System Requirements: Leopard

Discussion in 'macOS' started by davish, Apr 23, 2007.

  1. davish macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2007
    Location:
    Oxxxxxxford, UK
    #1
    I am guessing there are some other threads with this in...but I'm lazy and new to this place :(!

    I was wondering, although I realise Apple make their OS's work on generally all Macintosh machines (within reason), what would be minimum/optimum system requirements for Leopard, taking into account what Panther and Tiger need at the moment.

    Thanks in advance,

    Tom.
     
  2. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #2
    1. Core Image Support
    2. 64-bit
    3. Intel

    Well that is for the best performance. I am more then sure you can run it on a G4 with just Quartz Extreme. I would feel sorry for anyone with less.
     
  3. killmoms macrumors 68040

    killmoms

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #3
    Stop spreading mis-information. Leopard will maintain compatibility with both 32-bit systems AND PowerPC (G4 and G5) systems, and likely run just fine on all of them. Certainly more recent G5 - Intel systems will run better, but I don't think anyone with a supported machine will see Leopard as a "downgrade" in performance.

    The only thing it might drop support for is G3-based systems, and I don't believe that's been set in stone yet.
     
  4. davish thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2007
    Location:
    Oxxxxxxford, UK
    #4
    Taking that into account...

    Does that not seem a bit too high-end? I mean Intel, necessary? 64-bit necessary? Even for optimum requirements? I believe not.
     
  5. davish thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2007
    Location:
    Oxxxxxxford, UK
  6. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
  7. killmoms macrumors 68040

    killmoms

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #7
    Saying that you need all three for "optimum" experience is bunk though. It's completely baseless.
     
  8. Cromulent macrumors 603

    Cromulent

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Location:
    The Land of Hope and Glory
    #8
    Actually if you were going for the optimum setup then Leopard would require an 8 core Mac Pro with an ATI Radeon graphics card and a minimum of 8GBs of RAM.

    I know, I'm being silly. But he did clearly state for best performance that is what you would need, and he was correct in that statement.
     
  9. killmoms macrumors 68040

    killmoms

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #9
    Okay, fine, I'll buy that if one wanted to be a literalist about it. However, the way it was phrased made it sound like unless you had the absolute best hardware, your experience would somehow be "sub par," or worse than what is currently enjoyed. OS X has gotten faster/smoother on the same hardware (barring the absolute low-end of supported) for years. I see no reason that trend should change, and to the uninformed, making it sound like Leopard will only be "best" on expensive hardware released in the last several months is... somewhat disingenuous.
     
  10. Cromulent macrumors 603

    Cromulent

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Location:
    The Land of Hope and Glory
    #10
    I agree, I was just being a pedantic a******e :).

    My old Power Book G3 still runs Panther well enough with 92MBs (or is 94? oh well no matter...) of RAM and a 4GB HDD. I see no reason why Leopard would not run well on a Power Mac G4 or above. The only thing I will say is that 512MB of RAM is likely to be the minimum usable amount of RAM. Anything less and I can see slowdowns happening more often than not.
     
  11. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #11
    maybe I am wrong, but that number feels not real.
     
  12. killmoms macrumors 68040

    killmoms

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #12
    It's probably 96—a 64MB and 32MB module.

    I remember having an old K6-III 400MHz box with 96MB of RAM... boy that was a long time ago.

    EDIT: Also, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that Cromulent's username ****ing rules. What an awesome word. :D
     
  13. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #13
    The first one?

    Would be 32MB (on logicboard) + 64MB DIMM = 96MB

    It does seem to embiggen his persona.
     
  14. Cromulent macrumors 603

    Cromulent

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Location:
    The Land of Hope and Glory
    #14
    It's been a while since I dusted it off, but you are right the actual number is 96MBs as one of the other posters pointed out.
     
  15. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #15
    Actually it's a sliding scale.

    1. Core Image Support can be found on a decent share of the G4 hardware and it's standard for the G5 models and Intel. Apple is pushing a LARGE part of its features and capabilities to the GPU for realtime processing. Tiger already showed what Core Image can do and that Apple is going toward making it a requirement. If you have a G4 with Core Image you do not really need to bother with the next two.

    2. 64-bit can be found on the on the PowerPC 970 (G5) or the Core 2 Duo and Xeon. Most of these are related to addressing large chunks of RAM and a few associated tweaks for 64-bit. Is being able to address more then 4 GB of RAM necessary for Leopard no it is not.

    3. Intel is the future for Apple. You can boot into Windows and x86 virtualization.

    My baseline is still a G4 that supports Core Image. During Tiger it was a G3 that supports Quartz Extreme.
     
  16. Krevnik macrumors 68040

    Krevnik

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    #16
    Leopard's minimum requirements have already been leaked by people on this forum... don't expect them to change from that.

    Historically, OS X's minimum requirements are based on what hardware configs Apple wants to support, rather than a strict performance reason. 10.3 ran on my old PowerMac 8600 once the drivers were available.
     
  17. Krevnik macrumors 68040

    Krevnik

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    #17
    Core Image itself is designed to scale. It can run in software, so having hardware that supports it is not a requirement to use apps that use Core Image. As an aside, IIRC, the Intel Mini and MacBooks currently use Core Image in software to some extent.

    64-bit in terms of performance is really only helpful on Intel, as shown by benchmarks. 64-bit apps won't even be supported until Leopard (with a GUI, anyways), and because of universal binaries, there shouldn't be a reason to upgrade to Leopard just for 64-bit.

    Tiger addresses more than 4GB of RAM today, in the same way Leopard does tomorrow. Leopard's kernel is 32-bit (*wink, wink*).

    Intel is the future, sure, but everyone sees that. People are asking about requirements to see if they can last another year or two on their existing hardware, not if they can get an 'optimal experience for the next 5 years'.

    Apple's baseline for Leopard is simply:

    G4, G5, Intel
    DVD-ROM Drive
    Firewire port
    256 or 512MB of RAM (I can't remember which was posted on here back at WWDC)
     
  18. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #18
    If your GPU can not handle it then your CPU does the work. Try Core Image Fun House on a non-Core Image machine. In during "THE RIPPLE EFFECT".

    *wink* In the command line */wink*

    I will agree to that. I still strongly suggest at least Quartz Extreme support.
     
  19. slooksterPSV macrumors 68030

    slooksterPSV

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    Nowheresville
    #19
    Here's what I believe the system requirements will be:
    [X] G4, G5 or Intel Mac - I think G3's are going bye bye cause they don't have the altivec core.
    [X] 512MB minimum RAM
    [X] 8GB Free HDD Space
    [O] CoreImage Supporting video card (optional, but recommended) - reason is because apple put out the 1.2GHz iBooks that have 32MB VRAM with a Radeon 9200, and those were the second to last release of the iBooks. I doubt that Apple will drop those, I seriously doubt that, cause Apple would have pissed off customers.
    CoreAnimation runs off of CoreImage & QuartzExtreme so hence forth (optional) or they'll figure out a way to run it programmatically without GPU usage, but it will take longer for rendering some things I would think.

    [X] means required
    [O] means optional

    64-bit for Leopard? Yeah it will be 64-bit, but PPC processors, G4's and G5's can handle 64-bit instructions - same with G3's. Now the G2's (some call them, but before the G era) only supported 32-bit. G3's and G4's are 32-bit native with 64-bit handling - correct me if I'm wrong. But its not strictly 64-bit.
    Same with the graphics card, its not strictly CoreImage
    And with the Intel Processors, sorry they still have G4 and G5's coming out when they were doing talks of Leopard, and you can run the developer pre-release on G4's and G5's, so why would it be strictly Intel???
    EDIT: I know you said for best performance, but answer the question before having people jump to conclusions about what you posted. Not for best, not for optimum, but for minimal reqs.
     
  20. Krevnik macrumors 68040

    Krevnik

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    #20
    And to assume Apple will jump immediately onto the effects that use the most CPU is a bit silly. They have a baseline, and they test against it for 'acceptable performance'. Granted, acceptable performance in Apple's eyes might not be acceptable in ours.

    Tiger can address more than 4GB of RAM... a 32-bit process can have its memory pages placed in the higher levels of memory beyond the 4GB mark. Without a 64-bit app that regularly uses more than 4GB of RAM (scratch most home users, and even most programmers), I don't see it as a worthy suggestion to be running 64-bit to a user.

    Just having Leopard out there isn't gonna make it immediately useful... especially when my workflow barely uses more than 2GB of physical memory at its peak.

    Which is pretty much available to nearly every machine that meets the requirements Apple lists. The machines that don't match it... the owner likely isn't doing anything where they care about the lack of it. My mother is still on a 500Mhz 1st run iBook, for example. She doesn't even know it /can/ be faster, or why she would want it faster.
     
  21. Shadow macrumors 68000

    Shadow

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Keele, United Kingdom
    #21
    Basically, the G4 will defiantly be supported. Apple was still selling G4-based Macs in 2006 so logically, I see Apple supporting the G4s for 5-7 more years. Same with the Core Duo-probably 6-7 years.

    64-bit does means absolute squat all for Leopard. It is not required, offers no preformance increase (unless we're talking about servers or extreme high-end) and 99.5% of people will see no benefit to 64-bit in the next (at least) 5 years. And by then, most people will be upgrading anyway.

    256MB of RAM will probably be the minimum RAM, but I wouldn't be surprised if its 512MB. Besides, anything less than 1GB for Mac OS X is useless anyway.
     
  22. CRAZYBUBBA macrumors 65816

    CRAZYBUBBA

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Location:
    Toronto/Houston
    #22
    I agree...

    1.0 ghz G4
    Ditto for the RAM
    Ditto for HD
    32 mb vram is inadequate, i'd say min 32mb, reccomended 64 mb plus


     
  23. yippy macrumors 68020

    yippy

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #23
    1Ghz G4 is way to high for a minimum requirement. It will most likely be any G4, at worst it will require something like 500Mhz.

    I also think your hard drive space requirements are a bit high. Considering I can and have made 1.5Gb installs of Tiger I doubt Leopard will require more than 4Gb.
     
  24. slooksterPSV macrumors 68030

    slooksterPSV

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    Nowheresville
    #24
    Well, I wouldn't be too sure... don't jump the gun just yet.
     

Share This Page