digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Mac OS X Leopard nearing Final Candidate?

macscoop.com — Apple's next generation operating system is nearing Final Candidate status according to several report we obtained.

Who dugg this? Made popular Sep 24, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

133 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • drunkentoad, on 10/19/2007, -7/+101Ron Paul for Pr. . . . ohh. . . . .wrong type of candidate. Sorry.
  • sputnikv, on 10/10/2007, -7/+85there's are differences between osx and vista though. vista sucks horse testicles, and there's only one version of leopard.
  • zioxide, on 10/10/2007, -4/+69But.. I thought Jobs said there were going to be five versions

    Basic: $129
    Premium: $129
    Business: $129
    Enterprise: $129
    Ultimate: $129

    :D
  • ricperry1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+44Well, I HOPE it's nearing final candidate... it's supposed to be released in October, right? It's the end of September for cryin' out loud!
  • redfive19, on 10/10/2007, -2/+35I've seen the Mac light and I am waiting on buying a Mac (getting rid of my pc!) till Leopard's released.
  • Terc, on 10/10/2007, -2/+24Vista is more annoying than XP, accept or deny?
  • staticoranges, on 10/10/2007, -2/+23I may be going with Enterprise, Ultimate is way out of my price range.
  • kaytrio, on 10/10/2007, -8/+26God, remember when Vista was nearing its final build? All the reviewers were saying "they're releasing it too soon", "so many bugs", etc.
  • SouthsideIrish, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18And I love how cheap Basic is! Only 30 bucks more than the Vista upgrade and it doesn't suck horse testicles.
  • hixsonj, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Wouldn't 10.5 (October 5th) make a little more sense?
  • JDoggqx, on 10/10/2007, -8/+20Dugg for making me clean my monitor after spitting coffee all over it.
  • carnag3aus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Begin comparing osx with vista... bitching ensues.
  • mglmouser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11When Apple says "october", they really mean "october 31st". And that's no joke. They're been doing this for years.
  • krugerlive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13yeah, i'd vote for a Ron Paul / OSX ticket. i hear osx is immune to biological weapons attacks
  • turpenine, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13you couldn't have been running it for a while, it is like a day old.
  • bigjimslade, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13The sooner they release it the sooner I buy a Mac. I'd better find a bunch of money soon.
  • h0zae, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11the Apple Rep at "a store" said Oct.30 - He said Apple has asked them to come down to Cupertino the week before....Allegedly.
  • coolbru, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Indeed - historically OS X has got faster with each release, to the point where system requirements have effectively been lowered - TIger runs perfectly on my 1999 G3 iMac, much faster than older versions. Can you imagine XP having lower system requirements than 2K?
  • dubbleenerd, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12I'm a big apple fan and am waiting for Leopard eagerly, but with a scheduled release date of 'October', wouldn't it be news if Leopard was _not_ nearing Final Candidate status at this point? I know its Digg, but still... :)
  • xeeton, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Does Apple usually put all the "secret" stuff in the developer builds? ...or are there likely to be "suprise" "top secret" features at launch?
  • Aupajo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8According to Mac Rumors, for 9A528d (21st Sep):
    "The 6.55GB download lists only two known issues for Leopard. The two issues described involve upgrading from Tiger to Leopard on PowerPC systems in certain scenarios, and HP printer drivers."

    Doesn't sound like many bugs to me.
  • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Are you going to buy a MS operating system without a computer to put it on?
  • staticoranges, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Except when they said September 28th for the iPod touch and it was released like 2 weeks earlier.
  • THUMPerRTE, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Sure they announced october as the release month, but I'd much rather have a complete and stable OS later on than something I couldn't trust now. Even after that I know Apple is gonna take care of business and be close to their estimated release time.
  • agent888, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Ya know, I suddenly found myself in the market for a mac too (making the switch myself). My buddies are all like "wait for leopard!!" has anyone heard if there will be like a 60 day rebate if you buy a mac now?
  • justinp, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12Laughable. Vista is balls. I've got two machines with Vista and it's unremarkable at best with it's childish UI and questionable performance.

    I do have an old Titanium PowerBook G4 that I plan on tossing Leopard onto and despite the fact that it's 667MHz and has 512MB of RAM I'm sure it will perform better than Vista does on the two new notebooks it came with.

    If you're going to use Windows make it XP if you can. It has come into its own (or it has at least bubbled to the top).
  • jigzjader, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9@ agent888 I'm planning to buy a macbook pro, I just feel like its' time to move on to MAC, i have nothing against microsoft.
  • Hickeroar, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12I used vista for five months. Then I switched back to XP because Vista ticked me off so bad. Then I got a mac.

    As they say: 'nuff said.
  • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6And neither was Vista. What was your point?
  • Jeffrey903, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I'm fairly sure that Apple will come out and say "If you buy a Mac after MM/DD, you will get a free upgrade to Leopard". They haven't done that yet, so I would assume that if you buy a Mac today, you will have to pay for Leopard. However, even if you qualify for a free upgrade, I would just recommend waiting for Leopard to be released, and either it will be pre-installed on the new computer, or if it isn't (like my Mac wasn't with the new iLife since I bought it right after iLife 08 came out), you can just do a clean install of Leopard on your machine. That way you don't have any Tiger remnants leftover - you get a fresh start. It's not too long of a wait anymore, so that is my recommendation.
  • justinp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Oh, I'm aware that my laptop doesn't meet the minimum specs of Leopard. Hell, it came with 10.1 so I'm not terribly surprised or upset about it... Nonetheless I still think it will run just fine. I'd bet on it.
  • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I plan on putting 10.5 on a 933 G4 iBook (2002), a 933 G4 Tower (2001), a 1.8 G5 iMac (2005), and a 2.16 Intel iMac (2006). All purchased some time ago, and if history is any guide they will all run a little faster than with 10.4. No additional Apple tax required beyond purchasing the Family pack (5 user licenses) for $199. That's about $50 per machine. People who hang on to their machines longer (most Mac users) won't have to buy any additional hardware to get better speed. I haven't played with Vista much and therefore will not make any personal claims about how well it runs.

    As far as overpriced goes, while Apple does come out on the high end when compared to "like" machines (with as close to identical hardware as possible), it is no longer as bad as portrayed and in some cases Macs are either identical or cheaper in price. Find a new argument if you want to be taken seriously.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6don't quit your day job
  • TexanPsycho, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I've got XP with an OS X theme and dock?
  • iheartartoo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I'll bet you do.
    Reply button. I love it.
  • FearlessFreep, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5How are it's hardware requirements? I'd love to upgrade. I bought a top of the line Mac Pro about a year ago and a MacBook a few months back and I'd like to upgrade but am concerned that it runs well on my machines
  • threemagic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6It's a new OS. We had millions of Beta/RC threads when Vista was closing in on it's final date. We have threads about Ubuntu's new OS versions, as well.

    It's ok.. sometimes you learn something about the new OS.
  • diggimator, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Hardware upgrade is not mandatory, unlike Vista.
  • tortfeasor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I wouldn't risk it - wait for an official announcement from Apple.
  • meatmcguffin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"I'll also have to get something to burn CD/DVDs"

    That's built in. Finder or Disk Utility for files. iTunes or iDVD for media.
  • fozzcorp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Are you sure you wanted to post that comment? Are you sure you wanted to click OK on that dialog box? Are you sure you wanted to click OK on that warning? Comment has now been shutdown for security risks...

    Welcome to Windows Vista.
  • bigjimslade, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I would have built my own computer, as I did with my current one. It's lasted a long time. It was expensive at the time (around $1,000), but it's still holding up ok. Transcoding is taking a hit, however, and my frustration while creating small home videos of my kids is pushing me toward the Mac. I'm running with a 22" LCD monitor now, so I'd want to get a 24" iMac. Mac Pro is probably out of my league. I'll go up to 2gb of RAM.

    It's the software that pushed the budget up. Sure, I don't have to spend the $$$ for antivirus, spyware, etc., but there's Photoshop, which is a big one. I'll also have to get something to burn CD/DVDs (unless there's open software), and some kind of office package. Openoffice is a good candidate, but another year.

    I stil think I'll pay more than a WinPC would be...BUT, there's a value that needs to be given to NOT being frustrated with trying to do things. I have a stack of MiniDV tapes with lots of baby videos on them. Using Premiere Pro on the PC is just too damn annoying. Burning it to DVD? Even worse. I just don't have the time anymore, and the Mac seems to be the solution.

    Oh yeah - I have a little G3 for my son that runs OS X. It's fun. Underpowered, but fun.

  • skoles, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Apple's typical hardware requirements are any of its systems have have built-in Firewire ports. So we're talking back to the mid-model G3's in some cases.

    Anything G5 and newer (ergo you) will run it fine and it will most likely run faster than Tiger does now.
  • wolphcry, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Too "I'd better find a bunch of money soon." Unless you build your own computer with a "extended" trial of Windows Macs are the same price if not cheaper. Configure a Dell notebook with the same amount of HD, RAM, & CPU and the prices are almost the same. With the Mac Pro's I've found that the Dells where almost $300 more! You can get a $499 Dell, HP or "god for bid" a Gateway, but you get what you pay for.
  • timusca, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Well, you may have a problem with that... reports are that Leopard needs 867MHZ or higher to run.

    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/09/24/upda ...
  • eihwaz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5This kind of discussion actually is pretty useless. We've learned one thing during all these years: every single brand new version of OS X has been full of bugs until the first .1 update (which usually comes out in 2-3 weeks). Basically, 10.5.0 will just be some kind of "final beta" just like 10.4.0 and 10.3.0 before that. We'll have to wait another month for the "really stable version" 10.5.1.
    It has always been this way, and it always will. No real business should install the .0 version.
  • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5OS X Upgrades usually make systems go faster. I have Tiger installed on a Powerbook 667 (four to five years old now) and also an older Powermac 400MHz - runs pretty well, after the memory and video card were updated. I expect to upgrade those to Leopard just fine.
  • jalo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4In the past Apple only gave updates for users that bought their computers 14 days before the release date, but if you complain enough Steve may offer a $100 in-store credit.
  • jalo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Your systems should upgrade no problem. However i do think that this is probably going to be the first OS X upgrade that doesnt improve performance on older machines. The reason i think this is because there will be more services running in the background in Leopard (Max out your RAM on older machines).
    Another thing to consider is all the eye candy in Leopard is GPU intensive and video cards in most older Macs are pretty wimpy. My 667 TiBook and my Dual 1.25Ghz G4 wouldnt play some of the core image/quartz extreme effects in Tiger (ie. ripple effect when adding a dashboard widget). And neither one would playback 720p H.264 at acceptable frame rates, 480p was really pushing it and it was also CPU intensive.
  • DagMX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4mm, if you were an apple fanatic, you'd know they said it was delayed till october due to resources being pushed towards the iphone. Atleast the delay is a short one. Unlike Vista...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 133 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.