[G4] G4 Digest, Vol 70, Issue 6

[Eric Smith]

It's pretty clear why some PPC systems are considered "unsupported,"
and it has little to do with performance. It has a lot to do with
moving users to pricey new Intel platforms. Just like all PPC systems
were deemed "unsupported" for 10.6, and I'm sure several early Intel
platforms will be for 10.7 (probably all 32-bit platforms). It's a
progressive strategy.

In any case, as I said, numerous sub-867MHz PPC systems have been shown
to run Leopard quite well so your claim of "ain't no way" is simply
not true.

Eric S.

John Drake wrote:
> While you and others may be having luck with Leopard, the fact that the 
> word "unsupported"  pops up in your email and the link brings to mind 
> the old adage:
> YMMV
> Which is what is happening with the original poster, and your good 
> fortune does not negate my statement about the OS running that script, 
> it is there to give you a reliable assessment of the users machine and 
> whether or not Apple feels it can/will support the OS as they intended 
> it  to run, not hacked, trimmed, jury rigged or worst case /MacGyvered 
> <http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=macgyvered&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8>/. 
> 
> --- On *Tue, 6/22/10, eric-s-smith at comcast.net 
> /<eric-s-smith at comcast.net>/* wrote:
> 
>     Simply not true. For reports of numerous "unsupported" PPC Macs,
>     even as slow as 400MHz, that successfully were able to run Leopard,
>     see this web page:
> 
>     http://lowendmac.com/osx/leopard/unsupported.html
> 
>     I ran Leopard on my Sawtooth with a 1.0GHz CPU and 1.3GB RAM. I
>     can't speak personally for specs less than that, but for me, I saw
>     the same performance from Leopard and Tiger.
> 
>     Eric S.
> 
>     ----- Reply message -----
>     From: "jdljm" <jdljm at yahoo.com>
> 
>     The OS installers runs a script that checks if the machine on which
>     you plan to install that version can handle it. By circumventing
>     that script all you're doing is getting your friends hopes up, with
>     no chance of success except to see them dashed on the rocks of
>     "ain't no way".