[JLL]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Doesn't Apple still sell an educational iBook model with only a CD-ROM drive in it? I think that fact would lead me to believe that there ought to be a version of Tiger you can get on CD in some shape or form.

I don't think schools are installing system software from CDs. Network Install or something like that are much easier.

[JLL]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
One major reason to wish to run Tiger is that certain complementary Apple software will require it, such as Safari 2.

But Safari 1.3 with the same rendering engine will be available in 10.3.9.

[badidea]

Hardware Requirements
Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger requires a Macintosh with:

PowerPC G5, G4 or G3 processor
Built-in FireWire
At least 256MB of physical RAM
Some features of Mac OS X v10.4 require a compatible Internet service provider; fees may apply.

Some features require a .Mac account

Video conferencing requires a compatible FireWire DV camera or web camera and broadband Internet access. One-to-one video conferencing requires a G5, G4, or 600MHz or faster G3 processor and 100-Kbps or faster broadband access.

Initiating a multiway video conference requires a G5 or dual 1GHz or faster G4 processor and 384-Kbps or faster broadband access. Participating in a multiway video conference and initiating a 6-person multiway audio conference both require a G5, 1GHz G4, dual 800MHz or faster G4 processor, and 100-Kbps or faster broadband access.

QuickTime Pro requires QuickTime 7 Pro key. QuickTime 6 Pro Key will not work after this software is installed.

Processor upgrade cards are not supported.

What does this mean, "Processor upgrade cards are not supported"???

I have a Quicksilver G4 with a Sonnet 1.4GHz upgrade card...

[Busemann]

Originally posted by badidea:
What does this mean, "Processor upgrade cards are not supported"???

I have a Quicksilver G4 with a Sonnet 1.4GHz upgrade card...

It'll probably work, but they can't give support etc.

[Eug Wanker]

Firewire is required.

As expected, there is no mention of a DVD drive requirement.

[LaGow]

That's reassuring, although I can't find any literature on the site mentioning Tiger's availability on CD. Would this be on a separate SKU?

[bil207]

From Apple's Tiger upgrade page.

"Tiger ships on a DVD, but if your Mac doesn’t have a built-in DVD-ROM player, you’ll need CD media. When you buy Mac OS X Tiger, you qualify to purchase Tiger CDs for only $9.95."

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Firewire is required.

As expected, there is no mention of a DVD drive requirement.

It was the first thing I saw on the upgrade page.
"Tiger ships on a DVD, but if your Mac doesn�t have a built-in DVD-ROM player, you�ll need CD media. When you buy Mac OS X Tiger, you qualify to purchase Tiger CDs for only $9.95."

[LaGow]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
It was the first thing I saw on the upgrade page.
"Tiger ships on a DVD, but if your Mac doesn�t have a built-in DVD-ROM player, you�ll need CD media. When you buy Mac OS X Tiger, you qualify to purchase Tiger CDs for only $9.95."

Somehow I missed it! Thanks.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

So all your pornstars that put an upgrade card in your computers... does this mean it will not install or just not supported?

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
So all your pornstars that put an upgrade card in your computers... does this mean it will not install or just not supported?

It means that if will probably work, but if it doesn't and you call Apple, they will laugh at you.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
So all your pornstars that put an upgrade card in your computers... does this mean it will not install or just not supported?

It means Apple does not guarantee it will work.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
It means Apple does not guarantee it will work.

Oh wonderful, another reason I love to avoid those things. First being the high cost.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
So all your pornstars that put an upgrade card in your computers... does this mean it will not install or just not supported?

We know it Tiger runs fine on upgrade cards, because many of the ADC Tiger builds are already running on upgrade cards. And I'm hearing is that Tiger will be the first Mac OS to support the 7447A upgrade cards natively for fresh installations. (Panther won't install on a 7447A upgraded system. To perform a 7447A upgrade, you need 10.3.5 or later preinstalled, because 10.3.0 won't boot.)

But yeah, just like with every other OS X release, upgrade cards are not supported.

[discotronic]

Looks like I will have to halt the OS upgrades to my old iBook 300MHz. It seems as if support for the original clamshell is gone.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by discotronic:
Looks like I will have to halt the OS upgrades to my old iBook 300MHz. It seems as if support for the original clamshell is gone.

Yeah, running Panther on a 300 MHz machine doesn't sound like fun either.

To Solo: AFAIK your primary machine is a souped-up cube, right? Your base machine is already quite old, so this development should not be entirely surprising.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
To Solo: AFAIK your primary machine is a souped-up cube, right? Your base machine is already quite old, so this development should not be entirely surprising.

Are you getting him mixed up with me?

He has a Cube with the stock CPU, but his main machine is a dual G5 Power Mac. I run a souped up Cube.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
To Solo: AFAIK your primary machine is a souped-up cube, right? Your base machine is already quite old, so this development should not be entirely surprising.

Actually no, I have a base cube (with faster hard drive) that I gave my sister. Seems it will run tiger just fine.

Eug is the one with the souped up cube (That he bought right before the mini came out poor lad).

[Socially Awkward Solo]

double

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
Actually no, I have a base cube (with faster hard drive) that I gave my sister. Seems it will run tiger just fine.

Eug is the one with the souped up cube (That he bought right before the mini came out poor lad).

Sorry, got mixed up.
Anyway, honestly, how old is your cube? Even if Tiger and its successors still technically support the machine, it'll be less and less fun. That's the life of computer people

[resuna]

imac Rev A-D
slot-loading iMac
1st generation iBook.

Looks like with Firewire the cutoff is somewhere in 2000. Firewire was introduced in iMacs with the iMac DV, and in iBooks with the 2nd generation.

I don't know if the Pismo (first Powerbook with Firewire) is supported,
but all the G4 Powerbooks and white iBooks should be good to go, as well as all the iMacs after the first slot-loading model.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Sorry, got mixed up.
Anyway, honestly, how old is your cube? Even if Tiger and its successors still technically support the machine, it'll be less and less fun. That's the life of computer people

I got the cube when it first came out in 2000.

[resuna]

Trying to delete double-post (server hung, hit reload).

[Don Pickett]

I don't know if the Pismo (first Powerbook with Firewire) is supported,

This will be the last OS release for which the Pismo is officially supported.

[discotronic]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Yeah, running Panther on a 300 MHz machine doesn't sound like fun either.

To Solo: AFAIK your primary machine is a souped-up cube, right? Your base machine is already quite old, so this development should not be entirely surprising.

It only gets used for surfing the net on the couch and for writing the occasional paper. Panther does great on the ole' clamshell as long as it isn't pushed beyond that

XPostFacto might be an option down the line.

[resuna]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
This will be the last OS release for which the Pismo is officially supported.

Then they need to update their requirements page, since it doesn't show the Pismo and it does show slot-loading iMacs... the first generation of slot-loading iMacs (pre-DV) didn't have Firewire.

PS: So much for the rumors of Apple downplaying Firewire after they shipped the Shuffle USB-only and the new iPod Mini without a FW cable.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally posted by resuna:

PS: So much for the rumors of Apple downplaying Firewire after they shipped the Shuffle USB-only and the new iPod Mini without a FW cable.

Um, firewire isn't actually a needed part, they just say that because only a certain class of machine has firewire.

Like like 10.3 was for built in USB macs.

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by resuna:
[B]Then they need to update their requirements page, since it doesn't show the Pismo and it does show slot-loading iMacs... the first generation of slot-loading iMacs (pre-DV) didn't have Firewire.

They do need to update the page. However, the Pismo and the first generation of TiBooks are almost identical, save the processor.

[Simon]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
...souped up cube (That he bought right before the mini came out poor lad).

Poor lad.

[alphasubzero949]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Yeah, running Panther on a 300 MHz machine doesn't sound like fun either.

Actually it doesn't run that bad at all, even when maxed out at 288 MB RAM. Great for basic word processing, e-mail, and web surfing. Anything else would slow it down to 10.0 levels.

[finboy]

Originally posted by resuna:
imac Rev A-D
slot-loading iMac
1st generation iBook.

You'd figure with all the jabber about the "Unix underpinnings" of the OS, they'd find a way to include these machines on the supported list. Isn't Unix supposed to be flexible enough (scalable, I think the term is) to support lots of different hardware configurations?

I guess Linux is still a viable alternative.

I can remember back in the good old days when folks ragged on Micro$oft about senseless OS scale-ups that sold hardware for Intel every few years without really improving stability or the user interface/experience. Where are those folks now?

[Simon]

Originally posted by finboy:
I can remember back in the good old days when folks ragged on Micro$oft about senseless OS scale-ups that sold hardware for Intel every few years without really improving stability or the user interface/experience. Where are those folks now?

Those folks are still here.

They like the fact that Apple makes new OS X versions run faster on older hardware, whereas MS makes new Win versions run worse (if at all) on older hardware. When Panther came out, my iMac DV+ (G3/450 MHz) felt roughly twice as snappy as with Jaguar. At the time that was already three year old hardware. Go back and check what people said when XP was launched and they tried it on their three year old hardware...

Just because Apple doesn't support old hardware forever, doesn't put them anywhere near MS' strategy of making sure Intel gets a sales boost with every Win version. And that's Apple that makes both the OS and the hardware btw.

[bradoesch]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
XP runs fine on a 5 year old machine, as long as you have enough memory. I even run it on a 7 year-old machine, and with enough memory it works fine, especially if you turn off some of the eye candy.

I had XP running on a P2 233MHz, 512 RAM and it flew. Boot times weren't the great but with lots of RAM XP runs fine on older machines.

[Superchicken]

I'm unsure how I feel... my PowerBook is supported on every level but my iMac is supported on none... oh well, he's going to be living in the youth room playing iTunes for the rest of his life likely anyway

That said... I might have to see about getting a G5 some time soon...

[discotronic]

Originally posted by bradoesch:
I had XP running on a P2 233MHz, 512 RAM and it flew. Boot times weren't the great but with lots of RAM XP runs fine on older machines.

As long as the machine isn't doing anything too heavy XP does run okay on older systems. I always made sure to turn off the System Restore option because it seemed to speed everything up a bit and didn't hog a ton of hard drive space.

Install time really blows on a system that old also.

[frankiec]

Originally posted by finboy:
You'd figure with all the jabber about the "Unix underpinnings" of the OS, they'd find a way to include these machines on the supported list. Isn't Unix supposed to be flexible enough (scalable, I think the term is) to support lots of different hardware configurations?

Just because there's "Unix underpinnings" doesn't mean that every feature of the OS easily scales back to prehistoric hardware.

Originally posted by finboy:
I guess Linux is still a viable alternative.

Linux is still a "viable alternative," yes. A Wal-Mart OS for ancient hardware.

Originally posted by finboy:
I can remember back in the good old days when folks ragged on Micro$oft about senseless OS scale-ups that sold hardware for Intel every few years without really improving stability or the user interface/experience. Where are those folks now?

Mac OS X Tiger supports older hardware at an unbelievable rate than Longhorn will. Tiger will run on better on less hardware NOW than Windows XP does.

These are ridiculously low requirements for the most advanced and innovative OS.
* Macintosh computer with a PowerPC G3, G4 or G5 processor
* Built-in FireWire
* 256MB of RAM
* 3GB of available hard disk space (4GB if you_install the developer tools)

You're a very confused and angry person -- either that you're smoking too much crack. Apple, the world, and random strangers aren't against you. This is not a conspiracy, lose the kool aid and tin foil hat. I suggest you either take up exercising, find group therapy, or go get a hooker to relieve some of your frustrations.

[OpenStep]

Interesting, looks like it drops support for the Lombard and tray loading iMacs. It gets confusing though because some slot loading iMacs had the option for FireWire on the motherboard but didn't have the chip/sockets soldered in. I think some of the early B&W G3's may not have had FW either and instead had the slot for the FW controller board to connect to. It is interesting to see if FW is actually a strict requirement or a loose guideline to show which boards/chipsets are supported.

[Superchicken]

Wonder if anyone will be able to get this installed on a Rev D iMac... if soo I will be supa happy

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by OpenStep:
I think some of the early B&W G3's may not have had FW either and instead had the slot for the FW controller board to connect to.

Really? I thought they all had it and were the first macs to ship with firewire.

[yikes600]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Really? I thought they all had it and were the first macs to ship with firewire.

Yep, they were

[continuo]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
This will be the last OS release for which the Pismo is officially supported.

If this is true ... how come Apple didn't have it's picture on their list of supported hardware?

[TomR]

Originally Posted by bil207

From Apple's Tiger upgrade page.

"Tiger ships on a DVD, but if your Mac doesn’t have a built-in DVD-ROM player, you’ll need CD media. When you buy Mac OS X Tiger, you qualify to purchase Tiger CDs for only $9.95."

Let me get ths straight, After shelling out $130 for Tiger I have to spend ANOTHER $10 to get CDs so *I* can upgrade?????

Figures, Thanks AGAIN Steve.

Guess I'll be sticking with the older OS....

[deboerjo]

Originally Posted by frankiec

Mac OS X Tiger supports older hardware at an unbelievable rate than Longhorn will. Tiger will run on better on less hardware NOW than Windows XP does.

You've obviously never run XP on older hardware. The slowest system Tiger will even install on is 300MHz G3. XP flies on a 233MHz PII with enough RAM. XP requires 64MB of memory, and is quite happy with 192MB. Tiger's bare minimum is 256. XP plus a full suite of applications fits on a 3GB hard drive with room to spare for user files. Tiger hogs 3GB all by itself.

Compared Windows, Linux/KDE, BSD/KDE, or other contemporary OSes, OS X is a memory hog. And to a lesser extent and CPU hog (Quartz Extreme helps here). It's mostly due to the complexity of Quartz. Deal with it.

[deboerjo]

So here's what I can't figure out; the reason for the built-in Firewire requirement. Obviously firewire itself has nothing to do with it, it's like Panther's requirements saying "built-in USB" when what they really mean is "New World architecture Mac". So what is the presence of Firewire being used as an indicator of?

I'm guessing it's video. OS X's support for the Rage II/Pro series has always been an afterthought, I'm guessing they decided to drop support for them and require a Rage128 or better.

Anybody know if the 350MHz slot-loading iMacs are supported? They lack Firewire, but on Apple's requirements page in the list of supported hardware they list "slot-loading iMac" with no mention of excluding the Firewire-less variety.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by deboerjo

XP flies on a 233MHz PII with enough RAM.

Right.

XP on one of our PIII 1GHz with 512 MB RAM took ages to boot and then another five minutes to become usable. Multitasking sucked anyway. And this was on a clean install. Needless to say, first thing I did was throw the entire machine on the dump (couldn't install Redhat due to user requirements) and replace it with an inexpensive Mac mini. The student using it is now very happy.

The nice thing with OS X is that Macs now running Panther will run Tiger just as good if not better. Just like Panther ran better than Jaguar on the same hardware. This is one of the Mac OS X key advantages. MS Windows behaves exactly opposite.

[[APi]TheMan]

Originally posted by resuna:
Then they need to update their requirements page, since it doesn't show the Pismo and it does show slot-loading iMacs... the first generation of slot-loading iMacs (pre-DV) didn't have Firewire.

PS: So much for the rumors of Apple downplaying Firewire after they shipped the Shuffle USB-only and the new iPod Mini without a FW cable.

Look again, I see "PowerBook G3 (FireWire)"

[deboerjo]

Originally Posted by [APi]TheMan

Look again, I see "PowerBook G3 (FireWire)"

I'm asking about the iMac 350, not Powerbook. Under the iMac section they just say "iMac (slot loading)"

[deboerjo]

Originally Posted by Simon

XP on one of our PIII 1GHz with 512 MB RAM took ages to boot and then another five minutes to become usable.

I find that very hard to believe. I ran XP on a 266MHz IBM Thinkpad with 256MB of memory for a year and a half while I was a student, and that was my sole mobile PC. Did development on it and everything. It got to a login screen in about 90 seconds, and I was working in another 90 seconds. It was certainly fast compared with Jaguar running on my 333MHz iMac at the time, which is borderline unusable for more than basic tasks.

And I really don't understand where you're coming from thinking XP is slower than previous Windows release while OS X is faster with new releases. XP is lightning fast compared with 98 or ME, the exact same speed as 2000, and faster than either of them at booting. (http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q4/os/) Have you ever even used Windows? On the other hand, OS X is MUCH slower on old hardware than OS 9 (have you ever compared 9.2.2 with Panther on a RevA iMac?), and although 10.1 and 10.2 were considerable speed improvements over 10.0, this was simply due to how immature and unoptimized OS X was until 10.2. I see everyone claiming that Tiger is going to be a huge speed improvement over Panther, but I don't know why you think that way; 10.3's performance improvement was marginal at best (there's a bigger difference between 10.2.0 and 10.2.8 than 10.2.8 and 10.3), and with all the extra features, Tiger's likely to be slower if anything. Note that Tiger's memory requirements are double that of Panther, the first time OS X's memory requirements have increased since 10.0

[Simon]

You may believe as you wish.

However, most here will tell you that Jaguar ran better than 10.1 on the same hardware and that Panther ran better than Jaguar. And first reports indicate the same will be true for Tiger vs. Panther. OTOH when our lab migrated the Win PCs from 2000 to XP they threw out (or migrated to Linux) all hardware older than two years. Nothing like that has ever been necessary with Macs. I think it's common knowledge that Macs retain value much better. Partly, because new OS versions don't make older hardware obsolete.

That said, and to get back on topic, I think Apple's Tiger requirements are pretty humble. Most previous OS X users will be able to update to Tiger if they wish.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by deboerjo

I find that very hard to believe. I ran XP on a 266MHz IBM Thinkpad with 256MB of memory for a year and a half while I was a student, and that was my sole mobile PC. Did development on it and everything. It got to a login screen in about 90 seconds, and I was working in another 90 seconds. It was certainly fast compared with Jaguar running on my 333MHz iMac at the time, which is borderline unusable for more than basic tasks.

And I really don't understand where you're coming from thinking XP is slower than previous Windows release while OS X is faster with new releases. XP is lightning fast compared with 98 or ME, the exact same speed as 2000, and faster than either of them at booting. (http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q4/os/) Have you ever even used Windows? On the other hand, OS X is MUCH slower on old hardware than OS 9 (have you ever compared 9.2.2 with Panther on a RevA iMac?), and although 10.1 and 10.2 were considerable speed improvements over 10.0, this was simply due to how immature and unoptimized OS X was until 10.2. I see everyone claiming that Tiger is going to be a huge speed improvement over Panther, but I don't know why you think that way; 10.3's performance improvement was marginal at best (there's a bigger difference between 10.2.0 and 10.2.8 than 10.2.8 and 10.3), and with all the extra features, Tiger's likely to be slower if anything. Note that Tiger's memory requirements are double that of Panther, the first time OS X's memory requirements have increased since 10.0

In my experience, Win2k is significantly faster than XP on older machines.