Leopard Under The Hood And Requirements Analysis

[klb028]

I've read about a few people (on blogs) wanting to purchase new computers to install Leopard, so it makes me wonder if my MacBook is stable enough to handle it. I'm almost positive it is - with 2GB of RAM and a 2.16GHz processor, I should be set... right? I just don't want Leopard to run lousy on my laptop (I mean, no one would want that, obviously), but I don't think I have much to worry about.

This might've already been covered in previous replies to this topic, and I read the requirements on the first page... but I just thought I'd reply anyway with my own thoughts.

Just out of curiosity, is anyone here also buying a new laptop such as the MBP when they purchase Leopard?

 

[chris200x9]

I've read about a few people (on blogs) wanting to purchase new computers to install Leopard, so it makes me wonder if my MacBook is stable enough to handle it. I'm almost positive it is - with 2GB of RAM and a 2.16GHz processor, I should be set... right? I just don't want Leopard to run lousy on my laptop (I mean, no one would want that, obviously), but I don't think I have much to worry about.

This might've already been covered in previous replies to this topic, and I read the requirements on the first page... but I just thought I'd reply anyway with my own thoughts.

Just out of curiosity, is anyone here also buying a new laptop such as the MBP when they purchase Leopard?

I have never used leopard yet but all I can say is, yes your macbook should be more than fine, leopard can run on 867 mhz g4 processors so a 2.16 c2d should be more than fine.

 

[klb028]

I have never used leopard yet but all I can say is, yes your macbook should be more than fine, leopard can run on 867 mhz g4 processors so a 2.16 c2d should be more than fine.

Haha, yeah, I was almost positive... but I guess I just wasn't sure why people wanted to upgrade their current laptops for Leopard when our specs were almost identical. Just wondering if this was going to be a common thing or not.

 

[basqarl]

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

Thanks for your response. My only concern is that when I spoke to an Apple rep on the phone, I was told that if I buy non-Apple-installed RAM, my AppleCare warranty will be voided. What confuses me is that when I went to the Apple store a few weeks ago and inquired about RAM, one of the sales reps actually suggested going online (non-Apple) to upgrade the RAM on my own.

So, now I don't know which way to turn.

Also, i am now hearing rumors about an MBP upgrade? Is that imminent and should I just wait it out if we are talking just a few months down the road?

Thanks for any advice you can give.

 

[Eidorian]

Thanks for your response. My only concern is that when I spoke to an Apple rep on the phone, I was told that if I buy non-Apple-installed RAM, my AppleCare warranty will be voided. What confuses me is that when I went to the Apple store a few weeks ago and inquired about RAM, one of the sales reps actually suggested going online (non-Apple) to upgrade the RAM on my own.

So, now I don't know which way to turn.

Also, i am now hearing rumors about an MBP upgrade? Is that imminent and should I just wait it out if we are talking just a few months down the road?

Thanks for any advice you can give.

You will not void your warranty buy installing third part RAM unless you damage the machine during installation.

 

[Amdahl]

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.

No, AMD does have the lead on memory architecture. That has been pretty well known for years now, since Opteron was released.

Cache that AMD can only dream of? I guess you don't realize that cache is there to cover up a weak memory bus. That's why Intel chips suddenly have so much of it.

 

[CWallace]

My only concern is that when I spoke to an Apple rep on the phone, I was told that if I buy non-Apple-installed RAM, my AppleCare warranty will be voided.

If you make any changes to your machine (more RAM, larger HDD), it is wise to keep the originals around for warranty work. That way, Apple has no clue you made any modifications.

 

[MacsAttack]

No, AMD does have the lead on memory architecture. That has been pretty well known for years now, since Opteron was released.

Cache that AMD can only dream of? I guess you don't realize that cache is there to cover up a weak memory bus. That's why Intel chips suddenly have so much of it.

Intel are going to try and fix their memory architectue around 2009/2010. Meanwhile they use wedges of cache (and wedges of cash) and some fancy footwork to make up alot of the difference when it comes to real world performance.

Real World Performance - Not to be confused with benchmarks - which like statistics and advertising - are 25% accurate and 75% crud. Trick is you never know which is which...

I fear that AMD has run out of steam - which is a shame. Just look what the competition they gave intel ended up producing. We need AMD to keep them honest. The Core 2 architecture has its flaws, but over all it is an excelent choice for Apple from both a technical and business viewpoint.

 

[MacsAttack]

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.

Yes indeedy. On a 32 bit machine. On a 64 bit one the 32 bit versions of the a lot of stuff will have to be installed also to cover legacy apps as not all software that can be run will be 64-bit. Apple made a big thing about being able to run 32bit and 64bit programs side by side.

That 9GB is a maximum that is being printed as an Apple-covering move. Some installes will be smaller - depending on the seyetem archetecture and install options (language support and such spring to mind).

 

[Muzzway]

Just noticed something in the guided tour in the installing Leopard section...

At the select a destination screen, it says: "Installing this software requires 5.6 GB of space."

Perhaps unnecessary stuff like extra languages or PowerPC/Intel code is stripped out automatically? Or am I missing something?

 

[DakotaGuy]

Intel are going to try and fix their memory architectue around 2009/2010. Meanwhile they use wedges of cache (and wedges of cash) and some fancy footwork to make up alot of the difference when it comes to real world performance.

Real World Performance - Not to be confused with benchmarks - which like statistics and advertising - are 25% accurate and 75% crud. Trick is you never know which is which...

I fear that AMD has run out of steam - which is a shame. Just look what the competition they gave intel ended up producing. We need AMD to keep them honest. The Core 2 architecture has its flaws, but over all it is an excelent choice for Apple from both a technical and business viewpoint.

I think AMD will be owned by Intel by 2009/2010 anyhow so I would suspect the battle will be over anyhow. Their has been a lot of speculation about AMD being ripe for a buy-out. Two companies keep being rumored Intel and believe it or not IBM. Intel might have a few anti-trust issues however, but the way things have been going as of late, I think it would be approved.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

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.

Interesting. I don't see any reason why Leopard wouldn't scream on my Rev. C 2.1 GHz iMac G5... the machine is VERY fast for the demands I put on it. Same goes for my MacBook Pro. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say this: If the MacBook Pro didn't have a dual-core processor inside it would perform similarly to the iMac, no matter what software was installed on both machines. Yes, I understand that, in some situations (such as where vector processing or PowerPC emulation are concerned), one machine will spank the other one. I'm talking about the common cases here.

As for your question about the Intel Core Duo - don't worry. Your Mac will fly with Leopard on it - much more so than Tiger did, thanks to better optimization for the Intel architecture.