Leopard better optimized for Intel Macs?

Discussion in 'macOS' started by elbruelsio, Mar 15, 2007.

  1. elbruelsio macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    #1
    Will Leopard be written to work better with Intel Macs than Tiger? Are there any issues with Tiger and Intel Macs? Should I even be concerned?

    I ask because I need a new computer and need it now. I'm sick of waiting and want to purchase a Mac this weekend. I'm not bleeding edge so I will probably use Tiger for a while after Leopard comes out and wait until some of the bugs are worked out. Until then I want the best experience I can get.
     
  2. miniConvert macrumors 68040

    miniConvert

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Location:
    Kent, UK - the 'Garden of England'.
    #2
    Apple have been running OS X on Intel from the start, so no there's no reason to believe Leopard will work particularly better on Intel machines. In my experience Tiger performs admirably on Intel machines.

    In any case, you can always upgrade afterwards :)
     
  3. nuckinfutz macrumors 603

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    #3
    My Mac mini hasn't given me any problems. I'm not aware of any specific optimizations for Intel based Macs.
     
  4. Multimedia macrumors 603

    Multimedia

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz CA, Silicon Beach
    #4
    Tiger On Intel Is Thought By Some To Be Substandard In Performance

    I've read here some Intel Mac users think Tiger is slower than they expected and hope Leopard will run much better than Tiger on Intel Macs. I expect Leopard to be better on both platforms. There will be a full hardware refresh accompanying Leopard's release. You may be well served to wait for that round of Macs before you buy. Worst case you will be able to get a refurb of what's out now with Leopard and iLife '07 included. I think the next round of hardware improvements will be worth the wait. What model are you thinking of buying now?
     
  5. elbruelsio thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    #5
    20" iMac, 2.16 GHz, 2 GB RAM, 256 X1600, 250 GB HD.
     
  6. mgargan1 macrumors 65816

    mgargan1

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    Reston, VA
    #6
    That's the machine i have, sans the 256VRAM... it's muuuuuch faster than my 1.8GHz iMac G5. I have no qualms with tiger on intel. If you need a machine now, then you buy a machine now. It's as simple as that.
     
  7. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #7
    I have a large mix of PPC and Intel, all running Tiger (since its' initial release). No performance, or reliability issues. I will be happy if Leopard is as fast. I have read many of your posts, and know you are very knowledgeable. Most performance complaints I have read seem more to be application specific, and often due to Rosetta, or poorly crafted freeware. I do not benchmark, so I have no actual data. But, I can compare my G5 Quad with my Xeon Quad. The configuration is quite similar. The Xeon pretty much wins in all performance observations I have made. Reliability is about equal. I actually had my first OSX crash last weekend! I was sounding like a broken record for never having had a crash. So, now I am just one of the crowd.
     
  8. smokeyrabbit macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Location:
    Escape from New England
    #8
    I have a mixture of G5 and Core Duo machines at work running Tiger 10.4.8 or 10.4.9. No issues that relate to the OS. I have a MacBook CD (not C2D) and it is the best portable I've ever used. All iterations of OS X have been faster than the previous version on current hardware as far as I can remember. If you need a Mac now, get one now and get Leopard when it comes out. You'll have the best experience that you can get. I am having no issues with any of the Macs in the office or at home. I've also upgraded to 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 immediately without issues, except for some printing wierdness back with 10.2 or 3 I think. That passed quickly. I expect to run 10.5 on my MacBook when it comes out and upgrade the office Macs after no major issues show up (probably right away).

    I do have a few machines with only 512 MB RAM and the G5 runs fine (Safarai, Database software only) and the Core Solo Mini (Parallels running constantly) is slow as poop. So up the RAM to 1-2 GB to make yourself happy.
     
  9. nazmac21 macrumors 6502a

    nazmac21

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Digital World
    #9
    My PPC iBook G4 crashes a lot more than my Intel MacBook.
     
  10. risc macrumors 68030

    risc

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #10
    Currently I own 2 iMac Core 2 Duos and have recently sold a Mac mini Core Duo and a MacBook Pro Core Duo, and I have to say I haven't had a single issue with the OS running on Intel. For me it has been just as stable as OS X on a PPC machine. The only real difference is the Intel machines are much much much faster than the PPC machines they replaced.

    Tiger on Intel it's great!
     

Share This Page