Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
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

Ugg said:
My PowerBook has a 60 gig harddrive. To me that is a concern.
Click to expand...

Well just dont install everything. Don't install printer drivers you dont need and language packs you dont need, and anything else you dont need. That should take several GBs off.
 
iBunny said:
9 Gigs... Why is this alot?

There are hard drives now that are 1TB large. Why is 9GB such a concern?
Click to expand...

This is why. If I can slim it down its fine, but otherwise I'm losing all my free space.
 

Attachments

  • Picture 1.png
    Picture 1.png
    18.5 KB · Views: 112
Orng said:
If I had to answer that in a word, it would be... groceries. I like groceries, I like having them in my house. For various reasons; they taste good, they fill me up, they keep me healthy.

All in all, I think my enthusiasm for maintaining a smallish selection of foodstuffs in my home is probably at the core of why I'm still using an 800 mhz QuickSilver.



You can't think of another use? How's this: I use my old mac for Photoshop, Flash, After Effects, a bit of Final Cut Pro. I also play music on iTunes and surf the net a bit. A friend of mine does a lot of audio recording on his G4, but I guess his is a 867, so it doesn't qualify as "old" does it?
Click to expand...
So true. I find it comical when I hear people say that older machines don't have any life left in them.

Look at my sig for example.... Nothing, aside from my newly ordered MBP (which I ordered last night, due in on the 25th!), every machine in my possession is over 4 years old. My iMac G4, currently my main computer, sees professional photography work (in Photoshop Lightroom), Final Cut video editing for my Film Class, and heavy graphics work in illustrator. Additionally, I do recordings from time to time of live music, and it does all these tasks in a manner in which I'm still highly productive.

Now, my 400MHz TiBook is really a web-email-word processor unit due to its slow processor speed and minimal RAM (384MB), and with its pooped screen and fussy keyboard, it will be retired once my MacBook Pro comes in. Nontheless, in the past two years I've owned it, I've used that computer on a daily basis for my on-the-go needs. It's also signed by Steve Woz... Pretty awesome artifact of Apple History.

My G4 Tower, displaying on a lovely 17" Apple Studio, is my parents main computer, and they use it for everything that any mid 50s baby boomers would use a computer for: they have no complaints. 466MHz is still uber capable, provided you know what you're doing: run the right OS (Panther), and have the RAM.

Anyway, my point is, old computers are still useful, especially older Macs. I sincerely have no complains with my current system as a whole, and my only complaints are in the fact that until now, I didn't have a useful on-the-go machine. With my 15" MBP (2GB RAM, 160GB HD, iWork '08, Non-glossy screen) due in next week, I will defiantly be happy, but at the same time a bit sad. This will be my first Mac that will not run Classic or OS 9... Kinda a big step for someone who has been a Mac person since 1994; someone who moaned and thought the world was ending when the PPC to Intel transition was announced. Oh, oh, the irony!
 
j26 said:
This is why. If I can slim it down its fine, but otherwise I'm losing all my free space.
Click to expand...

You can slim down no problem. Youll still be cutting it close (i think). I would try and get rid of as much as you can. Either way you should be fine.
 
thejadedmonkey said:
But why is it 9 gigs? What in the world did they do to the OS?😱
Click to expand...

Its 9 Gigs if you install the ******** of printerdrivers. If you do a custom install and chose only your brand of printer it cuts almost 2GB of installs and there is a ton more used by the extra languages.

Last I remember when I installed. it was 5.8GB without the languages and only the HP driver set.
 
Eidorian said:
I thought you had Core Image.

It is a fine card though.
Click to expand...

I'll probably drop the 9200 into my dual 1300 Sawtooth and get upgrade the dual 867 again to a core image capable card in November. Have to keep my tech purchases under $200 a month avg. (wife).
 
FJ218700 said:
I'll probably drop the 9200 into my dual 1300 Sawtooth and get upgrade the dual 867 again to a core image capable card in November. Have to keep my tech purchases under $200 a month avg. (wife).
Click to expand...
That's understandable.

Mac video cards aren't cheap most of the time.
 
gkarris said:
I asked this before but no one answered. Apple says the 800MHz machines are too slow, so why are the 867's okay? What kind of difference does 67MHz make?
Click to expand...

It's a different CPU. The 867MHz G4 was the first that had the ability to execute two separate AltiVec instructions at the same time. The 800MHz cpus that Apple used did not support this. The AltiVec is critical to the G4's and G5 to be able to support the new OS.

Techies... Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Transeau said:
It's a different CPU. The 867MHz G4 was the first that had the ability to execute two separate AltiVec instructions at the same time. The 800MHz cpus that Apple used did not support this. The AltiVec is critical to the G4's and G5 to be able to support the new OS.

Techies... Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

It was the PowerPC 7450 that introduced that capability, and that started (in macs at least) with the 733 Mhz PowerMac G4...

The 800 and 867 mhz chips are probably both PowerPC 7450s.
 
Eidorian said:
That's understandable.

Mac video cards aren't cheap most of the time.
Click to expand...

That's why you flash a PC one. (very easy to do)

I've got a PC Radeon 9800 in my G4 and latest Leopard beta runs fine.

(And no it doesn't need 9GB HD space, the drive I'm running it on is an old XBOX HD that is only 8GB pre-formatting!)
 
blackcrayon said:
It was the PowerPC 7450 that introduced that capability, and that started (in macs at least) with the 733 Mhz PowerMac G4...

The 800 and 867 mhz chips are probably both PowerPC 7450s.
Click to expand...

Didn't the 867 Mhz have a faster FSB though? I was thinking that all 867 and above had a 133Mhz FSB and later G4's had a 167Mhz FSB. Weren't 800 Mhz models and below equipped with only a 100Mhz FSB? This might be some of the reason.
 
Abercrombieboy said:
Didn't the 867 Mhz have a faster FSB though? I was thinking that all 867 and above had a 133Mhz FSB and later G4's had a 167Mhz FSB. Weren't 800 Mhz models and below equipped with only a 100Mhz FSB? This might be some of the reason.
Click to expand...



the Digital Audio was the first to have the 133mhz system bus (and 4x AGP) and it continued up to the first few models of the MDD (which all still had 4xAGP) then it went to 167mhz system bus and the MDD G4's was the first to have DDR ram (which didnt have much of a performance gain from it, if at all due to the system bus)

the B&W G3/Yikes G4 (same mobo PCI only), sawtooth (2x AGP), cube (2xAGP), GBE (2xAGP), any Powermac between the B&W G3 and Gigabit ethernet G4 used a 100mhz system bus.
 
So when I order my MBP, should I get the 2 GB of RAM or 4 GB Ram (for about $700 more), now that Leopard will be the operating system?
 
basqarl said:
So when I order my MBP, should I get the 2 GB of RAM or 4 GB Ram (for about $700 more), now that Leopard will be the operating system?
Click to expand...

you can save a few hundred by buying the lowest RAM configuration and then adding 3rd party RAM
 
Cromulent said:
I really have no idea why you would want Apple to go purely with AMD. Their CPUs are losing badly in the speed stakes. The advantages that you laid out above are hardly cause to use a slower CPU.
Click to expand...

Unless, of course, you need the wicked fast memory of AMD, which matters for a surprising number of applications. Until Intel gets an onboard memory controller and a decent ccNUMA architecture, AMD will spank them quite thoroughly.

Mind you, AMD has been doddling on their new architecture, but their chip design largely pisses all over Intel if they can ever manage to get it out on a decent fab process. AMD's ass has been saved over and over by superior CPU design on mediocre silicon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back