Leopard Server hardware requirements?

[Bart Silverstrim]

Nat! wrote:
> 
> Am 03.10.2007 um 06:01 schrieb LuKreme:
>>>>>>> IMO: Apple sells computers. Your phasing out of old equipment is 
>>>>>>> helpfully supported by Mac OS X's arbitrary hardware 
>>>>>>> requirements. The 867Mhz bet sounds about right to me. It'd be 
>>>>>>> consistent with the "Firewire" requirement of Tiger in 2005.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tiger supported G3 machines, Leoaprd does not.  That's your 
>>>>>> phase-out.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/requirements.html
>>>>
>>>> What's your point?  As I said, Tiger supported G3 machines.
>>>
>>> It reads clearly, that Firewire is a requirement. Tiger does not 
>>> support G3 machines without Firewire.
>>
>> Yes, I never said it wasn't.  I said the DIFFERENCE between Tiger and 
>> Leoaprd was lack of G3 support.
>>
>> --
> 
> So you wanted to restate the obvious and not argue against my point that 
> there has been and may very well be again an arbitrary hardware 
> requirement ? Sorry, I misunderstood that.

Maybe it's more of a logistics move that you wouldn't necessarily see in 
OSS OS's not driven by economics.  Windows NT Server and Workstation 
(and the myriad versions now on the market) have little difference in 
the heart of the OS other than a Registry tweak.

Why?  MS makes more money from one than the other.

It also takes more money to train support monkeys on the front line of 
support.  The smaller the hardware options, the less they have to deal 
with old firmware issues, Joe Average user complaining about speed 
issues, outdated video issues, etc. etc. etc.  The firewire requirement 
of Leopard may well be just a shortcut for users. If you have it, DING! 
It's compatible.  Apple just knows all their firewire models out there 
have the requirements for running the OS.

 From what I understand, unless they hardcode the limitations, Apple 
doesn't usually care if you can get it to run on the older 
hardware...they just refuse to listen to you whine if it takes ten 
minutes to boot or the dancing icons make the interface slow down suddenly.

I don't think it's necessarily a random arbitrary value of what's 
"supported".  I think it's most likely the result of testing what users 
perceive to be acceptable performance under average circumstances. 
Technically, since you're licensing the software and don't own 
it...Apple owns it...they can damn well set whatever limits they want on 
  what hardware will or won't be supported.  It's the beauty of software 
licensing :-)

Arbitrary requirements are sometimes just a nice way of saying it's 
simpler for users to understand, if only barely.