[bleedingfinger]

I've been doing some back searching on the new OS coming out in a just over a week, and bar a few upgrades with certain programs and functions (Automator to Automator 2) and looking cooler, i dont see a real change between the two.
I'm new to Macs, and was just wondering if it was worth it to fork out the 129 bucks to buy and upgrade it?

[mcbane666]

This update was mostly for stuff under the hood, They added some Eye candy too. But you will notice the big difference once developers start building programs for leopard, They will be amazing and this OS will be able to fully use the Intel chips, Tiger was kind of patched to work with intel, Leopard will be made for intel, and PPC too.
Leopard is about power and Eye candy, But power is like 80% of the upgrades.
I think it is well worth it.

[MacCheetah3]

Hi
I would really enjoy a number of the new features but worthwhile is up to you...
Apple - Mac OS X Leopard - Features - 300+ New Features

[GCG]

FWIW: I'll wait for release 10.5.2 or 10.5.3, before making a purchase. This will give Apple a chance to address any initial issues in its new release of OSX. (Don't forget that Apple will, probably, be updating Tiger to 10.4.11 in the next few weeks.)

[moose_n_squirrel]

Quote:

---

I'm new to Macs, and was just wondering if it was worth it to fork out the 129 bucks to buy and upgrade it?

---

Well it's always going to be a personal decision. If you don't need the features, you don't need it.
But if you do need the features, suppose you want the new virtual desktops, integrated continuous backup snapshots, new PDF features, and a few others. If you decided to stick with 10.4 and get the new features through shareware, chances are you'd spend a lot more than $129 to even approach Leopard parity. For those people, Leopard is a good deal.

[mdawson]

As moosensquirrel already stated, the decision to upgrade to Leopard is a personal decision. Several Mac users have successfully continued to work in Panther (10.3) in the 2-1/2 years that Tiger has been the current version of OS X and some will do the same holding onto Tiger once Leopard is introduced. Hell, there are still Mac OS 9 holdouts, although at this point I would consider such latency to be Ludditism.
When I first saw the initial 10 new features of Leopard after WWDC 2006, I was left underwhelmed, but WWDC 2007s announcements changed my mind about Leopard. The one thing that would hold me from upgrading to Leopard, which I would not do immediately anywayas GCG stated, some of us prefer to wait until the second or third revisionwould be Classic support. I personally would like to completely shed my need of Classic, but until I have all of the records in my MusiCatalog (Mac OS 9-only) database transferred into Music Collector, I will need to have Classic support. With 1000+ records still in need of transfer and the digitizing process for my record collection on hold for the moment, it may take me upwards of three or more years to complete the database transfer; I add new records to Music Collector as I add the music into iTunes and my MusiCatalog database contains extensive album data collected from several sources.

[edmetric]

I have the world's second largest collection of useless travel bags. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif I collect school pens (3,000 and counting). /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif I don't collect operating systems. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif No Leopard for me. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Note the increased hardware requirements. Note the cost.
My needs have not changed worth buying Leopard. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[mdawson]

[indent]Quote:

---

Note the increased hardware requirements.

---

[/indent]Yes Leopards system requirements are:

[*]Mac computer with an Intel, PowerPC G5, or PowerPC G4 (867MHz or faster) processor
[*]512MB of memory
[*]DVD drive for installation
[*]9GB of available disk space
[/list]So that pretty much means Power Macs/PowerBooks as far back as 2002, iMacs/iBooks as far back as early 2003, the second generation eMac (2003) and any other Mac introduced since 2003. Given that a five year-old computer is obsolete, Leopards support of unaltered systems going back 4 to 5 years across four generations of processors (e.g., G4, G5, Core and Core 2/Xeon) on two completely different architectures (e.g., PowerPC and x86) is quite impressive. Backward compatibility for Vista is something like 12 to 18 months unless the user does some serious upgrades to their computer. (And remember, Microsoft threatened to drop support of Intel processors if Intel moved from the x86 architecture to the newer IA64 platform, instead favoring AMDs latest x86 kludge, x86-64; Microsoft flat out refused to support a modern architecture.)
Add to that the fact that Power Macs as far back as those introduced 7+ years ago can have their processors upgraded and optical/hard drives updated to meet Leopards requirements. Note that there is no mention of GPU requirements, which would indicate to me that Leopard, like Tiger, automatically deactivates those Core technologies that older systems lack the hardware to support.
[indent]Quote:

---


Note the cost.


---

[/indent]And how much does a fully-featured version of Windows Vista cost? How about Windows XP Pro? Even the least expensive stripped down versions of Windows cost significantly more than OS X, so I really do not see your point about cost.
If your needs have not changed, then fine, you do not need Leopard. That stated, unless you have an ancient Mac, the hardware requirements are hardly steep. Your point of cost falls even flatter, as this is a new version of OS X and not a downloadable revision of Tiger.

[edmetric]

Thank you for your note.

[wgood]

[indent]Quote:

---

...you do not need Leopard

---

[/indent]
No one really does, but how can we resist?

[mdawson]

Self-control.
As edmetric has stated, he has no compelling reason to upgrade based on what he has seen of Leopard. In my case, if Classic is not supported for PowerPC Macs, I cannot upgrade to Leopard as it would mean adding more work to completing my music database in Music Collector, as I would have to once again research album data that I had already looked up and entered into MusiCatalog years ago.

[drmbb]

Yeah, unfortunately, I too still rely on a few classic apps for work. I don't use them often, but when I need them, there is no option. So at least my work G5 will be staying with Tiger.
I probably won't bother updating my powerbook either. It will be replaced whenever the 17" macbook pro's get the LED backlit screens, and I'll deal with switching to Leopard then (and I'll be keeping the powerbook as well, so that transition will be easy when the time comes).

[edmetric]

Good call.
In addition to the increasingly demanding requirements (see mdawson's impressive research on covered computers) and the unnecessary cost (an OS is already on your computer), a third reason not to buy Leopard is bloat. Note that Leopard pulls a 9GB load to Tiger's 3GB.
In the you can't run it if it isn't loaded on the computer department, the bloat represents potential eye candy and functions. But, in the you have to lug it around all the time department, it's like being fat. Moving it around takes more time and energy.
The Intels perhaps are young enough to move the fat around on a faster bus. The PPCs have diminishing returns through an older, slower bus. I'd wait for independent verification of Leopard speed unless you like the mature body in a speedo look.
If you're tired of Tiger, Leopard can refresh your Apple interest more cheaply than buying a new Mac. You know you would rather have a new Mac.

[moose_n_squirrel]

[indent]Quote:

---

Note the increased hardware requirements. Note the cost.

---

[/indent]
Ha ha ha, I had to laugh when reading that too. "Increased system requirements," yeah right. 867MHz G4 with 512MB RAM? It's getting hard to FIND a Mac that's so old it won't run Leopard.
Meanwhile, new PC owners complain because Vista runs slowly on a new PC with 1GB RAM! Leopard's looking pretty good from here.