Preordered Leopard — Ultimate Edition. Planning on installing it on an external FireWire drive.

I’m really looking forward to this. Only 1 of my 4 Macs is 10.5 friendly (G4 MDD), so this means that I’ll have 1 Leopard, 2 Tigers and a Panther in the house!

I’m on the fence about installing Leopard on my iBook. It does qualify, with a 1.42 GHz G4 and 1.5 GB of memory and Core Image support. How well it will run, though, is a different matter. Screen space is a question as well. A resolution of 1024×768 could make for a very crowded workspace.

The Family Pack might be the way to go. I can install Leopard on the dual-core iMac down the hall as well as on the iBook. I’m assuming that the new OS could be installed on an external firewire drive. Is that correct?

I have pre-ordered the Leopard Family Pack for $199. Apple’s licensing is very reasonable IMHO. We have four Mac’s in a household of two ( now that the daughters are on their own ) – All will run Leopard without any problem.
I work in the Automotive Industry, so I picked up on the “Street Legal” term.
But the point I am trying to make is that consumer goods ( such as automobiles ) wear out and may need to be replaced. Some of us drive automobiles that are 5-10 years old and are still functional for certain needs. Do we ever complain that the newer features of current automobiles are not backward compatible? I don’t think so.
What Apple does best is to ensure that they use standards-based protocols to ensure interoperability. ( Think – All automobiles will run on gasoline at a minimum ) -
All consumer items have a limited lifetime. We as consumers need to weigh the cost of our investment over time versus the utilitity of what we have purchased.
Buy what you need … but continue to use what you have, even if it cannot meet the level of the “Latest and Greatest”

Consider, too, that a single seat Windows Vista upgrade costs more than the five-pack for Leopard

Peace,
Gene

I have pre-ordered the Leopard Family Pack for $199. Apple’s licensing is very reasonable IMHO. We have four Mac’s in a household of two ( now that the daughters are on their own ) – All will run Leopard without any problem.
I work in the Automotive Industry, so I picked up on the “Street Legal” term.
But the point I am trying to make is that consumer goods ( such as automobiles ) wear out and may need to be replaced. Some of us drive automobiles that are 5-10 years old and are still functional for certain needs. Do we ever complain that the newer features of current automobiles are not backward compatible? I don’t think so.
What Apple does best is to ensure that they use standards-based protocols to ensure interoperability. ( Think – All automobiles will run on gasoline at a minimum ) -
All consumer items have a limited lifetime. We as consumers need to weigh the cost of our investment over time versus the utilitity of what we have purchased.
Buy what you need … but continue to use what you have, even if it cannot meet the level of the “Latest and Greatest”

Gene, It’s maxed in RAM, but at 600MHz and stock hard drive it’s getting a bit long in the tooth. It’s wearing it’s age well as I use it daily for email for freelance (while I’m at my full-time position… Shhhhhh!).

Now if I boot in into OS 9… it screams… well let me rephrase that… It’s quite snappy.

I’ve got a Pismo that I upgraded to a 550 MHz G4 and 2 GB of RAM, and even though it doesn’t support most of Tiger’s visual effects, it’s still a decent travel laptop.

I’m not sure if Apple will catch much flak for dropping the G3 and limiting the G4. I was actually figuring the G4 would not be supported at all.

Maybe not so much in the desktop market, but there are still a lot of people that have G4 Powerbooks that are barely two years old.

True… My iBook still has a G3 and it is painfully slow running Tiger. It’s really only good for email. Which is pretty much all I do with it.

If you pack it with RAM, you might get a little better performance.

But certainly you can see that Tiger was its epitaph.

Peace,
Gene

I’m not sure if Apple will catch much flak for dropping the G3 and limiting the G4. I was actually figuring the G4 would not be supported at all.

Maybe not so much in the desktop market, but there are still a lot of people that have G4 Powerbooks that are barely two years old.

True… My iBook still has a G3 and it is painfully slow running Tiger. It’s really only good for email. Which is pretty much all I do with it.

I’m not sure if Apple will catch much flak for dropping the G3 and limiting the G4. I was actually figuring the G4 would not be supported at all.

Maybe not so much in the desktop market, but there are still a lot of people that have G4 Powerbooks that are barely two years old.

Exactly. That’s why I think it’s 50/50 that the G4 will be history with Leopard’s successor.

Peace,
Gene

I’m not sure if Apple will catch much flak for dropping the G3 and limiting the G4. I was actually figuring the G4 would not be supported at all.

Maybe not so much in the desktop market, but there are still a lot of people that have G4 Powerbooks that are barely two years old.

I’m not sure if Apple will catch much flak for dropping the G3 and limiting the G4. I was actually figuring the G4 would not be supported at all.

“Of course, it’s easy to indulge in conspiratorial thinking about the non-unexpected turn of events. Maybe Apple really didn’t seriously consider ways to make Leopard run acceptably on those abandoned Macs, because it wants to sell you a new computer.” I don’t buy this way of thinking one bit. Anybody running a G-4 can go on using Tiger, which is a darned good OS, and continue to enjoy a functional and reasonably modern computer for the foreseeable future, you can do a lot of stuff with G – 4 + Tiger, it’s not as if Steve’s going to come around to your house and take it back. Also, it is likely that Apple’s software engineers were faced with a choice: pull the plug on the G-4 or keep supporting it at the cost of leaving out some of the nifty bits that could only be implemented for the G – 5 and Intel. If you care to look at it in this particular way, you might say that either choice involves screwing somebody. So who is it more reasonable to screw, G-4 owners or G – 5/Intel owners? The answer is pretty clear, isn’t it? B. t. w., I expect that in the next go-round of OSX (what Apple going to call future versions, when they run out of large feral cats or German tanks to name them after?) the G-5 will cease being supported for the same reason.

It would, though, have to fall within that 4-5 year support timeframe. So the G4 will be gone, but the G5 might get one last shot

Peace,
Gene

“Of course, it’s easy to indulge in conspiratorial thinking about the non-unexpected turn of events. Maybe Apple really didn’t seriously consider ways to make Leopard run acceptably on those abandoned Macs, because it wants to sell you a new computer.” I don’t buy this way of thinking one bit. Anybody running a G-4 can go on using Tiger, which is a darned good OS, and continue to enjoy a functional and reasonably modern computer for the foreseeable future, you can do a lot of stuff with G – 4 + Tiger, it’s not as if Steve’s going to come around to your house and take it back. Also, it is likely that Apple’s software engineers were faced with a choice: pull the plug on the G-4 or keep supporting it at the cost of leaving out some of the nifty bits that could only be implemented for the G – 5 and Intel. If you care to look at it in this particular way, you might say that either choice involves screwing somebody. So who is it more reasonable to screw, G-4 owners or G – 5/Intel owners? The answer is pretty clear, isn’t it? B. t. w., I expect that in the next go-round of OSX (what Apple going to call future versions, when they run out of large feral cats or German tanks to name them after?) the G-5 will cease being supported for the same reason.