What is Digg?106 Comments
- gothicform, on 10/29/2007, -18/+57The differing voices of Digg.
1) "It's scandalous that Vista doesn't run on a 286 with 4mb ram"
2) "Who cares if Apple's old computers don't run it. It's not supposed to be run on them!" - sn00kie, on 10/29/2007, -9/+44I'm actually disappointed. You would think that the DVD player would work. So much for installing this on my girlfriends old swivel head iMac. To tell you the truth, looks like it compares quite well with the windows vista requirements: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsv ...
It also looks like MS was one step ahead of apple by turning off effects on lower end models to increase performance. - SomeImagination, on 10/29/2007, -9/+27The real question: Does it need to be done?
Answer: No - inactive, on 10/27/2007, -2/+19Win 95 was not 8 years ago. 8 years ago was almost when XP came out. I have seen a lot of my friends install Vista on XP machines without any problem. Oh, here's XP running on 8Mhz and 20MB RAM.
http://www.winhistory.de/more/386/xpmini_eng.htm
Try running Tiger on that lol - superkendall, on 10/27/2007, -5/+18You're not right. In OS X lots of the "eye candy" as you put it is actually useful in stead of gratuitous, and many programs makes use of Core Image for things like editing images, that too makes use of the graphics card.
- ghee, on 10/27/2007, -4/+16Yeah! Because we all know that everyone wants to do that...
- shadownight, on 10/29/2007, -1/+12Their problems were because of the Power Mac's old graphics card — your PowerBook should run Leopard just fine, especially with a little more RAM.
- supermanred, on 10/27/2007, -4/+15I know OS X 10.4 runs fine on an old bubbly imac with 256mb of ram I have in the garage. Should work ok on the old g4. Need to add more ram probably.
- inactive, on 10/29/2007, -5/+16hmmm... i wonder if it will run on my Apple IIC?
- joshpar, on 10/27/2007, -2/+12Well... apparently Leopard can with only a couple snags.
- rollo1337, on 10/27/2007, -4/+13hmmmm... Win95 = 8 years ago???
- Angostura, on 10/27/2007, -1/+10Hmmm? I wouldn't be so sure about that.
- alefox, on 10/28/2007, -3/+11can it run with only a 400mgz G4???
- yabos, on 10/28/2007, -3/+11The DVD player is hardware accelerated. Why should it work with an ancient Rage 128? I have a Radeon 9800 Pro in my old Sawtooth and I bet Leopard will work just fine on it.
- deadbaby, on 10/28/2007, -0/+7It's all due to the graphics card. The Rage 128 just can't handle it. Let's face it, that card was even mediocre at the time.
- inactive, on 10/27/2007, -0/+7it's sarcasm my brother.
- inactive, on 10/27/2007, -6/+13Win95=Mac Classic
http://digg.com/apple/RIP_Classic_Mac_OS_1984_2007 - superkendall, on 10/27/2007, -1/+8I wonder how many of the issues they saw were caused by the specific video card they were using...
- zweben, on 10/29/2007, -0/+6I just installed it on a 1GHz iMac G4 with 1 GB of RAM and it's running fine.
Haven't used it that much because it's not my computer so I don't know if DVD player works, but it isn't any slower than Tiger was. Stacks are disabled though, as are the transparent menubar and background blurring effects. It won't run any worse than Tiger but may not be worth it depending on what features you care about. - ha1f, on 10/26/2007, -2/+8bravo. one of the stupidest comments. ever.
try and run leopard on a '95 mac. - node3, on 10/27/2007, -6/+12No, it's "scandalous" that Vista doesn't run on PCs made that very same year--hell, even some PCs with Vista pre-installed aren't capable of running Vista fully. I don't have a problem at all with *either* OS X or Windows leaving older computers behind. In fact, I think that's a good thing, for both systems.
The PC world would be 10x better than it is today if it would be more aggressive in dropping old technology. Unfortunately, it's too diverse to do so. Before you can embrace the future, you've got to let go of the past. - bobbob1016, on 10/27/2007, -0/+6I agree that Leopard should turn off eye candy for older machines. I am typing this from a Mac by the way. However this could be more strategic, so people with older PPC machines start to upgrade. Also there is nothing forcing people to get Leopard, I'm using Tiger now, and since this is a PPC, I might just get a new mac for Leopard.
Also, I have to do this, sorry:
their = The car belongs to them, it is their car
there = The car is over there
they're = They're in the car
You mean "The eye candy had to be there no matter what." - macamatition, on 10/27/2007, -2/+8Wow, that's cool, good old Apple engineering!
- madmage, on 10/27/2007, -0/+6No...
8 years ago is '99 so Win 98 or ME.
I'd shudder to think what would happen to my Win 98 machine if I installed Vista on it (400mhz, 64mb of ram). - superkendall, on 10/27/2007, -2/+8Why - it actually worked pretty well with the exception of the DVD player.
- inactive, on 10/28/2007, -4/+10My answer would be "sure it will run" without even reading the article. New OS releases from Apple usually breathe new life into older Macs.
- deadbaby, on 10/27/2007, -0/+5As a fan of OSX I have to say this comment embarrasses me. If you like Vista, fantastic, more power to you.
- headhunterMDK, on 10/29/2007, -0/+5Actually just installed in on my Ti powerbook 1GHZ G4, 1GB of ram.. Actually a bit "snappier" than tiger.
- deadbaby, on 10/28/2007, -1/+6^^ Exactly. A lot of people by the absolute lowest end machine they can find assuming it will be "better" than their old computer. Vista on 512MB feels like a P3-500 /w 128MB of RAM running XP. I don't think it's a good thing for the PC industry at all.
- inactive, on 10/27/2007, -1/+6yep, though I have a MBP, I still use my PowerPC desktop at home.
It blazes through general web-surfing, so I never needed to get rid of it. - theprez, on 10/27/2007, -2/+6In other words and to answer the story's question: Yes, it can be done. As a user of OS X since 10.0 this isn't much of a surprise. As long as the ram and video requirements are "acceptable", OS X will work on older Macs. Even an old beige Power Mac 9600 was able to run OS X (Jaguar) with a few tweaks.
- stmiller, on 10/27/2007, -0/+4This is true. The onboard video on the circ. 2002 Tibooks is better than that Rage 128.
- surfing, on 10/27/2007, -0/+4Sure, with the right hammer and you're strong enough.
- chris9902, on 10/26/2007, -2/+6the trolls, they want food but offer no love.
- AJay85, on 10/27/2007, -1/+5I own a 2003 model Power Mac G4 (FW 800) dual 1.42 Ghz, far on the other end of the spectrum from the Mac that was tested in the article. I'm wondering how many of these problems are due to slow processor speeds and low memory available, and which of these have to do with the PowerPC architecture. Regardless, I was going to upgrade at least two weeks from now so I can avoid the initial upgrade transition period.
- BrianCMasi, on 10/27/2007, -3/+6i'm happy to hear stuff like this especially when Vista chugs hard on lower end new machines. Thank you Apple.
- stacky, on 10/29/2007, -0/+3I want to try it on my 350mHz G3, but I don't think it would work, especially seeing as the above instructions require your computer to have a DVD drive. Heck, my box doesn't even have FireWire...
- salmonmoose, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3We've had hardware accelerated video under Windows since the days of the S3Virge. The Rage 128 certainly had it.
The video playback under WMP (and in fact, many other media players) is hardware accelerated - and of course, will still work if it can't find hardware acceleration. - f54280, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3> Seriously if I was running a Mac that old I would probably consider moving up before I would try to force Leopard into it.
You are probably too young to understand that, but there is something called a "family". This is composed of parents, and little screamy things, "children". Some people also have something called "a significant other", aka wife. It is not unheard of that you need one current computer for working at home, a less current computer for surfing / word processing, and left over crap from the previous years.
It is rumored that, giving your old computer to your kids is a smart move. Also, running the same OS on all of your computers is also useful. Lastly, the kid's computer should support DVD playback, or is useless.
Hence the need to run Leopard on a 8 years old computer. I have the very same computer that the guy in the article have (in addition to a MacBook Pro and an iMac). I planned to give it to my sons, and it looks that I will not be able to.
Not a big deal, but annoying. - pdbailey, on 10/27/2007, -1/+4But my 667 MHz box has the same card in it as the quicksilvers...
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g4/ ...
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g4/ ...
your story doesn't hold water - superkendall, on 10/29/2007, -0/+3Why not? That seems to meet the requirements just fine (faster than 867MHz).
- pcpimpster, on 10/27/2007, -1/+4Looks like they have conquered market share.
- bobcrotch, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3Fine my ass, it runs decent on a 866 with 1gb.
I do have a 1.25ghz powerbook G4 with 1.25 that runs 10.4.10 pretty well though. But 256mb is a complete joke. - themuffinman, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2I'm certainly no expert, but if I were to gander a guess, I'd say all the problems they experienced were due to the video card, and that system with almost any other card would be fine.
- MrPhultz, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=37130 ...
- superkendall, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2Another alternate method I was going to try was to install from a computer that does meet the requirements, onto the other computer which has been put in Target Disk Mode.
I'm going to try installing on a 667MHz powerbook myself... - superxero044, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2Yeah - theres no way. I mean i guess it depends on what you mean by 'fine' but our g4 imacs run 10.4 tolerably - the 700mhz ones barely tolerably. the 1.25 ghz ones are pretty decent but rather slow. I can't imagine running 10.5 on them (unless theres not really a difference).
- regeya, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2I would argue with this, but I have one of those machines on my desk at work. It IS a clunker. :-P
- 1iProd, on 10/27/2007, -2/+4Pfft, my Radeon 9000 is a beast! I can play Quake 3 just fine!
- Sonic84, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2Got it on my iBook (1.2Ghz) no apple bar transparency :( but it runs very nicely, tomorrow I tackle my upgraded G4 AGP running at 900Mhz....
-
Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is