Eric S.
macrumors 68040
No Classic mode in Leopard. 😡 I have both on my G4 system, but find it hard to fully switch over due to 15+ years of documents developed with Classic mode apps.
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.
Apple Preparing 10.4.12 Update For Tiger?
- Thread starter mikes63737
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No Classic mode in Leopard. 😡 I have both on my G4 system, but find it hard to fully switch over due to 15+ years of documents developed with Classic mode apps.
I hear you bud. You gotta realize there are a lot of switchers posting here that have never even seen a G4 (maybe not even a G5). 🙂
To them all there is and ever was is Tiger and Leopard.
Eric S.
macrumors 68040
I wouldn't be so sure - apparently there was about a a six-month delay in getting Leopard out the door because resources were switched to iPhone development.
Eric S.
macrumors 68040
Eriamjh1138@DAN
macrumors 65816
I still use Panther. It's the basis for today's OSX. Before that, 10.1 and 10.2 were barely more than OS 9.
I don't think the rumor is valid though.
If you use 10.5 and need a classic application, Sheep Shaver is very good. My dad uses it to run Word Perfect.
I don't think the rumor is valid though.
If you use 10.5 and need a classic application, Sheep Shaver is very good. My dad uses it to run Word Perfect.
Eric S.
macrumors 68040
Come again? OS X was always based on Darwin, i.e., BSD Unix running on top of a Mach microkernel, derived from Openstep, which Apple inherited from Steve Jobs' NeXT corporation. In other words, OS X was always a totally different platform from OS 9, which survived only as Classic mode.
Good suggestion, although it's definitely a hack compared to the nicely integrated Classic mode. SheepShaver won't run all Classic apps, and it won't emulate the latest versions of OS 9. And it's a third-party solution with little to no support and no guarantee that it will be maintained for future versions of OS X either.
I know OSX is absolutely different from the ground up - what I meant was that before 10.3, you may as well have been using OS 9 because it had the same set of features and was more stable. I recently reinstalled OSX from the original CD's that came with my G4; the version was 10.0, and there are NO features compared to Panther. After Panther, I would say that all the add-ons are just add ons, even if they are incredibly helpful.
This is in my experience, btw. I used OS 9 for a long time before actually switching to boot in OSX.
This is in my experience, btw. I used OS 9 for a long time before actually switching to boot in OSX.
Oops I am sorry I didn't realize we were talking about Windoze 😛
I wasn't talking about Microsoft, with that MS fiasco there are more factors involved than just "Some" bugs.
I was simply stating that with software development in general, it is almost impossible to think of EVERY variable and conflict during development. Hence why about 99% of software has at least one revision x.1
Simmer down 🙂
Eric S.
macrumors 68040
My experience was different. I've been a Unix programmer for lots of years. When OS X came out, I was able to open up a terminal window and run Unix commands, and that was a heck of an improvement over OS 9.
mward333
macrumors 6502a
Although I've been using Apple since the Apple IIe, I agree with Eric S. The main benefit of having my Mac Pro is so that I can use it as a UNIX machine for computing. The GUI is nice, but it is just the icing on the cake.
Of course, I realize that I might be in the minority here, because I use my Mac Pro to compute (i.e., for research). I know that many folks on these forums are doing video, music, graphics, etc.....
Not as much of a minority as you might think. What do you use Terminal for regarding research? Is it something you need the MP for, or would a cheaper Mac (iMac or Mini) do, because all Macs run Terminal, as I'm sure you know?
LOL! You guys kill me.
I'm happily running Jaguar (10.2.8) on an iBook G3 700, and Tiger on an iMac G5.
Honestly, there is so little difference between these machines and the OS that I hardly notice.
I always update the OS on my machine while it's free. The iBook shipped with 10.2.3, and I kept updating until I ran out of freebies. Same with the iMac, so I am glad it's getting one last update, but sad that it's the last attention it will receive.
My machines are for working. The iMac does the heavy lifting (video editing, photo retouching) and the iBook soldiers on for heavy duty writing, email, browsing... nothing that requires the latest and greatest.
I'm happily running Jaguar (10.2.8) on an iBook G3 700, and Tiger on an iMac G5.
Honestly, there is so little difference between these machines and the OS that I hardly notice.
I always update the OS on my machine while it's free. The iBook shipped with 10.2.3, and I kept updating until I ran out of freebies. Same with the iMac, so I am glad it's getting one last update, but sad that it's the last attention it will receive.
My machines are for working. The iMac does the heavy lifting (video editing, photo retouching) and the iBook soldiers on for heavy duty writing, email, browsing... nothing that requires the latest and greatest.
I'm using Tiger and I love it
are you saying leopard has some flaws
my wife just bought the black updated macbook with leopard a few days ago
I see that was your first post...welcome to MR!
In terms of flaws, all operating systems have them. Even Tiger, in it's x.x.11th state has some flaws. As far as Leo goes, it's in far better shape right now than Vista is. So you both have nothing to worry about. Just update when new versions come out and you'll be set!
Eric S.
macrumors 68040
Hopefully it came with 10.5.2, if not then make sure you upgrade - lots of bugfixes over 10.5.1. Tiger has been out for three years, Leopard for four months, so of course Tiger is more mature. But Leopard is not bad. I predict your wife will love it.
Yeah we updated it out of the box she's loving it I'll play around on it after she gets it settled
>>Haven't they heard of Leopard? 10.5.2!?
yes- and was not at all impressed, in fact was very annoyed that Apple would sell us BETA- or even Alpha software
I went back to 10.4.11- and now 12-unprecidented the only thing about it is taht Safai sucks-it has a 250 mb memory leak-so ive read, which caues a beachball roughly every half hour- and a cold restart of safari-becasue it is "not responding"
At least there will be no idiotic speculation that the next release needs to be numbered 10.4.11.2
Now I'll wait for a 10.5.3 disc or until they get is MOSTLY RIGHT
yes- and was not at all impressed, in fact was very annoyed that Apple would sell us BETA- or even Alpha software
I went back to 10.4.11- and now 12-unprecidented the only thing about it is taht Safai sucks-it has a 250 mb memory leak-so ive read, which caues a beachball roughly every half hour- and a cold restart of safari-becasue it is "not responding"
At least there will be no idiotic speculation that the next release needs to be numbered 10.4.11.2
Now I'll wait for a 10.5.3 disc or until they get is MOSTLY RIGHT
daneoni
macrumors G5
Ah yes i remember Panther very well. It was my first ever non-Windows OS that shipped with my first Mac, a 12" 1.33GHz G4. It ran sooo smoothly and was very stable with just 512mb of RAM and a 60GB HDD. Hmmm...good times.
Still regret selling that machine. The best ultraportable to come out of Apple to date just as the 15 TiBook and the Lamp/Sunflower iMac are the best mid-size laptop and all-in-one desktop respectively to come out of cupertino to date
Still regret selling that machine. The best ultraportable to come out of Apple to date just as the 15 TiBook and the Lamp/Sunflower iMac are the best mid-size laptop and all-in-one desktop respectively to come out of cupertino to date
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 603
Given Apple decided to artificially limit who can upgrade to Leopard (workarounds notwithstanding), I think they should make sure Leopard is vital for some time to come.
I used a workaround to install Leopard on a new partition of my new 500 GB Sata drive for this Powermac dual 533 Digital Audio and it runs like a dog compared to Tiger. Even with a 9700 Pro graphics card installed (which has since died when put into sleep mode and has been sent back for a replacement) it STILL ran like a dog. For an example, the OpenGL screensaver known as GLMatrix ran full speed (30fps) in Tiger but only managed 15fps in Leopard. The 9700 Pro has full Quartz Extreme and CoreImage support. It should run just fine. Why the slowdown? Short of a bug, I can only guess that 512MB of ram this system has is not enough to run Leopard properly even at full dual 533 speeds. To test the theory, I'll need to add more memory to the system. I'm planning on installing a 2.0 GHz 7448 soon anyway, at which point it should run just fine regardless, but I am curious why Leopard runs slower than Tiger on some machines and supposedly faster than Tiger on others. The 9700 Pro isn't an 8800GT, but it's not dog crap either. Memory is the only thing I can think of that could be the bottleneck. I realize a dual 533 is slow, but it should not get 'slower' from an OS upgrade unless the OS upgrade is slower overall for everyone. Yet some say Leopard is faster than Tiger on the same hardware.
Of course, if ram is the only issue by comparison to Tiger on this system, I see no reason why Apple would artificially limit the CPU requirement to install on an older system. Requiring Core Image support or something would have made more sense. I'll install the extra memory before the CPU upgrade and see if that improves things. I'll need to wait for the 9700 Pro to come back first, though to be sure.
Eric S.
macrumors 68040
I think you meant "Tiger is vital ...".
My understanding is that Leopard is memory-intensive. I bet if you increased it to 1 GB or more you would see a substantial improvement.
I agree. Most reports I have seen from people running Leopard on older systems with CPU speeds from 400 MHz to 1 GHz have not identified the CPU as a performance bottleneck. I see no real performance difference between Tiger and Leopard on my Power Mac G4 with 1 GHz single CPU and 1.3 GB RAM (but then I don't run anything that requires screaming speed).
I think Apple's limitation in this case is another form of "gentle persuasion" to get people to upgrade their Apple HW. Dropping support for Classic mode in Leopard is another example - I'll be very surprised if the PPC architecture is supported at all when they get around to 10.6.
Off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure there is actually a bigger difference between the 533MHz G4s and the 867MHz G4 in the system requirements besides just clock speeds. The 533MHz G4 is based upon the original G4 design 7410 while the 867MHz G4 uses the revised G4e design of the 7450. I don't remember what all the tweaks were but the G4e had a longer pipeline and there were changes to how instructions were issued and executed, especially AltiVec instructions along with the fact that the G4e used an internal L2 cache. If Leopard was optimized for the G4e architecture compared to Tiger which supported the G3 architecture, than it stands to reason that original G4 architecture would perform slower in Leopard than in Tiger even if clock speed wasn't an issue. This is especially true if Leopard makes heavy use of the G4e's AltiVec implementation, which is different than the original G4 implementation.