all the work. This will let the overall performance be a lot better, giving older machines an oppurtunity to be able to run that newest OS. Which is awesome, tht you can run it, and it will still be very fast. Now, there are some downfalls of these things. To run vista, you need a good graphics card, but otherwise, you can run the stripped down vista, which is still better than it's predecessor XP. So, it actually runs faster than XP does on my machine, becuase of the way the OS utitlizes my hardwares full potential.
I hope someone out there understands where I'm going with this...
I am calling BS on the whole Vista is capable of running faster on the same hardware. When you disable Glass (the thing that utilizes DirectX to draw your UI), it no longer uses the graphics card for anything meaningful.
Vista does not use Avalon for everything, just Aero Glass and Diamond.
I can believe that some programs open more quickly under Vista, but that is rather due to much of the OS's bundled applications being rewritten to run as Services instead of applications. So, if you want to run Media Player, it can start in 1/4 a second because it is already running in the background occupying memory.
Anything coming from Memory is faster than coming from the hard disk.
Vista does not use Avalon for everything, just Aero Glass and Diamond.
I can believe that some programs open more quickly under Vista, but that is rather due to much of the OS's bundled applications being rewritten to run as Services instead of applications. So, if you want to run Media Player, it can start in 1/4 a second because it is already running in the background occupying memory.
Anything coming from Memory is faster than coming from the hard disk.
Rapmastac1 said:
All tiers of Vista are drawn through the video, Classic, Aero Basic and Glass. But GDI+ still exist to maintain compatibility with legacy applications. So performance won't improve regardless of the theme.
About G3 support being subject to change, I agree. Just like Vista had a minimum of 256 MBs of RAM in the beginning, MS has now pushed that up to 512.
They were selling G3 iBooks until the end of 2003. It'd be rough kicking out folks who bought a computer only three years ago. However, although it'd probably run on those G3s, I doubt it would run well. I doubt 10.4 runs well on 400Mhz G3s, which I believe is the minimum.
Take a look at the link from the original post - the mention of the G3 is gone, although some say that sentence was written poorly due to the fact that Xserve should run the Server version of OS X.
According to lowendmac.com, it looks like the last 68k and pre-G3 PPC Macs supported the latest OS for 3 or 4 years. On the other end of the spectrum, the good ol' Mac Plus, introduced in January 1986, supported the latest OS for 11 years. However, first 68040 and pre-G3 PPC systems still ran the latest OS for 'only' 7 years. Since the oldest G3's that support Tiger are 6 years old now, it looks like Leopard might not support G3's after all, but even if it does, chances are very slim 10.6 will still support it. Actually, by the time 10.6 shows up, I'd expect G4 and maybe G5 support to start to go, and 10.7 will be an Intel-only OS. This is assuming future OS releases are every 2 years or so.
On the other hand, hacks like XPostFacto have allowed hardware to run unsupported OS versions, and it may be beneficial to continue supporting older hardware to increase profits from OS sales, since Apple has likely sold far more G3/G4/G5 systems than older Macs.
According to lowendmac.com, it looks like the last 68k and pre-G3 PPC Macs supported the latest OS for 3 or 4 years. On the other end of the spectrum, the good ol' Mac Plus, introduced in January 1986, supported the latest OS for 11 years. However, first 68040 and pre-G3 PPC systems still ran the latest OS for 'only' 7 years. Since the oldest G3's that support Tiger are 6 years old now, it looks like Leopard might not support G3's after all, but even if it does, chances are very slim 10.6 will still support it. Actually, by the time 10.6 shows up, I'd expect G4 and maybe G5 support to start to go, and 10.7 will be an Intel-only OS. This is assuming future OS releases are every 2 years or so.
On the other hand, hacks like XPostFacto have allowed hardware to run unsupported OS versions, and it may be beneficial to continue supporting older hardware to increase profits from OS sales, since Apple has likely sold far more G3/G4/G5 systems than older Macs.
I can imagine G3's running awfully slow... let's say a 900MHz processor with a 512RAM (a typical G3 iBook) would be using Time Machine...
That'd be a pain, no?
That'd be a pain, no?
Yeah, it would. Dashboard and Exposé are noticeably choppy on a 450MHz iMac G3 with ATI Rage 128 8MB graphics, but if you have 512MB of RAM on it, I'd bet it would run Leopard just fine if you don't use all the eye candy features. It's really all about being able to run the latest software that won't run on older OS versions, but there eventually comes a point where it's just not worth it to upgrade the OS anymore because you're missing out on so many features that are unsupported or run really slow.rafifreak00 said:
Uh, is it just me, or is that quote nowhere on the page? There is not one mention of the G3 being supported. Did they change it already?
miloblithe said:
I'm running Tiger on my 400 MHz G3 and it's not too bad. It obviously can't handle the latest and greatest, but for general use it's about the same speed as the 2.8 GHz Windows machine I have at work (I'm not exaggerating, fortunately the network guys are trying to figure out why these things are polling the overcrowded network every 3 seconds).
Although it would be sad to see the G3 owners left out, it wouldn't be surprising. Apple has been very (maybe too?) forward-thinking with their products the past few years, and even the G4 sounds old these days to many people (and often seems even older when you're running modern apps). I bought the last revision iBook last September, and I don't regret it, but I knew I was buying a relatively outdated computer long before the iBook shipped. I can hope that Mac OS 10.6 will run on my iBook, but I won't be too disappointed to find out that Leopard is the end of the line for PPC Macs.
hmm, they changed it, the disclaimer did say anything on the Leopard sneak preview pages were subject to change.zflauaus said:
But it does show Apple is uncertain about G3 support, so its safe to say, the G3 is vulnerable and its safe to say, future versions of OS X will not support the G3.
t^3 said:
wow, you have just scared me. Nothing like knowing the expiration date of your G4 being supported. It's like knowing your exact time of death. Although it is a theory, it's quite a scary one! hopefully i'll be making enough money by then to get a fresh new faster mac!
It is only the exact time of death of your system if you have some form of aversion to using perfectly good hardware and software when a company stops supporting it.Bobdude161 said:
I have been using 10.2 on my Wallstreet since the day of it's release. And there are very few things that I can't still do with 10.2.8 today (which is why I still spend more time on this system then my 10.3.9 systems).
I find it truly amazing that people who are having no issues (with hardware or software) will abandon something when told that something new has replaced it or that a company won't support it any more. Why drop something for no reason? Specially if it is still doing what it did before you were told it wasn't supported anymore.
I can recall when Adobe dropped LiveMotion. The day it was announced many LiveMotion users stopped using the software and bought a copy of Flash. The software hadn't stopped working, the reasons for using LiveMotion rather than Flash hadn't changed... infact Flash hadn't changed either.
Same thing when the rumor spread that Adobe was dropping GoLive. Existing copies of GoLive didn't stop functioning, and Dreamweaver didn't all of a sudden gain a bunch of new compelling features.
Infact the only people I know of who had an honest and good reason for panicking when the software they were using had it's support dropped was users of Windows 95/98/ME/NT 4.0. And that is because in the case of the Windows operating systems once Microsoft cuts you loose... you're pretty much swimming with the sharks at that point.
Yeah, if you are scared of the day Apple stops supporting your G4, then you have more issues than your G4 does. I highly doubt that your G4 will run any differently the day after then it did the last day it was supported by Apple.
By the time Leopard will be shipping, the B&W G3 (which Tiger supports, and maybe Leopard too), will be 8 years old.
I think it's pretty amazing that Apple still supports these Macs with their latest version of Mac OS. I think it is specifically amazing because Apple went through the OS transition too! It's not like Mac OS 8.5 through Mac OS 9.7.5 orso...
Shows what a gr8 computer that B&W G3 was / is.
I think it's pretty amazing that Apple still supports these Macs with their latest version of Mac OS. I think it is specifically amazing because Apple went through the OS transition too! It's not like Mac OS 8.5 through Mac OS 9.7.5 orso...
Shows what a gr8 computer that B&W G3 was / is.
RacerX said:It is only the exact time of death of your system if you have some form of aversion to using perfectly good hardware and software when a company stops supporting it.
I have been using 10.2 on my Wallstreet since the day of it's release. And there are very few things that I can't still do with 10.2.8 today (which is why I still spend more time on this system then my 10.3.9 systems).
I find it truly amazing that people who are having no issues (with hardware or software) will abandon something when told that something new has replaced it or that a company won't support it any more. Why drop something for no reason? Specially if it is still doing what it did before you were told it wasn't supported anymore.
I can recall when Adobe dropped LiveMotion. The day it was announced many LiveMotion users stopped using the software and bought a copy of Flash. The software hadn't stopped working, the reasons for using LiveMotion rather than Flash hadn't changed... infact Flash hadn't changed either.
Same thing when the rumor spread that Adobe was dropping GoLive. Existing copies of GoLive didn't stop functioning, and Dreamweaver didn't all of a sudden gain a bunch of new compelling features.
Infact the only people I know of who had an honest and good reason for panicking when the software they were using had it's support dropped was users of Windows 95/98/ME/NT 4.0. And that is because in the case of the Windows operating systems once Microsoft cuts you loose... you're pretty much swimming with the sharks at that point.
Yeah, if you are scared of the day Apple stops supporting your G4, then you have more issues than your G4 does. I highly doubt that your G4 will run any differently the day after then it did the last day it was supported by Apple.
I have to disagree with you here. I've noticed how it's not long after an OS release from Apple that all the new 3rd party apps start putting that latest release in their system requirements. This is more true of the kind of, y'know, free, shareware type apps you find online than, say, a huge commercial product like CS3 that has to support lots and lots of existing users. It's nevertheless a common phenomenon in the Mac world, and it does prematurely age an OS. Sure, all your old stuff still works, but if you're interested in continually trying the new, you're going to quickly find yourself more and more shut out if you can't keep up with the updates.
I have found the opposite to be true on Windows though -- it was between 2 and 3 *years* after the release of XP that I found I finally had to relegate my old Windows 98 machine to "music server" status because of too much new software requiring XP.
Apple's OS releases tend to contain more substantive changes to the way the system works, and they seem less fearful of breaking legacy compatibility. This has its pluses and minuses (definitely a plus for overall quality and stability), but one of the minuses, at least for the consumer, is that it makes keeping up to date that much more essential.
Also as far as users of big-name apps like the ones you mentioned, I think it's less an irrational belief that your software is suddenly useless than it is the knowledge that it will soon be superceded, in general, in the industry, and not wanting to be left behind or without the skill set to move forward or work with colleagues who have moved on. If you work entirely in isolation, of course, that's another thing entirely (for my own hobbies and such I still prefer some Windows apps that are now 10+ years old).
This is good new, as it means the idealy specs for Leapord shouldn't be to high, if a G3 of some type can get by running it...