[hrcs]

Will Leopard be a huge leap in terms of system resource usage (CPU, memory, graphics card, hard drive space, etc.) from Tiger as Windows Vista was from Windows XP? What do you guys think and have experienced?

[moonmonkey]

No, Leopard is actually more efficient, this is especially noticeable on machines with low RAM.

[Big Mac]

Great to know, moonmonkey!

[CatOne]

My experience has been with the betas, which means:

1) I can't talk about it, per the NDA.

2) It's beta, so it's possible memory usage will change by the GM time, if say there are bugs which leak memory or something.

Helpful?

:-)

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by CatOne 

My experience has been with the betas, which means:

1) I can't talk about it, per the NDA.

2) It's beta, so it's possible memory usage will change by the GM time, if say there are bugs which leak memory or something.

Helpful?

:-)

So, a definite maybe?

[CatOne]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

So, a definite maybe?

Maybe. Maybe a definite maybe :-)

[peeb]

Is this only for intels, or will PPCs also see a performance increase?

[tkmd]

Im not a developer and I got my hands on a beta. It sucked down system resources. At idle the cpu would float between 10-15%! and consumed more RAM than Tiger. This was on a PPC system and I feel that had I put it on my macintel box it would have performed similarly.

Will this change by the time the final is released? I doubt it. I believe that Leopard will be the first OS x update that is slower than its predecessor OS on the same machine. Folks its called bloat and from what I've seen leopards got a lot of it.

[adamfishercox]

You're not a developer, and you used a Leopard BETA. Therefore, I cannot trust your opinion, as it definitely doesn't sound like you're qualified to say that.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by tkmd 

Im not a developer and I got my hands on a beta. It sucked down system resources. At idle the cpu would float between 10-15%! and consumed more RAM than Tiger. This was on a PPC system and I feel that had I put it on my macintel box it would have performed similarly.

Will this change by the time the final is released? I doubt it. I believe that Leopard will be the first OS x update that is slower than its predecessor OS on the same machine. Folks its called bloat and from what I've seen leopards got a lot of it.

Your opinion, which is the opposite of every other one I've heard, is duly noted.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Is this only for intels, or will PPCs also see a performance increase?

There's a performance increase on every Mac I've seen so far. There's some graphics acceleration that needs to be optimized on some older machines that match the minimum specs for the new translucency effects. You'll be very pleased how fast Leopard is come October.

[besson3c]

Don't you guys get tired of this silly elitist "I'm a developer, I can't talk about this stuff... meow meow".

You have an anonymous handle, many members here have registered with anonymous email addresses (and there is always Mailinator). If you feel obligated to abide by your NDA for the purpose of good karma, great, but all of the wink wink stuff is a little old. It's not like we should ever take anything that is said here as gospel anyway (the debug code thing is a great example of why).

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Don't you guys get tired of this silly elitist "I'm a developer, I can't talk about this stuff... meow meow".

It's not elitist if it's a fact. (Or are you saying reality is elitist?)

[tkmd]

As I have said I do understand that it was a beta and that there may be room for optimizing. But let me reiterate again, from what I tried the OS was slow (slower than 10.4) and had consumed larger amounts of RAM. It does not take a "developer" to note that, nor does it take a developer to note that the dock was (still is?) poorly implemented in 10.5.

Problem in leopard is that engineers have put "whiz-bang" effects everywhere, which surprise, surprise -slowed my system down (coverflow and piles im looking at you) To make a car analogy: take a nicely preforming automobile then for the newer model add reinforced steel tubing and airbags for safety (=time machine), chrome and some more colorful paint and plush leather interior (=piles and coverflow) and tweak the engine a couple horsepower - now you have a model that is technically more powerful than last years version, but overall because of the added weight and gadgets its slower and less fuel efficient.

I know that some only want to hear that leopard is awesome and quick but geez just because I have observed something different, that you dont want to hear, dont stick your fingers in ears and dismiss these observations because I am not of a higher power, like a developer!

[macintologist]

You developers out there who feel like you can't write, why don't you use "plausible deniability"?

"I can neither confirm nor can I deny x and y and z"

For example, I can neither confirm nor can I deny that Leopard feels faster than Tiger.

Was that so hard?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It's not elitist if it's a fact. (Or are you saying reality is elitist?)

What possible motivation could ANYONE have to let people know that they know the answer, but can't tell - other than some infantile ego-stroking bullsh!t?

Oh yeah, teasing.

[silver]

@tkmd,

What build where you using when making your observations?


silver

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

(Or are you saying reality is elitist?)

Well he DOES know how to use linux and claims to have done the sig wall correctly...

But yeah I found it funny coming from besson too.

[CatOne]

Originally Posted by analogika 

What possible motivation could ANYONE have to let people know that they know the answer, but can't tell - other than some infantile ego-stroking bullsh!t?

Oh yeah, teasing.

Waaah.

But as for whether resource use could change between a beta build and release... hmmm let's see say 60 days at a build a day... all of them targeting bug fixes, etc. ::shrug::

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by tkmd 

As I have said I do understand that it was a beta and that there may be room for optimizing. But let me reiterate again, from what I tried the OS was slow (slower than 10.4) and had consumed larger amounts of RAM.

Nice...finally an OS that doesn't waste RAM. I mean, I've got 4GB in my machine and I hate knowing that sometimes 3.5GB of it is unused. This is excellent news.

Originally Posted by tkmd 

It does not take a "developer" to note that, nor does it take a developer to note that the dock was (still is?) poorly implemented in 10.5.

Awesome news...I love the current dock...if it hasn't changed much, I'm happy.

Originally Posted by tkmd 

Problem in leopard is that engineers have put "whiz-bang" effects everywhere, which surprise, surprise -slowed my system down (coverflow and piles im looking at you) To make a car analogy: take a nicely preforming automobile then for the newer model add reinforced steel tubing and airbags for safety (=time machine), chrome and some more colorful paint and plush leather interior (=piles and coverflow) and tweak the engine a couple horsepower - now you have a model that is technically more powerful than last years version, but overall because of the added weight and gadgets its slower and less fuel efficient.

Yeah but it's using hydrogen fuel (UNIX) instead of gasoline (NT) so I don't care if it's less fuel efficient because...hey, it's just water vapor.

Originally Posted by tkmd 

I know that some only want to hear that leopard is awesome and quick but geez just because I have observed something different, that you dont want to hear, dont stick your fingers in ears and dismiss these observations because I am not of a higher power, like a developer!

Wait...you're not of a higher power? gtfo.

[Back up 15 and punt]

I have a dual G4 450mghz box with 2 gig of ram. Does anybody know how well leopard will run on this box?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Back up 15 and punt 

I have a dual G4 450mghz box with 2 gig of ram. Does anybody know how well leopard will run on this box?

No, because Leopard is not out yet. You might be able to get a rough indication by testing a beta build, but they are very much moving targets.

[peeb]

Off topic, I know, but how fast is a dual 450 compared to a 1.67 single?

[Back up 15 and punt]

A Dual G4 450 has the advantage of multiprocessing over the single 1.67. But I believe that the 1.67 probably has a slight advantage.

[Art Vandelay]

Leopard requires at least a 800Mhz G4.

[peeb]

So if Leopard will run better on a G4 1Ghz than Tiger, why are the minimum specs for Leopard so much higher than for Tiger?

[cgc]

My bet is Apple optimized Leopard to make better of of the GPU as a co-processor and also make better use of multiple cores since that's the way the CPU makers have headed. Of course I haven't tried Leopard but it's an obvious path for Apple to take.

I predict Leopard will be at least as fast as Tiger on a multi-core machine.

[CatOne]

Originally Posted by peeb 

So if Leopard will run better on a G4 1Ghz than Tiger, why are the minimum specs for Leopard so much higher than for Tiger?

Because Apple is tired of supporting wanks still using G3s?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by analogika 

What possible motivation could ANYONE have to let people know that they know the answer, but can't tell - other than some infantile ego-stroking bullsh!t?

I know the answer to this question, but can't talk about it yet because of NDA.

[peeb]

'wanks'?

[Brass]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I know the answer to this question, but can't talk about it yet because of NDA.

I downloaded the answer via a torrent so NDA isn't a problem, but I can't tell you because it hosed my unsupported PPC G3 system!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Brass 

I downloaded the answer via a torrent so NDA isn't a problem, but I can't tell you because it hosed my unsupported PPC G3 system!

Your computer can't handle the truth!

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by peeb 

'wanks'?

Wanks!

[Big Mac]

I didn't realize they put minimum G4 requirements in. It's unfortunate that Leopard has gone from limited support of G3 and up to limited support of G4 and up, especially given how many sub-800MHz G4s were sold.

[peeb]

That's what concerns me. If it's going to be faster on a 1.67, why would it be unusable on a sub 800?

[Big Mac]

Either Apple assumes certain hardware features in later models (perhaps GPU features, as was theorized), or it's a case of forced obsolescence.

[Art Vandelay]

Well, anything below 800Mhz G4 is almost 7 years old at least now. Generally, the system requirements of each release has been dictated by a feature of the motherboard, not the processor speed itself. 800 Mhz G4s debuted with the Quicksilver G4, so there is probably a feature of those Macs (i.e. GPU) that Apple is targeting with Leopard.

[legionare]

My Pismo is 7 years old. The 800MHz and higher G4s are much younger (Remember how long the PBG4s were stuck at 400/500MHz). The hardware requirement for Leopard is just a matter of checking how recent your last Appel Tax payment was.

[Art Vandelay]

I was just thinking of the Power Macs but I went and checked and here are the release dates of 800MHz G4s across the line.

PowerMac G4: 7/18/01 6.25 years
PowerBook G4: 4/29/02 5.5 years
iBook G4: 10/22/03 4.0 years
iMac G4: 1/07/02 5.75 years
eMac G4: 5/6/03 4.5 years

Btw, the PowerBook G4 was "stuck" at 400/500 MHz for only 9 months. It's the Power Mac that was stuck at that speed for a long time, about 1.25 years.

To be honest, I don't like running any OS on any G4 that's under 1GHz. The G4 architecture is archaic compared to what's out now. They are all extremely slow feeling due to slow hard drives, slow bus speeds, etc.

[frdmfghtr]

Oh I don't know about that...I'm running 10.4.10 on a 400 MHz G3 iMac with little ill effect. Sure, it's not going to run as fast as my C2D MacBook, but it holds its own nicely.

[Art Vandelay]

Yes it will run, but when you're used to G5 or Intel Macs... G4 Macs feel extremely slow.

[peeb]

But we're not talking about G4s vs G5s with the same OS, we're talking about the two OSs on low end G4s. The GPU explanation is the only one that makes sense. Otherwise, if it really is more optimised, the requirements should go DOWN, not up.

[Art Vandelay]

It could also be the G4 chip itself. The PowerPC 7450 G4 aka V'Ger is a redesign of the G4 processor architecture. It featured a much improved Altivec unit, among other things. It could be that they are targeting the capabilities of the Altivec units of 7450s and above.

Btw, I wasn't talking about Leopard during the G4 vs G5 vs Intel sidetrack. My original point is that I don't get why people are getting upset or are surprised that Apple is no longer supporting technology that's older than 6.5 years.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by peeb 

But we're not talking about G4s vs G5s with the same OS, we're talking about the two OSs on low end G4s. The GPU explanation is the only one that makes sense. Otherwise, if it really is more optimised, the requirements should go DOWN, not up.

Not always true. The less hardware one has to support, the more one can focus on optimising for newer hardware. Backwards compatibility will always slow you down, so Apple has to make a choice of where it's sensible to cut it off, both for performance reasons and for economical ones.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay 

Yes it will run, but when you're used to G5 or Intel Macs... G4 Macs feel extremely slow.

I have a G5 at work, and a G4 at home. I can barely tell the difference.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

But we're not talking about G4s vs G5s with the same OS, we're talking about the two OSs on low end G4s. The GPU explanation is the only one that makes sense. Otherwise, if it really is more optimised, the requirements should go DOWN, not up.

Not necessarily. If their optimizations depend on certain hardware or capabilities, hardware that doesn't make the cut will just drop right off.

[peeb]

Yes, that is what I was getting at with GPU - you're right - there could be other hardware capabilities that are absent in sub 800 G4s.

[analogika]

It actually runs rather nicely on a 700 MHz G4 iMac.

I could tell you how I know this, but then I'd have to kill you - NDA.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by peeb 

'wanks'?

(no nudity, but possibly NSFW)

 

[adamfishercox]

seriously. wth?