Upgrading to Leopard

physco827 · Jun 30, 2007

How much (ballpark) will it cost to upgrade from Tiger to Leopard when it finally comes out?

cwa107 · Jun 30, 2007

physco827 said:
How much (ballpark) will it cost to upgrade from Tiger to Leopard when it finally comes out?

$129 according to Steve Jobs at the WWDC 07 conference.

dtravis7 · Jun 30, 2007

physco827 said:
How much (ballpark) will it cost to upgrade from Tiger to Leopard when it finally comes out?

$129.00

physco827 · Jun 30, 2007

ahh thats a little steep, but i did spend 2k on a macbook pro so that really isn't that bad in the broad spectrum of things

core20 · Jun 30, 2007

i myself may wait a month or two to see the results of the leopard system, although I do love the added features and WILL definitely upgrade.

cwa107 · Jun 30, 2007

physco827 said:
ahh thats a little steep, but i did spend 2k on a macbook pro so that really isn't that bad in the broad spectrum of things

Compared to what exactly? Linux? It certainly isn't steep compared to Vista.

MaDDoG · Jun 30, 2007

I see they have changed the Leopard page on the webiste since I was there last.

remain · Jun 30, 2007

Depends on which version you want to buy. ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZfgimbVnmk

kgeier82 · Jul 1, 2007

79$ if your a student, yippee!

dtravis7 · Jul 1, 2007

remain said:
Depends on which version you want to buy. ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZfgimbVnmk

Yeah, remember the WWDC speech? Leopard Home, Leopard Pro, Leopard Business and Leopard Ultimate, all $129. Gave me a good laugh.

knightjp · Jul 2, 2007

is leopard going to be available for PPC macs??? Or is Tiger the max for us PPC lovers.

I heard that the Intel macs run slower than the PPC ones....

Is that true???

shmendall · Jul 2, 2007

depends on the specs I would assume!
but ive seen a video on youtube where an intel iMac takes 14 seconds to start up and a g5 iMac takes 1:04

knightjp · Jul 2, 2007

shmendall said:
depends on the specs I would assume!
but ive seen a video on youtube where an intel iMac takes 14 seconds to start up and a g5 iMac takes 1:04

It could be because the Intel mac has mor RAM.

James · Jul 2, 2007

knightjp said:
It could be because the Intel mac has mor RAM.

That is quite likely and it probably also has a faster processor. I have had both a Power Mac G5 and a Mac Pro Intel. They both run quite well. The G5 had a 2.0 processor with 2 gig of ram and the Intel has a 2.66 processor with 4 gig of ram... Which would you expect to run faster?

cwa107 · Jul 2, 2007

knightjp said:
It could be because the Intel mac has mor RAM.

It's a tough comparison to make - especially during bootup, when there are a lot of factors that can impact how long it takes.

The PPC-series of CPUs is inherently superior to the x86 architecture. It's 100% RISC, runs cooler and is more efficient overall. Frankly, if it weren't for the Wintel empire, all of our machines would probably be running PPC CPUs today. But I digress...

Even still, so much more development has gone into the Intel architecture that it has evolved several times faster than the PPC series. The Intel chips tend to run at higher clock rates and have multiple cores. I would find it hard to believe (aside from the G5 Mac Pro) that any of the PPC Macs are faster than the Intel replacements running native applications.

jdgti · Jul 3, 2007

The first few sets of intel chips in apple computers (macbooks, imacs, mini etc.) I believe are 32-bit processors. All recent PPC processors are 64 bit. This means that technically, if you were running 64-bit app on Leopard with two computers with identical hardware except for the processor, then the PPC architecture would suited for better performance.

Now, whether or not the PPC is so far behind in evolution that it cannot keep up with the first wave of intel chips even though they are only 32-bit remains to be seen. My assumption is that the later model G4's (1.5+) on the powerbooks and the G5's will run most 64-bit apps faster than the first set of Intel processors dual cores in the Macbooks and Mac Minis since they are 32-bit.

Anyone can correct me if I have stated incorrect information here. Keep in mind that most of my post is speculation based only on 64-bit PPC vs. 32-bit Intel Dual Core.

cwa107 said:
The PPC-series of CPUs is inherently superior to the x86 architecture.

I love that quote.

cwa107 · Jul 3, 2007

jdgaines said:
The first few sets of intel chips in apple computers (macbooks, imacs, mini etc.) I believe are 32-bit processors. All recent PPC processors are 64 bit. This means that technically, if you were running 64-bit app on Leopard with two computers with identical hardware except for the processor, then the PPC architecture would suited for better performance.

Now, whether or not the PPC is so far behind in evolution that it cannot keep up with the first wave of intel chips even though they are only 32-bit remains to be seen. My assumption is that the later model G4's (1.5+) on the powerbooks and the G5's will run most 64-bit apps faster than the first set of Intel processors dual cores in the Macbooks and Mac Minis since they are 32-bit.

Anyone can correct me if I have stated incorrect information here. Keep in mind that most of my post is speculation based only on 64-bit PPC vs. 32-bit Intel Dual Core.

I love that quote.

It depends on how the applications are optimized. If they're optimized for 64-bit, then yes, an application running in 64-bit on a PPC machine could theoretically be faster than that same application, running on a 32-bit Intel machine. But when you start to talk about applications that are multi-threaded (can take advantage of multiprocessors) and you make that comparison, it doesn't hold any water unless you're talking about a dual G5 system.

All things considered, it's a difficult comparison to make with so many variables - and of course, when we start to talk about C2D systems, it's pretty much irrelevant. What's really interesting is that the CD processor really is a 64-bit chip, it's just that the 64-bit extensions are disabled.

Oh, and that quote isn't a statement of opinion - being a 100% RISC, clean sheet design, the PPC platform is inherently superior. Had it had the benefit of the development focus expended on it that the x86 platform did, it would probably be miles ahead of x86 at this point in time.

speed4tu · Jul 4, 2007

I am going to upgrade to it after it is out a couple months. I wanna see the results and how others like it.