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?
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 Under The Hood And Requirements Analysis
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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.
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.
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.
<]=)
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.
<]=)
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
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.
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.
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.
same here..
"Photobooth backdrop effects require Intel Core Duo or faster"...
does it mean that Intel Core Duo faster than my Quad G5....
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
Matt
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.
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.
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..
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 ..
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)
^^^^ 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.
1.6GHz what?
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?
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?