Leopard Server hardware requirements?

[Brett Dikeman]

On 10/2/07, Markus Hitter <mah at jump-ing.de> wrote:

> Sure there's a reason to use more modern techniques. Nevertheless
> there's no reason to kick older hardware just for the sake of having
> them kicked. Setting a limit of 867 MHz instead of 800 MHz is just
> silly from the technical point of view. Setting any speed limit is
> silly as good software works reliable at any speed.

Apple is a publicly traded company.  It attempts to make sound,
considered decisions in the company's best interests of increasing
profits and thus providing a return on investments made in it by its
shareholders and investors.  It places a heavy priority on the user
experience / interface,as well as an image of cutting-edge technology
and design- and markets all of this as a competitive advantage.

  A reasonable conclusion: Apple evaluated the performance (via either
set metrics like "how long does it take to print X document or actual
user focus groups) and stability (via QA) of Leopard on various
models, and drew a line.  It was most likely a combination of
technical (ex: compatibility), performance, and business/market
decisions.  For example: how many people with 800mhz machines will
buy/upgrade to Leopard, and how much will it cost to develop, test,
and support Leopard on those systems?

This becomes complex, quickly.  Since older systems are often running
older OS's, what is the cost of implementing/supporting upgrades from
10.2?  10.3?  Costs to a business are not just "the salary of that
Apple engineer working on support for model X", it's also "the loss of
potential revenue from that Apple engineer working on _______", where
_______ could be anything from helping ship Leopard faster/on-time, to
implementing new features, etc.

Regarding using clockspeed as a delineation: Apple tries to be clear
with requirements and often resorts to a reasonably communicated and
identifiable trait.  Saying "anything that doesn't have Firewire" was
not necessarily because that O/S couldn't run without firewire, but
because around that delineation was where they wanted to draw the line
for legacy support.  It is easy for even a casual user to check on the
back of their computer for a "funny port with a Y logo on it".  It is
also relatively easy for a user to check the processor speed.  Anyone
who tried to explain to an average user the difference between a
Wallstreet, Lombard, and Pismo Powerbook can appreciate this.

> I prefer to do decisions of this type on my own, even in my enterprise.

"Enterprise"?  Heh.

Regardless- you have at least four choices for your theoretical decision:

a)Not buy Leopard Server, if it indeed turns out that you can't run it
on your machine.
b)Buy new hardware that is supported by Leopard (or comes with it.)
c)Buy used hardware that is supported by Leopard.
d)Utilize modifications to install Leopard on unsupported hardware.

Tempest in a teacup, anyone?

Brett