f



how many people are buying a new Mac when Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard comes out?

how many people are buying a new Mac when Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard comes
out?

I have been wanting to buy a new Mac... but the Leopard is not coming
out yet and it feels dumb to buy a OS X 10.4 machine that can obsolete
in a couple of weeks.

0
10/9/2007 9:02:58 AM
comp.sys.mac.apps 21416 articles. 3 followers. xxx613 (1334) is leader. Post Follow

59 Replies
1371 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 25

Summercool wrote:
> how many people are buying a new Mac when Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard comes
> out?
> 
> I have been wanting to buy a new Mac... but the Leopard is not coming
> out yet and it feels dumb to buy a OS X 10.4 machine that can obsolete
> in a couple of weeks.

Any computer you buy today might be obsolete tomorrow, that's just a 
fact of life.  If you need the new Mac now, buy it now.  If you're 
lucky, Leopard will ship within two weeks of your order and you'll be 
entitled to a free update.  If it's not, then you still have a nice new 
Mac running the most stable version of OS X available.
0
Calum
10/9/2007 10:48:32 AM
In article <1191920578.340176.15970@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
 Summercool <Summercoolness@gmail.com> wrote:

> how many people are buying a new Mac when Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard comes
> out?
> 
> I have been wanting to buy a new Mac... but the Leopard is not coming
> out yet and it feels dumb to buy a OS X 10.4 machine that can obsolete
> in a couple of weeks.

Same old same old. If you need a new computer now, buy it now. If you 
can wait, you should definitely wait.
0
Shawn
10/9/2007 10:50:26 AM
In article <1191920578.340176.15970@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
 Summercool <Summercoolness@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have been wanting to buy a new Mac... but the Leopard is not coming
> out yet and it feels dumb to buy a OS X 10.4 machine that can obsolete
> in a couple of weeks.

The machine won't be obsolete, and neither will the OS, for that matter. 
A lot of people won't upgrade for a year or more, and Apple will still 
support it for a while (don't know how long).

There are still people using Panther and even Jaguar.
-- 
W. Oates
0
Warren
10/9/2007 10:52:35 AM
In article <1191920578.340176.15970@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
 Summercool <Summercoolness@gmail.com> wrote:

> how many people are buying a new Mac when Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard comes
> out?

Why do you ask?  Will any answer alter your buying decision?

[snip]

-- 
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint =  5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3  7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
0
Tom
10/9/2007 11:46:42 AM
Summercool <Summercoolness@gmail.com> wrote:

> how many people are buying a new Mac when Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard comes
> out?

I know two who are buying a new Mac (to replace an existing one) in the
next two weeks. Both are aiming to buy it with Tiger, not with Leopard,
but want to time it just right to get a cheap upgrade to Leopard. If the
timing doesn't work out, they will get it with Tiger and have to pay
full price ($129) to get Leopard later.

> I have been wanting to buy a new Mac... but the Leopard is not coming
> out yet and it feels dumb to buy a OS X 10.4 machine that can obsolete
> in a couple of weeks.

Having a stable operating system (Tiger) rather than a brand new one
(Leopard) is a major benefit. The new system is likely to have a few
teething problems and some applications may need to be updated before
they will work properly with Leopard.

I won't be running Leopard as the main operating system on my main
computer for a few weeks after its release, but I will have a play with
it, and install it as the main operating system on some of my other
computers.


Leopard is likely to be released close to the end of October. (Some
rumours are suggesting Friday 26th October.)

Apple should announce the release date soon. That announcement is likely
to be at least a week prior to Leopard being released, probably closer
to two weeks. That means the announcement is likely to be no later than
the end of next week (Friday 19th October), and may even be this week.

In the past, Apple have announced the policy for the "up-to-date"
program at the same time as they announce the release date for the new
OS version. Any machines purchased after the announcement date which
come with Tigerare eligible to get a cheap ($20ish) upgrade to Leopard.

If you can wait up to a week and a half before buying, your computer
should be eligible for this offer, and you will get the best of both
worlds: a stable Tiger now, and the ability to upgrade to Leopard
without having to pay $129.

Apple might have a different up-to-date policy this time, so wait until
they announce it if you want to be certain you will be eligible.

If you buy a computer right now, the only issues are that you might have
to pay the full $129 to get Leopard later, and you can never tell when
Apple will release new models.

The release of Leopard will not require updates to existing models, but
Apple might choose to release some new models at the same time.

New models are unlikely before next year for the iMac or MacBook Pro as
they have been updated recently. Updates for the Mac Mini and MacBook
are slightly more likely, as they only had very minor updates recently.

The Mac Pro is very likely to be updated before the end of the year as
the basic design is about 14 months old, which is about equal to the
longest time I can find for any Mac model released in the last decade.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz
0
dempson
10/9/2007 12:00:23 PM
Summercool wrote:
 > how many people are buying a new Mac when Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard comes
 > out?
 >
 > I have been wanting to buy a new Mac... but the Leopard is not coming
 > out yet and it feels dumb to buy a OS X 10.4 machine that can obsolete
 > in a couple of weeks.


The machine won't be obsolete in a couple of weeks.  I'm expecting 
Leopard will run on my dual 1GHz MDD machine from 2002.

Is it just me, or does a post like this come up every fortnight or so in 
csms?

-- 
Andy.
0
Andy
10/9/2007 12:29:45 PM
Summercool <Summercoolness@gmail.com> writes:

> I have been wanting to buy a new Mac... but the Leopard is not coming
> out yet and it feels dumb to buy a OS X 10.4 machine that can obsolete
> in a couple of weeks.

The hardware in a couple of weeks is almost certainly not
going to be significantly different than it is today.  Any
Mac that Apple sells today will run 10.5.  Apple has been
very good about making sure that the latest OS runs on at
least a couple of years worth of hardware, not necessarily
great - may need more memory, for example, but it'll run.

Apple just updated several of their machines - the MacBookPro,
the iMacs - it's not very likely they're going to do anything new
to them this soon.

If you need a machine now, get one now.  The only reason
to wait is that it may save you a few bucks on upgrading
the OS, but certainly no reason to wait because you think
the hardware you buy today will become obsolete.

Admittedly, I'd probalby avoid, say, the Mini, since the
rumors are that it's ready for a change, but if you are
looking at a MacBook or iMac, there's no hardware-wise
reason to wait.

-- 
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks.  The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! --    http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
   http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
0
BreadWithSpam
10/9/2007 1:45:02 PM
In article <yob8x6c7675.fsf@panix1.panix.com>,
 BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:

> Summercool <Summercoolness@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > I have been wanting to buy a new Mac... but the Leopard is not coming
> > out yet and it feels dumb to buy a OS X 10.4 machine that can obsolete
> > in a couple of weeks.
> 
> The hardware in a couple of weeks is almost certainly not
> going to be significantly different than it is today.  Any
> Mac that Apple sells today will run 10.5.  Apple has been
> very good about making sure that the latest OS runs on at
> least a couple of years worth of hardware, not necessarily
> great - may need more memory, for example, but it'll run.
> 
> Apple just updated several of their machines - the MacBookPro,
> the iMacs - it's not very likely they're going to do anything new
> to them this soon.
> 
> If you need a machine now, get one now.  The only reason
> to wait is that it may save you a few bucks on upgrading
> the OS, but certainly no reason to wait because you think
> the hardware you buy today will become obsolete.
> 
> Admittedly, I'd probalby avoid, say, the Mini, since the
> rumors are that it's ready for a change, but if you are
> looking at a MacBook or iMac, there's no hardware-wise
> reason to wait.

What rumours are these? It just had a change (Core2 Duo).
0
Tim
10/9/2007 1:54:10 PM
In article <tim.streater-13AC51.14541009102007@news.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> wrote:

> > Admittedly, I'd probalby avoid, say, the Mini, since the
> > rumors are that it's ready for a change, but if you are
> > looking at a MacBook or iMac, there's no hardware-wise
> > reason to wait.
> 
> What rumours are these? It just had a change (Core2 Duo).

it was a very minor change.  the only difference is a core2duo cpu,
something that anyone can do themseles (see macintouch's writeup).  it
didn't get the santa rosa chipset or anything else.  the new mini
wasn't even mentioned at the press event; it was only revealed when
someone asked about the status of it during the q&a following the
event.

there have also been ongoing rumours of the mini being discontinued,
and coupled with this very tiny update, a replacement is likely to be
in the works.
0
nospam
10/9/2007 2:24:41 PM
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes:
> In article <tim.streater-13AC51.14541009102007@news.individual.net>,
> Tim Streater <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> > > Admittedly, I'd probalby avoid, say, the Mini, since the
> > > rumors are that it's ready for a change, but if you are
> > > looking at a MacBook or iMac, there's no hardware-wise

> > What rumours are these? It just had a change (Core2 Duo).

> it was a very minor change.  the only difference is a core2duo cpu,
> something that anyone can do themseles (see macintouch's writeup).  it

In fact it was a very very quiet change.  No headlines, no
nothing.

> there have also been ongoing rumours of the mini being discontinued,
> and coupled with this very tiny update, a replacement is likely to be
> in the works.

Amongst the things I've read lately - aluminum cases, smaller
form-factor.  I really wouldn't expect much in the way of
improved internals - core 2 duo seems to be the state of
things.

Similar rumors about a new Apple TV.

Coupled with additional rumors of HD video for iTunes, this
all may come along with 10.5.  Jobs knows.  In the meantime,
though, as I said before, I expect no change at all in the
most mainstream, popular macs, the iMac, the MBP.  Haven't
heard anything about MBs, though.  Rumor of a new sub-notebook,
but that's kind of always floating out there...

-- 
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks.  The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! --    http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
   http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
0
BreadWithSpam
10/9/2007 2:56:36 PM
"Summercool" <Summercoolness@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1191920578.340176.15970@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> how many people are buying a new Mac when Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard comes
> out?
>
> I have been wanting to buy a new Mac... but the Leopard is not coming
> out yet and it feels dumb to buy a OS X 10.4 machine that can obsolete
> in a couple of weeks.
>


I'll be getting an iBook as soon as they ship with 10.5 to replace my 
Lombard with OS9.
It's not that I'm worried about 10.4 becoming obsolete, I'm just too cheap 
and lazy to have to upgrade from .4 to .5.
I'd thought about waiting even longer for the rumored aluminum iBooks but 
probably won't. Besides, the $100 rebates on new printers ends Oct 31 and 
I'd rather take advantage of that.
ron







0
Ron
10/9/2007 4:07:56 PM
In article <1191920578.340176.15970@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
 Summercool <Summercoolness@gmail.com> wrote:

> how many people are buying a new Mac when Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard comes 
> out?

I won't be.  I won't be buying a new computer for three to five years, I 
think--unless there is a compelling reason to change my mind before then.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.
0
Michelle
10/9/2007 4:35:49 PM
In article <feg96i$53i$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
 "Ron Herfurth" <rgh2z@virginia.edu> wrote:

> I'll be getting an iBook as soon as they ship with 10.5 to replace my 
> Lombard with OS9.

A MacBook maybe, but not an iBook.  Apple doesn't make iBooks any more.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.
0
Michelle
10/9/2007 4:36:58 PM
Andy <nospam@no.no> wrote:

> Summercool wrote:

>  > I have been wanting to buy a new Mac... but the Leopard is not coming
>  > out yet and it feels dumb to buy a OS X 10.4 machine that can obsolete
>  > in a couple of weeks.
> 
> The machine won't be obsolete in a couple of weeks.  I'm expecting 
> Leopard will run on my dual 1GHz MDD machine from 2002.
> 
> Is it just me, or does a post like this come up every fortnight or so in
> csms?

Every fortnight or so? Heck, I thought I recalled one from more like the
day before. It sounded so much the same as what I recalled that I went
looking to see if the same OP had reposted it (which would constitute
trolling in my view). But a quick skim didn't find the prior posting
that I thought I recalled. Perhaps it really had been a fortnight; time
flies.

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain
0
nospam
10/9/2007 4:48:15 PM
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> writes:
> In article <feg96i$53i$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>  "Ron Herfurth" <rgh2z@virginia.edu> wrote:
> 
> > I'll be getting an iBook as soon as they ship with 10.5 to replace my 
> > Lombard with OS9.
> 
> A MacBook maybe, but not an iBook.  Apple doesn't make iBooks any more.

I still have a hard time with the new names.  I call my MBP
a pBook all the time (and sometimes remember to correct myself).
Same with iBook/MB.

-- 
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks.  The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! --    http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
   http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
0
BreadWithSpam
10/9/2007 5:21:37 PM
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 05:02:58 -0400, Summercool wrote
(in article <1191920578.340176.15970@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>):

> how many people are buying a new Mac when Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard comes
> out?
> 
> I have been wanting to buy a new Mac... but the Leopard is not coming
> out yet and it feels dumb to buy a OS X 10.4 machine that can obsolete
> in a couple of weeks.
> 

Depending on the exact state of my finances, I may be getting a nice new Mac 
Book Pro shortly after the iSteve announces Leopard. If I could afford one 
now I'd get one now, as I'm going to buy a Leopard family pack anyway, and a 
new MBP wouldn't push the Leopard-capable Macs in the house up over the 
limit. (Total Macs, yes, but somehow I doubt that the beige G3 is gonna be 
able to run Leopard...)

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

0
J
10/9/2007 5:31:27 PM
"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message 
news:michelle-D275B6.09365809102007@news.east.cox.net...
> In article <feg96i$53i$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
> "Ron Herfurth" <rgh2z@virginia.edu> wrote:
>
>> I'll be getting an iBook as soon as they ship with 10.5 to replace my
>> Lombard with OS9.
>
> A MacBook maybe, but not an iBook.  Apple doesn't make iBooks any more.
>


talk about a brain freeze

sorry

my bad

I meant MacBook, the middle version to be specific.

In my defense though, the entire iBook line with all variations has come and 
gone since I got my Lombard and after a while the names all bleed together.
ron 


0
Ron
10/9/2007 5:36:36 PM
Summercool <Summercoolness@gmail.com> wrote:

> how many people are buying a new Mac when Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard comes
> out?
> 
> I have been wanting to buy a new Mac... but the Leopard is not coming
> out yet and it feels dumb to buy a OS X 10.4 machine that can obsolete
> in a couple of weeks.

I'll be buying my new Mac after MacWorld 2008. It's just coincidence,
but with any luck they'll rev the iMac line before I buy!

Regards,
 Jamie Kahn Genet
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
0
jamiekg
10/9/2007 6:06:29 PM
In article <yobve9g5hlq.fsf@panix1.panix.com>,
 <BreadWithSpam@fractious.net> wrote:
>Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> writes:
>> In article <feg96i$53i$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>>  "Ron Herfurth" <rgh2z@virginia.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> > I'll be getting an iBook as soon as they ship with 10.5 to replace my 
>> > Lombard with OS9.
>> 
>> A MacBook maybe, but not an iBook.  Apple doesn't make iBooks any more.
>
>I still have a hard time with the new names.....

Even worse... calling your wife "Lisa" whilst in the throes of passion.


0
pack
10/9/2007 6:08:02 PM
pack@shell.dim.com (Daniel Packman) writes:
>  <BreadWithSpam@fractious.net> wrote:

> >I still have a hard time with the new names.....

> Even worse... calling your wife "Lisa" whilst in the throes of passion.

Especially if your wife's name is "Mac".  Which might be weird.

(no comment on "Lisa 2" - or worse - "Mac XL")


-- 
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks.  The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! --    http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
   http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
0
BreadWithSpam
10/9/2007 6:23:49 PM
In article <1191920578.340176.15970@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
 Summercool <Summercoolness@gmail.com> wrote:

> how many people are buying a new Mac when Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard comes
> out?

I may well not buy a new machine until after 10.6. I'm not really 
feeling any need to upgrade hardware now.

G
0
Gregory
10/9/2007 6:51:30 PM
In article <michelle-B0A09C.09354909102007@news.east.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <1191920578.340176.15970@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>  Summercool <Summercoolness@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > how many people are buying a new Mac when Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard comes 
> > out?
> 
> I won't be.  I won't be buying a new computer for three to five years, I 
> think--unless there is a compelling reason to change my mind before then.

Same here. I do intend to buy a copy of Leopard though.
0
Shawn
10/9/2007 7:07:42 PM
In article <srhi-45161F.15074209102007@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
 Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:

> > > how many people are buying a new Mac when Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard 
> > > comes out?
> > 
> > I won't be.  I won't be buying a new computer for three to five 
> > years, I think--unless there is a compelling reason to change my 
> > mind before then.
> 
> Same here. I do intend to buy a copy of Leopard though.

Ditto.  I'm saving my iPhone rebate for it.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.
0
Michelle
10/9/2007 7:17:46 PM
"Ron Herfurth" <rgh2z@virginia.edu> wrote in message 
news:feg96i$53i$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU...
>
> "Summercool" <Summercoolness@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:1191920578.340176.15970@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> how many people are buying a new Mac when Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard comes
>> out?
>>
>> I have been wanting to buy a new Mac... but the Leopard is not coming
>> out yet and it feels dumb to buy a OS X 10.4 machine that can obsolete
>> in a couple of weeks.
>>
>
>
> I'll be getting an iBook as soon as they ship with 10.5 to replace my 
> Lombard with OS9.
> It's not that I'm worried about 10.4 becoming obsolete, I'm just too cheap 
> and lazy to have to upgrade from .4 to .5.
> I'd thought about waiting even longer for the rumored aluminum iBooks but 
> probably won't. Besides, the $100 rebates on new printers ends Oct 31 and 
> I'd rather take advantage of that.
> ron

CORRECTIONS:
The printer rebate ends Oct 22 (not Oct 31).
thinksecret.com just reported that Leopard's due around Oct 26 but there 
will be a small MacBook upgrade available Mid-November. Conspicuously omited 
is a mention of if the current MacBook will ship with Leopard right after 
Oct 26 or if you have to wait for the mid-Nov upgrade.

Either way, it looks like you can get $100 off a printer or a machine 
shipped with Leopard, but not both.

ron 


0
Ron
10/9/2007 9:24:46 PM
On 10/9/07 5:02 AM, "Summercool" <Summercoolness@gmail.com> wrote:

> how many people are buying a new Mac when Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard comes
> out?

Only if Apple also announces updated Mac Pros.

0
Robert
10/9/2007 9:50:49 PM
On Oct 9, 2:02 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
> how many people are buying a new Mac when Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard comes
> out?
>
> I have been wanting to buy a new Mac... but the Leopard is not coming
> out yet and it feels dumb to buy a OS X 10.4 machine that can obsolete
> in a couple of weeks.

What is the Big Promise of OS X.V...???

0
The
10/10/2007 1:49:44 AM
In article <yobve9g5hlq.fsf@panix1.panix.com>,
 BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:

> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> writes:
> > In article <feg96i$53i$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
> >  "Ron Herfurth" <rgh2z@virginia.edu> wrote:
> > 
> > > I'll be getting an iBook as soon as they ship with 10.5 to replace my 
> > > Lombard with OS9.
> > 
> > A MacBook maybe, but not an iBook.  Apple doesn't make iBooks any more.
> 
> I still have a hard time with the new names.  I call my MBP
> a pBook all the time (and sometimes remember to correct myself).
> Same with iBook/MB.

Apple's naming scheme makes little sense.  They didn't change the name 
of the all-in-one desktop machines -- they're still iMac.  So why rename 
the iBook?  I can understand renaming PowerBook, since "Power" referred 
to the PowerPC processor, although I suspect at least 75% of customers 
didn't know or care about this, and just interpreted it to mean 
"powerful", which certainly describes the newer models.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
0
Barry
10/10/2007 5:17:20 AM
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> In article <yobve9g5hlq.fsf@panix1.panix.com>,
>  BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:
> 
> > Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> writes:
> > > A MacBook maybe, but not an iBook.  Apple doesn't make iBooks any more.
> > 
> > I still have a hard time with the new names.  I call my MBP
> > a pBook all the time (and sometimes remember to correct myself).
> > Same with iBook/MB.
> 
> Apple's naming scheme makes little sense.  They didn't change the name
> of the all-in-one desktop machines -- they're still iMac.

The significance is that they all now have "Mac" in the product name
(except the Xserve).

> So why rename the iBook?  I can understand renaming PowerBook, since
> "Power" referred to the PowerPC processor

No it didn't. The name "PowerBook" started with the "Macintosh PowerBook
100" from 1991, which had a 68000 processor and was the second battery
powered portable computer Apple made. (The first was the "Macintosh
Portable" from 1989, which was only portable if you were a weightlifter.
15.8 pounds, compared to 5.1 for the '100.)

The "Macintosh PowerBook" name continued through all the 68K and early
PowerPC models, up to the 3400, then the "Macintosh PowerBook G3" (the
only G3 which can't run Mac OS X). Subsequent models dropped the
"Macintosh" from the name, leaving just "PowerBook" and a CPU type.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz
0
dempson
10/10/2007 7:27:42 AM
The Translucent Amoebae <transamoebae@seanet.com> wrote:

> On Oct 9, 2:02 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > how many people are buying a new Mac when Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard comes
> > out?
> >
> > I have been wanting to buy a new Mac... but the Leopard is not coming
> > out yet and it feels dumb to buy a OS X 10.4 machine that can obsolete
> > in a couple of weeks.
> 
> What is the Big Promise of OS X.V...???

If you really want to know:

http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/

It doesn't matter what the new features are. The OP's point is valid: a
new operating system version will have new features and some
applications will benefit from those new features. Over time, an
increasing number of applications will require the new operating system
to run at all. (Try buying software for 10.2.8 now, and even 10.3.9 is
getting tricky.)

Buying a computer just before a major OS release means you are likely to
need to buy the new OS at some point in order to maintain the ability to
run new or updated applications.

Buying it after the new OS comes out gives you more future proofing.

(Buying it immediately after the new OS comes out risks some teething
problems.)
-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz
0
dempson
10/10/2007 7:27:42 AM
In article <barmar-6FE6B3.01172010102007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> Apple's naming scheme makes little sense.  They didn't change the name 
> of the all-in-one desktop machines -- they're still iMac.  So why rename 
> the iBook?  I can understand renaming PowerBook, since "Power" referred 
> to the PowerPC processor, although I suspect at least 75% of customers 
> didn't know or care about this, and just interpreted it to mean 
> "powerful", which certainly describes the newer models.

I have an Intel Power Mac.
-- 
W. Oates
0
Warren
10/10/2007 11:10:06 AM
In article <barmar-6FE6B3.01172010102007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> I can understand renaming PowerBook, since "Power" referred to the 
> PowerPC processor,

Actually, the first PowerBooks had the Motorola 680x0 processors.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.
0
Michelle
10/10/2007 1:33:49 PM
In article <michelle-8F42F8.06334910102007@news.east.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <barmar-6FE6B3.01172010102007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>  Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> > I can understand renaming PowerBook, since "Power" referred to the 
> > PowerPC processor,
> 
> Actually, the first PowerBooks had the Motorola 680x0 processors.

The PB 100 had a 16 MHz 68000.

-- 
Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/
0
Dave
10/10/2007 1:46:13 PM
In article <101020070746135835%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

> > Actually, the first PowerBooks had the Motorola 680x0 processors.
> 
> The PB 100 had a 16 MHz 68000.

It was functionally a Mac SE with a 16 MHz processor and a battery.  
Sony designed and built it for Apple, based on Apple's specs.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.
0
Michelle
10/10/2007 2:20:14 PM
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>  BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:

> > I still have a hard time with the new names.  I call my MBP
> > a pBook all the time (and sometimes remember to correct myself).
> > Same with iBook/MB.
> 
> Apple's naming scheme makes little sense.  They didn't change the name 
> of the all-in-one desktop machines -- they're still iMac.  So why rename 
> the iBook?  I can understand renaming PowerBook, since "Power" referred 
> to the PowerPC processor, although I suspect at least 75% of customers 

Actually, no - Apple was using the "Powerbook" name starting
back in 1991 with the Powerbook 100, 140 and 170s - all 
running 68k chips.  The first PowerPC machine was the 
PowerMac 6100 in '94.

> didn't know or care about this, and just interpreted it to mean 
> "powerful", which certainly describes the newer models.

It was way powerful!  For '91...

Anyway, yeah, Apple's naming scheme kind of bites.  I'm not
sure how much better it is than the old collections of
meaningless numbers (100, 140, 170, 5300, 6100, 7350, etc)
and silly additional letters (XL, LC, DV, SE, etc), but
maybe marginally better.

-- 
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks.  The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! --    http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
   http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
0
BreadWithSpam
10/10/2007 2:20:16 PM
On 2007-10-09 12:02:58 +0300, Summercool <Summercoolness@gmail.com> said:

> how many people are buying a new Mac when Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard comes
> out?
> 
> I have been wanting to buy a new Mac... but the Leopard is not coming
> out yet and it feels dumb to buy a OS X 10.4 machine that can obsolete
> in a couple of weeks.

If rumours are true and OS X 10.4.11 ships after or right before 
Leopard, many professional companies will upgrade to 10.4.11 from 
10.3.9 they are running. For them, the important factor is how stable 
the OS is. There are many users who will move to 10.4 when Leopard 
ships and hold until 10.5.1 (or even 10.5.2) ships too.

10.4 won't be instantly obsolete, if you didn't buy a new Mac (while in 
need) for that reason, you and your Apple dealer made a mistake. 
Normally, when you buy a new Mac in OS transtition period, you either 
get a free upgrade from Dealer or a real cheap price for new OS DVD as 
"upgrade" pack.

For example, when I bought my first G5 1600, it came with OS X 10.2.6 
(or .7). 1-2 months later, when 10.3 shipped, I went to dealer with my 
receipt and got 10.3.x "upgrade" for $30 or something.

Of course, you should have asked your dealer or Apple Inc.

When 10.5 ships, lots of us (especially 64bit people) will be buying 
while knowing the fact that it will be a compatibility hell for at 
least 1-2 months. I may even buy it, backup the DVD and hold install 
until my I make sure my 3rd party apps will work and Input Manager 
functionality either comes back or unfortunately, companies offering 
their products based on Input Managers move to kernel extension 
methods. I won't be blaming them, I will blame Apple for giving up a OS 
function because some idiot wrote a non functioning lame trojan.

Ilgaz

0
ISO
10/10/2007 3:18:37 PM
BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:
> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>> didn't know or care about this, and just interpreted it to mean=20
>> "powerful", which certainly describes the newer models.
>=20
> It was way powerful!  For '91...

Indeed! - I'm still rathr amazed everytime I power up my old PB 165 from =

1993 and what it still can deliever...

> Anyway, yeah, Apple's naming scheme kind of bites.  I'm not
> sure how much better it is than the old collections of
> meaningless numbers (100, 140, 170, 5300, 6100, 7350, etc)
> and silly additional letters (XL, LC, DV, SE, etc), but
> maybe marginally better.

At least the letter adds give some meaning...
- LC =3D Low Cost
- DV =3D Digital Video
- SE =3D Special Edition (on iMacs)
- SE =3D School Edition (the older / pared-down versions of the Classic=20
models)

Sometimes the letters point to add-ons or even pared-down models...

Cheers, Erik Richard

--=20
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Rgds. Gr=FC=DFe, Mvh. Erik Richard S=F8rensen, Member of ADC
  <mac-man_NOSP@M_stofanet.dk>  <http://www.nisus.com>
  NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Textprocessing
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
ISO
10/10/2007 3:20:19 PM
On 2007-10-09 22:17:46 +0300, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> said:

> In article <srhi-45161F.15074209102007@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
>  Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>>>> how many people are buying a new Mac when Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard
>>>> comes out?
>>> 
>>> I won't be.  I won't be buying a new computer for three to five
>>> years, I think--unless there is a compelling reason to change my
>>> mind before then.
>> 
>> Same here. I do intend to buy a copy of Leopard though.
> 
> Ditto.  I'm saving my iPhone rebate for it.

I think Apple should educate thousands (or millions) Windows people 
that a "new OS" on Apple doesn't mean "new hardware requirements".

It is Microsoft again of course. For majority of people in PC land, a 
new OS means "better computer needs" or "lots of more RAM". They can't 
believe that an OS upgrade may mean "less system overhead" since there 
is no such thing on Windowsland.

Ilgaz

0
ISO
10/10/2007 3:23:40 PM
In article <michelle-8C491C.07201410102007@news.east.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <101020070746135835%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
>  Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> 
> > > Actually, the first PowerBooks had the Motorola 680x0 processors.
> > 
> > The PB 100 had a 16 MHz 68000.
> 
> It was functionally a Mac SE with a 16 MHz processor and a battery.  
> Sony designed and built it for Apple, based on Apple's specs.

it was essentially a mac portable, but actually portable.  apple
basicaly told sony, 'make it small.'  it was a 16mhz 68000, but it
differed from the mac se in a few ways.
0
nospam
10/10/2007 3:26:37 PM
In article <5n48qbFg86ifU1@mid.individual.net>, Ilgaz �cal
<ilgaz_ocal@yahoo.com> wrote:

> If rumours are true and OS X 10.4.11 ships after or right before 
> Leopard, many professional companies will upgrade to 10.4.11 from 
> 10.3.9 they are running. For them, the important factor is how stable 
> the OS is. There are many users who will move to 10.4 when Leopard 
> ships and hold until 10.5.1 (or even 10.5.2) ships too.

When 10.5 ships, 10.4 will no longer be commercially available from
Apple. How do you see these "many professional companies" acquiring
copies of 10.4?

-- 
Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/
0
Dave
10/10/2007 4:06:54 PM
In article <5n48qbFg86ifU1@mid.individual.net>,
 Ilgaz �cal <ilgaz_ocal@yahoo.com> wrote:

> If rumours are true and OS X 10.4.11 ships after or right before 
> Leopard, many professional companies will upgrade to 10.4.11 from 
> 10.3.9 they are running. 

Once Leopard ships, it will be hard to find Tiger for sale.  10.4.11 
should be available for download before Leopard ships, though, not after.

> When 10.5 ships, lots of us (especially 64bit people) will be buying 
> while knowing the fact that it will be a compatibility hell for at 
> least 1-2 months.

Any compatibility problems should be minimal.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.
0
Michelle
10/10/2007 4:40:23 PM
In article <5n493rFfjeojU1@mid.individual.net>, Ilgaz �cal
<ilgaz_ocal@yahoo.com> wrote:


> I think Apple should educate thousands (or millions) Windows people 
> that a "new OS" on Apple doesn't mean "new hardware requirements".

Unfortunately, in the case of Leopard, it does. Rumor has it that the
minimum CPU speed for Leopard will be 867MHz, and the OS will refuse to
install on anything less:

<http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/09/24/updated_leopard_requireme
nts_to_exclude_800mhz_systems.html>

This means my aging 400MHz G4 upgraded to 800MHz and my 400MHz Ti
PowerBook will need to be upgraded or replaced before I can run
Leopard.

-- 
Jim Gibson

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------        
                http://www.usenet.com
0
Jim
10/10/2007 4:43:13 PM
In article <101020070943138810%jgibson@mail.arc.nasa.gov>,
 Jim Gibson <jgibson@mail.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:

> > I think Apple should educate thousands (or millions) Windows people 
> > that a "new OS" on Apple doesn't mean "new hardware requirements".
> 
> Unfortunately, in the case of Leopard, it does. Rumor has it that the 
> minimum CPU speed for Leopard will be 867MHz, and the OS will refuse 
> to install on anything less:

That minimum speed requirement is only for G4 Macs; G5s do not have that 
requirement.  Essentially, almost all PowerMacs made in the last five 
years can run Leopard.

Any 17" or larger iMac can run Leopard, any 15" iMac made in or after 
Sept 2003 can run Leopard.

Any eMac made in April 2004 or later can run Leopard.

Every Mac Mini can run it.

I'm too lazy to research iBooks and PowerBooks.

So, for the most part, it does not mean "new hardware requirements".

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.
0
Michelle
10/10/2007 5:33:10 PM

Jim Gibson wrote:
> Ilgaz =D6cal <ilgaz_ocal@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I think Apple should educate thousands (or millions) Windows people=20
>> that a "new OS" on Apple doesn't mean "new hardware requirements".
>=20
> Unfortunately, in the case of Leopard, it does. Rumor has it that the
> minimum CPU speed for Leopard will be 867MHz, and the OS will refuse to=

> install on anything less:
>=20
> <http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/09/24/updated_leopard_requirem=
e
> nts_to_exclude_800mhz_systems.html>

Well... Don't always listen to rumors. We do not know anything yet,=20
what'll be the right or what not.

 From my 'insider' information, I've always been told that Leopard will=20
require a native G4 motherboard with AGP and a native Apple processor -=20
and nothing else. If this is the correct version, it'll also mean that=20
fx. the old G4/350mhz AGP Sawtooth will be able to run the Leopard.

This will also mean that CPU upgraded AGP models won't be able to run=20
Leopard right from the beginning - not until the processor develpers are =

able to write the needed firmware and extension updates...

And to the OP, - well, I couldn't wait, so I bought two weeks ago a=20
brand new MacPro Quad. - Great machine!

Cheers, Erik Rihcard

--=20
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Rgds. Gr=FC=DFe, Mvh. Erik Richard S=F8rensen, Member of ADC
  <mac-man_NOSP@M_stofanet.dk>  <http://www.nisus.com>
  NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Textprocessing
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
ISO
10/10/2007 6:16:39 PM
In article <5n48qbFg86ifU1@mid.individual.net>,
 Ilgaz �cal <ilgaz_ocal@yahoo.com> wrote:

> If rumours are true and OS X 10.4.11 ships after or right before 
> Leopard, many professional companies will upgrade to 10.4.11 from 
> 10.3.9 they are running. For them, the important factor is how stable 
> the OS is. There are many users who will move to 10.4 when Leopard 
> ships and hold until 10.5.1 (or even 10.5.2) ships too.

We have a wireless network with an 867 MHz Quicksilver (w/1.2 GB RAM), a 
2 GHz iMac and a 1.33 GHz iBook all currently running 10.3.9.  I 
definitely am getting 10.5.  However, I'm worried that the Quicksilver 
might not perform very well on Leopard.  If that turns out to be the 
case, I wonder if I'd be able to revert to 10.4?   I'm still quite happy 
with the Quicksilver and have absolutely no other reason to replace it 
as yet.  It's only 6 years old..... 

But speaking of cats... we were speaking of cats weren't we?   Heh.  I 
wish they had named it Lynx instead of Leopard.  They are so cute with 
tufts on their ears.  Not that I'd actually want to own a cat mind you 
(allergy).  But I did see this rather large cat creeping, very cat-like 
stealthily, into the forest the other day.  The sun was behind it so I 
could not make out coloring.  But it seemed awfully large for a domestic 
feline--- like about 35-40 pounds!  It had a very long tail, however, so 
it could not be a lynx.  Additionally (and even more tangentially), I've 
heard some ghastly caterwauling on occasion.  

Madeleine
0
Madwen
10/10/2007 6:49:30 PM
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:49:30 -0400, Madwen wrote
(in article <invalid-162847.13493010102007@news-50.dca.giganews.com>):

> We have a wireless network with an 867 MHz Quicksilver (w/1.2 GB RAM), a 
> 2 GHz iMac and a 1.33 GHz iBook all currently running 10.3.9.  I 
> definitely am getting 10.5.  However, I'm worried that the Quicksilver 
> might not perform very well on Leopard.  If that turns out to be the 
> case, I wonder if I'd be able to revert to 10.4?

You shouldn't have any problems as long as you have a Tiger disc somewhere 
around. An archive & install should work.

If you don't think it will, then just make a full, bootable, backup before 
upgrading to Leopard.

>   I'm still quite happy 
> with the Quicksilver and have absolutely no other reason to replace it 
> as yet.  It's only 6 years old..... 



-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

0
J
10/10/2007 9:04:35 PM
On 2007-10-09, Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote in 
<470b5dac$0$9926$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>:

> The machine won't be obsolete, and neither will the OS, for that matter. 
> A lot of people won't upgrade for a year or more, and Apple will still 
> support it for a while (don't know how long).
>
> There are still people using Panther and even Jaguar.

How true.  In fact I think Panther is about perfect.  But new software is 
increasingly demanding 10.4 or better.  So I will skip Tiger altogether 
and eventually buy Leopard for this Mac purchased in 2001.
0
dyera
10/11/2007 12:16:09 AM
In article <0001HW.C332B6A301430BC6F0284648@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
 J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:49:30 -0400, Madwen wrote
> (in article <invalid-162847.13493010102007@news-50.dca.giganews.com>):
> 
> > We have a wireless network with an 867 MHz Quicksilver (w/1.2 GB RAM), a 
> > 2 GHz iMac and a 1.33 GHz iBook all currently running 10.3.9.  I 
> > definitely am getting 10.5.  However, I'm worried that the Quicksilver 
> > might not perform very well on Leopard.  If that turns out to be the 
> > case, I wonder if I'd be able to revert to 10.4?
> 
> You shouldn't have any problems as long as you have a Tiger disc somewhere 
> around. An archive & install should work.

Well of course I don't have a Tiger disc and it doesn't look like I'd be 
able to get one after Leopard is released according to another poster--- 
even if I wanted one.  Like I said, all our boxes are on 10.3.9.  Herein 
lies the dilemma.  Tiger was simply not worth the price for us.  And I'm 
certainly not going to buy it now.  If I have to leave my Quicksilver on 
10.3.9, then so be it.  I won't be buying Tiger under any circumstances.
0
Madwen
10/11/2007 3:41:28 AM
In article <michelle-817626.10331010102007@news.east.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <101020070943138810%jgibson@mail.arc.nasa.gov>,
>  Jim Gibson <jgibson@mail.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> 
> > > I think Apple should educate thousands (or millions) Windows people 
> > > that a "new OS" on Apple doesn't mean "new hardware requirements".
> > 
> > Unfortunately, in the case of Leopard, it does. Rumor has it that the 
> > minimum CPU speed for Leopard will be 867MHz, and the OS will refuse 
> > to install on anything less:
> 
> That minimum speed requirement is only for G4 Macs; G5s do not have that 
> requirement.  Essentially, almost all PowerMacs made in the last five 
> years can run Leopard.

I don't think there is a Mac G5 < 867MHz, so its not a surprise that 
such a restriction doesn't exist for G5-based Macs.

> Any 17" or larger iMac can run Leopard, any 15" iMac made in or after 
> Sept 2003 can run Leopard.
> 
> Any eMac made in April 2004 or later can run Leopard.
> 
> Every Mac Mini can run it.
> 
> I'm too lazy to research iBooks and PowerBooks.
> 
> So, for the most part, it does not mean "new hardware requirements".

We'll just have to wait to see what happens, but I would be surprised if 
most Macs couldn't run Leopard, albeit some Macs might be very slow.
0
Shawn
10/11/2007 4:07:53 AM
In article <invalid-2C4581.22412810102007@news-50.dca.giganews.com>,
 Madwen <invalid@nospam.com> wrote:

> > > We have a wireless network with an 867 MHz Quicksilver (w/1.2 GB 
> > > RAM), a 2 GHz iMac and a 1.33 GHz iBook all currently running 
> > > 10.3.9.  I definitely am getting 10.5.  However, I'm worried that 
> > > the Quicksilver might not perform very well on Leopard.  If that 
> > > turns out to be the case, I wonder if I'd be able to revert to 
> > > 10.4?
> > 
> > You shouldn't have any problems as long as you have a Tiger disc 
> > somewhere around. An archive & install should work.
> 
> Well of course I don't have a Tiger disc and it doesn't look like I'd 
> be able to get one after Leopard is released according to another 
> poster--- even if I wanted one.  Like I said, all our boxes are on 
> 10.3.9. 

In that case, why are you asking about reverting to 10.4?

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.
0
Michelle
10/11/2007 5:33:56 AM
<dyera@not.freeshell.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 2007-10-09, Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote in 
> <470b5dac$0$9926$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>:
> 
> > The machine won't be obsolete, and neither will the OS, for that matter.
> > A lot of people won't upgrade for a year or more, and Apple will still
> > support it for a while (don't know how long).
> >
> > There are still people using Panther and even Jaguar.
> 
> How true.  In fact I think Panther is about perfect.  But new software is
> increasingly demanding 10.4 or better.  So I will skip Tiger altogether
> and eventually buy Leopard for this Mac purchased in 2001.

Don't bet on it. According to the currently rumoured system
requirements, Leopard will only work on an 867 MHz G4 or later. There
was only one such model released in 2001 (the 867 MHz PowerMac G4
QuickSilver).

All other models capable of running Leopard were released in 2002 or
later, and some sold as recently as early 2004 won't run Leopard.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz
0
dempson
10/11/2007 7:34:37 AM
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:41:28 -0400, Madwen wrote
(in article <invalid-2C4581.22412810102007@news-50.dca.giganews.com>):

> In article <0001HW.C332B6A301430BC6F0284648@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
>  J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:49:30 -0400, Madwen wrote
>> (in article <invalid-162847.13493010102007@news-50.dca.giganews.com>):
>> 
>>> We have a wireless network with an 867 MHz Quicksilver (w/1.2 GB RAM), a 
>>> 2 GHz iMac and a 1.33 GHz iBook all currently running 10.3.9.  I 
>>> definitely am getting 10.5.  However, I'm worried that the Quicksilver 
>>> might not perform very well on Leopard.  If that turns out to be the 
>>> case, I wonder if I'd be able to revert to 10.4?
>> 
>> You shouldn't have any problems as long as you have a Tiger disc somewhere 
>> around. An archive & install should work.
> 
> Well of course I don't have a Tiger disc and it doesn't look like I'd be 
> able to get one after Leopard is released according to another poster--- 
> even if I wanted one.  Like I said, all our boxes are on 10.3.9.  Herein 
> lies the dilemma.  Tiger was simply not worth the price for us.  And I'm 
> certainly not going to buy it now.  If I have to leave my Quicksilver on 
> 10.3.9, then so be it.  I won't be buying Tiger under any circumstances.

If you don't have a Tiger disc, you're not going to be able to go down from 
Leopard to Tiger. An archive & install of Panther should still work, but now 
the probability is lower. I'd _definitely_ have at least one full backup.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

0
J
10/11/2007 11:25:04 AM
On 2007-10-11 07:25:04 -0400, J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> said:

> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:41:28 -0400, Madwen wrote
> (in article <invalid-2C4581.22412810102007@news-50.dca.giganews.com>):
> 
>> In article <0001HW.C332B6A301430BC6F0284648@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
>> J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:49:30 -0400, Madwen wrote
>>> (in article <invalid-162847.13493010102007@news-50.dca.giganews.com>):
>>> 
>>>> We have a wireless network with an 867 MHz Quicksilver (w/1.2 GB RAM), a
>>>> 2 GHz iMac and a 1.33 GHz iBook all currently running 10.3.9.  I
>>>> definitely am getting 10.5.  However, I'm worried that the Quicksilver
>>>> might not perform very well on Leopard.  If that turns out to be the
>>>> case, I wonder if I'd be able to revert to 10.4?
>>> 
>>> You shouldn't have any problems as long as you have a Tiger disc somewhere
>>> around. An archive & install should work.
>> 
>> Well of course I don't have a Tiger disc and it doesn't look like I'd be
>> able to get one after Leopard is released according to another poster---
>> even if I wanted one.  Like I said, all our boxes are on 10.3.9.  Herein
>> lies the dilemma.  Tiger was simply not worth the price for us.  And I'm
>> certainly not going to buy it now.  If I have to leave my Quicksilver on
>> 10.3.9, then so be it.  I won't be buying Tiger under any circumstances.
> 
> If you don't have a Tiger disc, you're not going to be able to go down from
> Leopard to Tiger. An archive & install of Panther should still work, but now
> the probability is lower. I'd _definitely_ have at least one full backup.

After Leopard has been out for a bit, many people who previously bought 
Tiger, and have since upgraded to Leopard, will be selling their Tiger 
discs.  Once they have decided their applications work with Leopard, 
and they won't be going back to Tiger, it should be easy to find Tiger 
on eBay.

0
Malcolm
10/11/2007 3:04:17 PM
In article <0001HW.C3338050015EE442F0509648@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
 J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> If you don't have a Tiger disc, you're not going to be able to go down from 
> Leopard to Tiger. An archive & install of Panther should still work, but now 
> the probability is lower. I'd _definitely_ have at least one full backup.

I keep alternating backups + 10.3.9 on several bootable FW drives.  
Maybe what I should do is install Leopard on one of them to see if it'll 
run the Quicksilver.  You know.... I forgot (duh) that my daughter's few 
months old 2 GHz iMac is running Tiger (came with it).  If I update her 
iMac to Leopard and it turns out that my Quicksilver is too slow on 
Leopard, would I then be able to use her Tiger discs on the QS or would 
they work only on an iMac?
0
Madwen
10/12/2007 2:40:34 AM
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:40:34 -0400, Madwen wrote
(in article <invalid-DBF4B9.21403411102007@news-50.dca.giganews.com>):

> In article <0001HW.C3338050015EE442F0509648@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
>  J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> 
>> If you don't have a Tiger disc, you're not going to be able to go down from 
>> Leopard to Tiger. An archive & install of Panther should still work, but 
>> now 
>> the probability is lower. I'd _definitely_ have at least one full backup.
> 
> I keep alternating backups + 10.3.9 on several bootable FW drives.  
> Maybe what I should do is install Leopard on one of them to see if it'll 
> run the Quicksilver.  You know.... I forgot (duh) that my daughter's few 
> months old 2 GHz iMac is running Tiger (came with it).  If I update her 
> iMac to Leopard and it turns out that my Quicksilver is too slow on 
> Leopard, would I then be able to use her Tiger discs on the QS or would 
> they work only on an iMac?

They'd probably work only with the iMac.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

0
J
10/12/2007 4:28:20 AM
In article <0001HW.C334702401947316F0284648@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
 J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:40:34 -0400, Madwen wrote
> (in article <invalid-DBF4B9.21403411102007@news-50.dca.giganews.com>):
> 
> > In article <0001HW.C3338050015EE442F0509648@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> >  J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> > 
> >> If you don't have a Tiger disc, you're not going to be able to go down 
> >> from 
> >> Leopard to Tiger. An archive & install of Panther should still work, but 
> >> now 
> >> the probability is lower. I'd _definitely_ have at least one full backup.
> > 
> > I keep alternating backups + 10.3.9 on several bootable FW drives.  
> > Maybe what I should do is install Leopard on one of them to see if it'll 
> > run the Quicksilver.  You know.... I forgot (duh) that my daughter's few 
> > months old 2 GHz iMac is running Tiger (came with it).  If I update her 
> > iMac to Leopard and it turns out that my Quicksilver is too slow on 
> > Leopard, would I then be able to use her Tiger discs on the QS or would 
> > they work only on an iMac?
> 
> They'd probably work only with the iMac.

Oh phooey.... doesn't that just figure....
0
Madwen
10/12/2007 2:09:51 PM
Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <101020070943138810%jgibson@mail.arc.nasa.gov>,
>  Jim Gibson <jgibson@mail.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> 
>>> I think Apple should educate thousands (or millions) Windows people 
>>> that a "new OS" on Apple doesn't mean "new hardware requirements".
>> Unfortunately, in the case of Leopard, it does. Rumor has it that the 
>> minimum CPU speed for Leopard will be 867MHz, and the OS will refuse 
>> to install on anything less:
> 
> That minimum speed requirement is only for G4 Macs; G5s do not have that 
> requirement.  Essentially, almost all PowerMacs made in the last five 
> years can run Leopard.
> 
> Any 17" or larger iMac can run Leopard, any 15" iMac made in or after 
> Sept 2003 can run Leopard.
> 
> Any eMac made in April 2004 or later can run Leopard.
> 
> Every Mac Mini can run it.
> 
> I'm too lazy to research iBooks and PowerBooks.
> 
> So, for the most part, it does not mean "new hardware requirements".


Indeed.  My 5 year old MDD from '02 will run it.  I can't imagine it 
being massively slower than Tiger, but I'll have to wait and see, I guess.


-- 
Andy.
0
Andy
10/13/2007 9:40:23 AM
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.mac.system.]
* Michelle Steiner [10/09/2007 16:35 UTC]:
> I won't be.  I won't be buying a new computer for three to five years, I 
> think--unless there is a compelling reason to change my mind before then.

I'm at the point I should make the same declaration. Both my laptop and
desktop Macs are less than one year old. 

However, inevitably Apple comes out with something that makes me go
"ooooh shiny!"... and that tends to occasionally make financial wisdom
fly out the window. 

-- 
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

0
Elden
10/19/2007 3:57:44 AM
In <slrnfhgapo.1st.usenet@imac.moondog.org>, Elden Fenison wrote:

> I'm at the point I should make the same declaration. Both my laptop and
> desktop Macs are less than one year old.

There are four actively used Macs in my household (one MacBook as a 
refurbished purchase, one G5 PowerMac purchased refurbished, one G5 iMac 
purchased new July 2005, one Core Duo aluminum iMac purchased new a couple 
of weeks ago).  Two are less a year old.  The other two are also 
relatively new.  Two of the previous machines (both acquired used) gave me 
five good years of service.  Only an eMac purchased in July 2005 has 
needed to be replaced quickly.  I see no expectation that I'll be 
replacing anything within the next two or three years.  I like to get a 
lot of life out of my machines.

PS:  Anyone want to buy an eMac with dodgy video, a perfectly fine dual 
USB ibook, and a digital audio PowerMac which has had a CPU upgrade 
(which unfortunately sounds like a jet engine).?

-j

-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg                     http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
  I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings.
  http://improve-usenet.org/
0
nobody30 (1822)
10/19/2007 4:26:54 AM
In article <slrnfhgapo.1st.usenet@imac.moondog.org>,
 Elden Fenison <usenet@moondog.org.invalid> wrote:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.mac.system.]
> * Michelle Steiner [10/09/2007 16:35 UTC]:
> > I won't be.  I won't be buying a new computer for three to five years, I 
> > think--unless there is a compelling reason to change my mind before then.
> 
> I'm at the point I should make the same declaration. Both my laptop and
> desktop Macs are less than one year old. 
> 
> However, inevitably Apple comes out with something that makes me go
> "ooooh shiny!"... and that tends to occasionally make financial wisdom
> fly out the window.

I'm waiting for flash hard drives before buying a new laptop.
0
larry55 (6)
10/19/2007 2:29:12 PM
Reply: