'Leopard' on G4s
From Trevor
Hello
I saw your recent write-up about OS X 10.5 not being able to install
on machines with less than a G4/867 MHz.
Y'all quoted:
"What the OS X installer does isn't check how fast
your processor is running; it looks at the model number of your Mac and
compares it to a list of 'bad' machines that are officially rated as
too slow. So if you've got an upgraded CPU and your box is actually
fast enough, well, it won't work....
Well, okay, this makes sense say for the non-CPU upgradeable G4
iMacs and PowerBooks, but this seems illogical for the G4 desktops.
After all, the Quicksilver first
came out with 700 MHz, 867 MHz, or dual 800 MHz CPUs. The motherboard
is exactly the same, and I can swap CPU cards around easily in that
model. But if I have a 700 MHz CPU in that machine, the OS X Leopard
installer will stop again, why? If it isn't checking the CPU speeds,
then it is checking the model. And several Quicksilver models of both
generations are supported at one CPU speed but not the other? So if I
have a Quicksilver originally at 700 MHz and have it upgraded with a
NewerTech 7448 at 1.8 GHz, it won't work. But if I have a Quicksilver
originally at 867 MHz and have it upgraded with the same NewerTech 1.8
GHz CPU, it will work?
I suppose the only formal answer will be known after the release of
Leopard later this month. I have a Quicksilver 700 MHz upgraded machine
as described with the NewerTech CPU plus a Gigabit dual 500 MHz original machine upgraded
with a Giga Designs 1.4 GHz CPU. Both run Tiger beautifully with maxed
out RAM, a SATA PCI card, and SATA drives. Both have great video cards
- Nvidia 6200's at 256 MB VRAM. I run these in a work environment and
will be very frustrated if I can't upgrade to Leopard just because the
'original' CPU speed was not 867 MHz.
Thanks for the continued reporting on this. I have been a daily
reader of LEM since y'all first appeared on the scene years ago.
Warmly,
Trevor
Trevor,
Thanks for your loyalty. If you've been following our
ongoing Old Macs in the Age of
Leopard series, you know our feelings about locking out old
hardware. We're against it.
I don't know where Liam Proven gets his information
about the Leopard installer, but anyone who has selected About This Mac
under the Apple menu knows that OS X knows exactly what CPU(s)
your Mac has installed. Digging deeper, every revision has a machine
model number, such as "PowerMac3,6" for my dual 1 GHz Power Mac G4
Mirror Drive Door. Between knowing your machine model and CPU speed,
Apple has access to everything they need to determine which Macs will
and won't be locked out by the Leopard installer.
What will the installer do if it finds a 1.8 GHz
upgrade on a Sawtooth G4? What will it
do if it finds a 533 MHz dual processor Digital Audio G4? After all, two 533 MHz G4s have more
raw processing power than a single 867 MHz G4. And what about a
Blue & White G3 with a 1 GHz G4
upgrade? The short answer is, nobody outside of Apple knows until
Leopard goes Golden Master, which we can hope has already happened.
We know of people contentedly running Tiger on PCI
Power Macs and clones with G3 and G4 upgrade cards, thanks to
XPostFacto. And we're confident that no matter how clever Apple is
about locking the installer, someone somewhere is going to hack it and
allow for unsupported installation on older Macs.
Our guess is that Apple will release Leopard on the
23rd or 30th, that the first hacked installs on Windows PCs will take
place within two weeks, and that someone will be running it on
unsupported PowerPC hardware within a month.
Dan
Quicksilver Power Macs
From Melvin AhChing:
Dear Dan,
As usual a great article on Leopard and Quicksilver Macs. Now I
remembered why I bought the 733 MHz model - the next one up was nearly
$800 higher. Ouch.
I love my G4 733 MHz
Quicksilver (CD-RW only), and from the time I bought it brand new
in 2001, it still is my main Macintosh. I haven't made the move to an
Intel Mac because I always hope Apple will come out with a consumer
grade tower model similar to those sub-$2,000 G4s that they used to
have.
That all being said, I was pretty much left behind during the
upgrade to Tiger, as I never bought the release after finding out the
retail package was DVD only and that we had to pay extra to exchange
the DVDs for CDs . . . humbug.
So today I happily do all of my computing with Mac OS X 10.3.9.
Everything more or less works the way I need it to run. I get iTunes,
sync my iPods, do all of my writing, graphics, and desktop publishing
work, and even do some limited audio & video editing.
The thing that will probably push me to either find a way to get
Tiger on my Mac or buy a new Mac altogether is if and when I decide to
spring for one of those new iPod touches. It seems that all of the new
iPods require Tiger and are not backwards compatible to Panther.
As for Leopard, I think I'll get a new Mac before moving on to
that.
mel
Mel,
Thanks for writing. Tiger was a great value for me. I
bought the five-user family pack and installed it on both of my eMacs
and my PowerBook G4. I now have it on my dual 1 GHz Power Mac G4 as
well, and I've been using it for a lot more than two years already. As
this appears to be the last version to support Classic Mode, I'll
probably stick with it for some time.
After Leopard releases, you should be able to pick up
Tiger (on CD) for a lot less.
Dan
Yes, I forgot Tiger is the last of the species that support Classic
Mode. I use OS 9 about 1% of the time on my G4s, but it is still
good to have Classic Mode there when you need it.
I'll be keeping my eyes open for Tiger CDs being dumped. Thanx!
mel
Mel,
I have Classic Mode running 99% of the time, so that's
an important factor for me. I can report that SheepShaver
is a very nice emulator. Unfortunately it emulates running Mac OS 7.5.2
through 9.0.4 within its own window, so it's not nearly as nice as
Classic Mode is in OS X. Still, it does give you a way to run
those old apps on an Intel-based Mac.
Dan
Original Quicksilver Supports Bigger than 128 GB
Drives
From Morgan Reed:
...or at least mine does. I've got a Dual Proc. 800 G4. Using the
internal bus, I have a 200 gig and a 300 gig ATA drive attached, along
with an updated DVD-R and the factory Zip drive.
Happy to share any log or other machine info it it would help.
Sincerely,
Morgan Reed
Morgan,
Thanks for writing. According to Apple, which isn't
always the last word on what will work, only June 2002 and later Macs
have the appropriate BootROM to work with drives over 128 GB in size.
(See Macintosh: Using
128 GB or Larger ATA Hard Drives.) It's already reported that
Quicksilver 2002 Power Macs support large volumes. Yours is the first
report I've heard about them working on Quicksilver 2001. I'll be sure
to note it.
Dan
Differences Between 2.0 GHz Dual Processor G5 Power
Macs
Hi Dan -
I don't know where to turn, maybe you can either help or point me in
the right direction. I am about to upgrade from my G4 Quicksilver to a G5 (I'm a photographer
and the combination of Photoshop and Lightroom is too much for the QS.
What is the difference between a dual 2.0 model M9032LL/A and a dual
2.0 model 9747LL/A? I can't seem to find it anywhere.
Thanks for anything you can do.
Jay Reiter
Jay,
The M9032 is the top end first
generation Power Mac G5, while the M9747 is the entry level
third generation model. Both have dual
2.0 GHz G5 CPUs and a 1.0 GHz memory bus. The biggest hardware
difference between the two is that the first and second gen 2.0 GHz G5
Power Macs have PCI-X expansion slots, but the entry-level G5 Power
Macs (including the M9747) used PCI expansion slots, which are not
nearly as fast.
Both shipped with Radeon 9600 graphics. First gen G5s
came with 4x SuperDrives, second gen with 8x, third gen with 16x, and
fourth gen added dual layer support, so you get a much faster
SuperDrive.
Unless you want to run something older than OS X 10.4,
there's no difference in terms of supported operating systems, and all
of them officially support up to 8 GB of RAM. The M9032 had a base
RAM configuration of 512 MB, while the entry-level started out at 256
MB.
Dan
Pros and Cons of Schools Leasing Computers
From Alan Zisman:
I was unclear whether Björn
Steiner's comment implied that schools should be using
'common business mechanics' and hence leasing computers or not.
Leasing computers may make financial sense in a situation where:
- There is stable funding that persists year after year for
technology costs
- Computer hardware is only useful within an organization for a
relatively short period of time-- three years is often the length of
time for a business computer lease.
Neither are true for the schools which I am familiar with
. . . here (Vancouver, BC, Canada), school technology funding
comes in large part from donations from parent organizations, student
fundraising, etc. Two years ago, the students at the elementary school
where I teach held a walkathon, raising enough money to upgrade the
hardware in the computer lab. These sorts of funding come in spurts and
aren't a good basis to pay for ongoing costs like an annual lease.
Moreover, I would hate to have to turn in computers at the end of
the lease period. (I know there is often an option to buy the computers
outright at the end of the lease). My school has computers in a
computer lab, in the library, and in the classrooms - both for teacher
use and student use.
Typically, the newest computers go to the computer lab, where they
get the most use. As computers get replaced in the lab, they go to the
library, and then to the classrooms. Currently, we have 1.8 and 2 GHz
systems in the lab, and 400-600 MHz systems in the library and
classrooms; the oldest were purchased in 2000, making them now seven
years old. As computers become surplus to our school's needs, we offer
them to other local schools, so we don't have storerooms full of older
computers!
We use computers for 7-10 years, and after that, they often get
several more years of life at other schools. A 3-year lease wouldn't
give us the same flexibility. It would be nice if all the computers in
my school and other locals schools were no more than 3 years old - but
funding for that isn't in the cards, I'm afraid. So until that changes,
we will continue to squeeze as much use out of our computers as we
can!
Alan Zisman
computer teacher
Chief Maquinna Elementary School
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Alan,
Your raise some excellent points, and it's great to
hear that 7-year-old computers aren't being put in storage but are
instead finding new homes.
Dan
Leasing Computers Makes Sense for Schools
From Eric Bylenga:
In response to Björn's comments, I'd like to point out that not
all schools are buying computers outright. As a school district, we've
found that leasing our machines provides a very good mechanism for a
timely upgrade. Once our lease is expired, we simply renew it again
with new machines and move the existing computers to other locations
that need them. I think the biggest hurdle in a school district is
getting the administration to understand that technology is more than a
one time expense every few decades.
Eric Bylenga
IT Coordinator
Island Catholic Schools
Eric,
Thanks for sharing the way your school district does
things. Am I right in assuming that you buy the old computers at the
end of the least? If so, at what point are computers retired or
sold?
Dan
Dan Knight has been publishing Low
End Mac since April 1997. Mailbag columns come from email responses to his Mac Musings, Mac Daniel, Online Tech Journal, and other columns on the site.
