Most Powerful Leopard system?

[MrCheeto]

If they only know the new Finder, they have nothing to compare it to and will just get used to how it works.

It doesn't work XD They end up tossing files randomly or just piling them onto the desktop. To me, the new default Finder (the way it opens to "recent files" and doesn't show the home folder) is like taking a book, tearing the pages out, chopping the indexes off and saying "here, figure it out". I would know, as that's the condition of some 50-year-old car repair manuals.

I do agree about the better performance of the PowerBooks, so I'm waiting for a "needs repair" one to come up locally. Now that I remember, anything that didn't have Core Image came close to catching my fist in the display. They were insultingly frustratingly choppy. I still have anger issues

The upshot here for me, is that all those on the leading edge are doing both the learning and the complaining for me. By the time I arrive at the point they are now, the majority of the bugs are long known and worked around or fixed.

That's the exact reason for this build. It's a nice retreat from the modern frustration and big ole hurry.

It's funny to see people giving back-and-forth on software released 13-years ago! I appreciate all of the feedback and input.

I am going with a Mac Pro 5,1.

Suppose I want to use three displays with Leopard... where do I start? I think the confusion is going to arise from having no way at all to know what cards would and wouldn't work (fully) under Leopard as it's impossible to add enough criteria to a search.

I'm afraid of blocking all of my PCI slots with two double-width GPU's. I do feel that I need at least one of them to be double-width for sheer performance. However, if I want one more display, I will have to add another GPU but does that mean it, too, will have to be double-width? Or could I have a main powerhouse card in the bottom slot and then a single-width card in the slot above that is just there to give me another display?

The reason I'd like this is to support my old work-flow. For instance; I plan to use two 30" displays side-by-side. The left will be for Aperture editing and navigating, while the right is for full-screen previews of the image. I want to use a third display, rather large and in a location where people that I'm collaborating with can see images in full-screen. It could be about 50" for maximum effect. This is so that people aren't watching over my shoulder and so that the larger display can draw all of the focus on whatever single image I'm showing.

Would I be able to pull off having the two side-by-side displays in 2k while the larger display is in 4k?

Would it be easier to have one double-wide curved display rather than two side-by-side? That would reduce resolution, right?

I've been out of the loop for a very long time. Did McCain win yet?

Thanks, Guys!

 

[Amethyst1]

I am going with a Mac Pro 5,1.

The 2010 Mac Pro came with Snow Leopard, so it's not sure if Leopard will unofficially run on it, even if you use a model with a single quad-core Nehalem CPU.

Suppose I want to use three displays with Leopard... [...]

The GPUs supported by Leopard only support two displays; so three would require an additional GPU.

Those I know are supported by Leopard because they shipped with or were sold for Mac Pros are (those listed in italic mean they're known to be compatible with a 2009 Mac Pro):

• ATI Radeon X1900 XT (available in 2006/2007 Mac Pro; no idea if it initialises in a 2009)
• ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT (standard in 2008 Mac Pro; no idea if it initialises out of the box in a 2009 but you can use an enabler like ATY_Init to initialise it manually if necessary - I have done this)
• ATI Radeon HD 3870
• ATI Radeon HD 4870 (includes DisplayPort 1.1a)

• NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT (standard in 2006/2007 Mac Pro; EFI32 so won't initialise in a 2009, i.e. you have to initialise it manually)
• NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT (available for 2008 Mac Pro; no idea if it initialises in a 2009)
• NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 (includes DisplayPort 1.1a; standard in 2009 Mac Pro)
• NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 (probably EFI32; may not initialise in a 2009 Mac Pro)
• NVIDIA Quadro FX 5600 (probably EFI32; may not initialise in a 2009 Mac Pro)

However, if I want one more display, I will have to add another GPU but does that mean it, too, will have to be double-width? Or could I have a main powerhouse card in the bottom slot and then a single-width card in the slot above that is just there to give me another display?

No. You can have a main powerhouse card and a frugal one, such as a NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 which comes with both dual-link DVI and DisplayPort 1.1a, to drive a third (and fourth) display.

Would I be able to pull off having the two side-by-side displays in 2k while the larger display is in 4k?

Yes, but you'll be limited to 30 Hz refresh rate at "4K" out of the box. This is because DisplayPort 1.1a doesn't have enough bandwidth for 60 Hz at that resolution. Same goes for dual-link DVI.

If you're going to hook up a "4K" display, I'd do so via an active MiniDisplayPort-to-HDMI converter to tap into the DisplayPort 1.1a signal. A passive adapter forces the GPU to output an actual HDMI signal; and GPUs that old might well be limited to 165 MHz pixel clock via HDMI.

Thinking outside the box, DisplayPort 1.1a allows for a 360 MHz pixel clock at 8 bits per colour or 288 MHz at 10 bits per colour. 360 MHz is enough for a 40.8 Hz refresh rate at "4K" using a custom CVT-RB timing you can create using e.g. SwitchResX. This assumes that no arbitrary, lower limit is set by the graphics drivers. 40.8 Hz is significantly better than the utterly annoying 30 Hz IMHO. But if the "4K" display is just for, say, presentations and mostly static content, 30 Hz may be just fine too.

Would it be easier to have one double-wide curved display rather than two side-by-side? That would reduce resolution, right?

Correct. Assuming a 360 MHz pixel clock limit (see above), you can get 3840×1080, 3840×1200 or 3440×1440 at 60 Hz.
Be careful with displays wider than 3840 pixels, such as e.g. 5120×1440. Pixel clock limits and accordingly low refresh rates aside, my tests with e.g. an ATI Radeon HD 4850 (2009) and NVIDIA GeForce 320M (2010) on Snow Leopard have shown that the maximum width attainable is 4088 pixels. However, this also depends on the version of OS X: the 320M GPU, for instance, has no issues running 4096×2304 on El Capitan; whereas the 4850 won't go past a width of 3840 on newer versions of OS X.

 

[MrCheeto]

The 2010 Mac Pro came with Snow Leopard, so it's not sure if Leopard will unofficially run on it, even if you use a model with a single quad-core Nehalem CPU.

See

Leopard does not have any sort of board ID checks, that started with Lion

Leopard will happily boot on a MacPro5,1 so long as you have Nehalem CPUs

(although you will need a MacPro4,1 era GPU if you want graphics acceleration)

Not sure if it's true but I will look more into this as I've seen time and again that the ONLY difference is the firmware.

I appreciate the list and I'll check benchmarks of these cards, but I'm also just wondering what I should check to see if Leopard supports it. Surely there's something as simple as "If the chip model begins with x, it will work with Leopard's x-series general driver". IDK. I'd like to stick with ATi for the main work-horse, as they've always had better Apple support and benchmarks than NVIDIA.

No. You can have a main powerhouse card and a frugal one, such as a NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 which comes with both dual-link DVI and DisplayPort 1.1a, to drive a third (and fourth) display.

Yes, but you'll be limited to 30 Hz refresh rate at "4K" out of the box. This is because DisplayPort 1.1a doesn't have enough bandwidth for 60 Hz at that resolution. But if the "4K" display is just for, say, presentations and mostly static content...

That's exactly the plan and MAN am I excited to know I can throw a thrifty lil card in there just to drive a mostly static display but with the higher resolution. That's the best news I've heard in a while! NOW I'm excited for this project! Even more-so when I see the prices of 13-year-old GPU's.


So from what I gather, I could run a Radeon HD 4870 to drive two 2k displays WHILE a single-slot GeForce drives my 55" 4k. That is EXACTLY what I wanted to hear.

On an aside, I've just dug through my boxes in the garage and found my 2008 MacBook, my 2009 Unibody Polycarbonate MacBook, 2012 13" MBP, and 2011 13" MBA and wouldn't you know they all started right up in varying states of OS X. Hah. I just love these things and while most are worth $50, they each have unique personalities. I'm thinking what I could possibly do to the Polycarb case as far as modding or customizing. Not that I'd use it, but hey it's a hobby.

 

[Amethyst1]

See [...]

Good to know that this is sorted. I wasn't quite sure whether Leopard would be happy to take to a Nehalem 5,1.

I appreciate the list and I'll check benchmarks of these cards, but I'm also just wondering what I should check to see if Leopard supports it.

Well, most importantly, the card needs to have EFI firmware in order to show a boot screen (anything that is displayed before OS X's login screen appears is considered the boot screen) in a Mac Pro and be initialised, i.e. usable, in Leopard. In other words, you either need a card that was shipped with or explicitly sold for a Mac Pro because it's guaranteed to have EFI firmware, or "flash" a "PC" card to turn it into a "Mac" one. An "unflashed" PC card won't display anything in a Mac Pro. Not before Leopard boots, not after it's completely booted to the login screen either.

To complicate matters, the Mac Pro 5,1 has 64-bit EFI firmware, and the GPU needs to have 64-bit or "dual-mode" 32-/64-bit firmware too in order to be initialised. GPUs that only have a 32-bit EFI firmware, such as the NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT, won't be initialised in the 5,1 even though they are "Mac" cards.

Now, there's something that might be called "enablers" or "injectors" which originate from the Hackintosh scene. These allow unflashed "PC" cards to work in OS X as long as the actual GPU is supported. As for which GPUs are supported by the drivers shipped with Leopard, this list (plus those for earlier versions of 10.5.x - just change the link accordingly) is a viable starting point I reckon. Remember that in order to use a "PC" card with Leopard, it needs to be flashed or initialised manually. You can't just shove it in and have it "just work" like on a PC.

Beginning with Snow Leopard and the ATI Radeon HD 5000 series GPUs, unflashed "PC" cards were automatically initialised by OS X, so you don't need a "Mac" card or flash them or bother with enablers/injectors anymore: the display(s) connected to the cards simply come to life once the login screen appears. But "auto-init" doesn't work in Leopard; and Leopard doesn't support the Radeon HD 5000 (or newer) series GPUs anyway. The 4870 is as good as it gets for genuine ATI "Mac" cards.

So from what I gather, I could run a Radeon HD 4870 to drive two 2k displays WHILE a single-slot GeForce drives my 55" 4k. That is EXACTLY what I wanted to hear.

What do you mean by "2K"? A width of 1920 (e.g. 1920×1200), or 2560 (e.g. 2560×1600)? The latter requires dual-link DVI or DisplayPort outputs for a 60 Hz refresh rate; the 4870 has one of each. If your monitors are too modern to have a dual-link DVI input, you'll need an active converter, like this one, to go from dual-link DVI to DisplayPort. It is not possible to easily convert dual-link DVI to HDMI.

 

[eyoungren]

Suppose I want to use three displays with Leopard... where do I start? I think the confusion is going to arise from having no way at all to know what cards would and wouldn't work (fully) under Leopard as it's impossible to add enough criteria to a search.

You mean like this?


I have a MP 4,1 that I applied the 5,1 firmware patch to. So, it's a 5,1. I used three stock video cards (whatever they are called that Apple shipped this Mac with) to have six displays (yes, that TV in the background is also connected).

I moved on to Mojave when I got two Metal compatible cards, so now it's only two GPUs.

You and @Amethyst1 probably already hashed that out as far as cards though. But I don't see why you couldn't support two at least in Leopard.

I mean, there was a time where my Quicksilver was pushing six displays with three video cards on Leopard.

 

[Amethyst1]

I used three stock video cards (whatever they are called that Apple shipped this Mac with) to have six displays (yes, that TV in the background is also connected).

Probably three GT 120s.

 

[eyoungren]

Probably three GT 120s.

Yeah, that sounds right. I bought two cards at once, to supplement the one the MP came with. Ordered them and the MP at the same time. The guy selling the cards had upgraded to Metal compatible cards so was selling them off. What's funny is that I could have driven down there and picked them up as he lived only about 30 minutes away from me.

 

[LightBulbFun]

Not sure if it's true but I will look more into this as I've seen time and again that the ONLY difference is the firmware.

been there done that back when the first MacPro5,1 BootROMs came out people where worried they would not be able to boot older Mac OS versions

so I just ended the debate there and then by Booting Leopard on my MP4,1-5,1 with the then new APFS BootROM, from my PowerBook G4 DLSD in Target disk mode (so booting from an APM volume as well )

hose I know are supported by Leopard because they shipped with or were sold for Mac Pros are (those listed in italic mean they're known to be compatible with a 2009 Mac Pro):

• ATI Radeon X1900 XT (available in 2006/2007 Mac Pro; no idea if it initialises in a 2009)
• ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT (standard in 2008 Mac Pro; no idea if it initialises out of the box in a 2009 but you can use an enabler like ATY_Init to initialise it manually if necessary - I have done this)
• ATI Radeon HD 3870
• ATI Radeon HD 4870 (includes DisplayPort 1.1a)

• NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT (standard in 2006/2007 Mac Pro; EFI32 so won't initialise in a 2009, i.e. you have to initialise it manually)
• NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT (available for 2008 Mac Pro; no idea if it initialises in a 2009)
• NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 (includes DisplayPort 1.1a; standard in 2009 Mac Pro)
• NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 (probably EFI32; may not initialise in a 2009 Mac Pro)
• NVIDIA Quadro FX 5600 (probably EFI32; may not initialise in a 2009 Mac Pro)

all the ATI cards are EBC cards and as such are Firmware uArch agnostic so in theory should all work in a MP4,1/5,1 (I know for a fact the X1900 XT will work in a MP3,1 dont know if anyones tried one in a 4,1/5,1 however)

the NVIDIA cards are uArch dependant, the GeForce 8800 GT GT 120 and FX 5600 should all work in a MP4,1/5,1 being EFI64 cards

but the 7300 GT FX 4500 and the MP1,1/2,1 8800 GT upgrade card wont as they are EFI32 cards

the GeForce GTX 285 Mac Edition is also another contender (and in theory the Dual link DVI ATI Radeon X1300 PCIe Xserve1,1/2,1 BTO option card also)

 

[MrCheeto]

What do you mean by "2K"? A width of 1920 (e.g. 1920×1200), or 2560 (e.g. 2560×1600)? The latter requires dual-link DVI or DisplayPort outputs for a 60 Hz refresh rate; the 4870 has one of each.

Sorry, I think I mean 2.5k, which would be 2560x1600. 2k, 4k, 6k refers to the horizontal pixel count, in case that gets confusing.

I think the Mac Pro with the Radeon HD 5870 supports two 2.5K displays, one through the dual-link DVI the other through Mini-Display. Not sure of the refresh rate but probably faster than I can shake off a wet cat. One way to know.

I mean, there was a time where my Quicksilver was pushing six displays with three video cards on Leopard.

LOL that's not just encouraging, it basically seals the argument.

Absolute Mad Man...

all the ATI cards are EBC cards and as such are Firmware uArch agnostic so in theory should all work in a MP4,1/5,1

This guy is a hero. Just knowing that I can boot 10.5 on a 5,1 makes me eager.

You'll have to excuse me for being an inbred retard, but I think I'm picking up at least half of what you're putting down.

So all of the listed ATi cards should work in all 4,1 and 5,1 Pro's. Does any of this indicate whether 10.5 would make use of them? I understand hardware vs software compatibility, just not sure what the magic keyword is for whether Leopard knows how to utilize it (ie. graphics acceleration).

With the current price of used Apple-spec GPU's, I could snap up just about anything from the era and the only limitation is my preferred breed of big cat. It doesn't have to play Tomb Raider at 1AU-FPS, it just has to handle two 2.5k (or better) displays at something like 60hz (or better) while accelerating apps like Aperture, CS4, Final Cut, maybe some 3D modeling software (I guess Blender IDK). Who knows, maybe I'll push the machine to edit 4K video if it's even feasible on 10.5.
The other, smaller, single-width card just has to output 4k to a large display to show off previews at a decent DPI on a 50"+ display.

Thanks for everything so far. I owe everybody a complete vlog whenever I start the build.

 

[Amethyst1]

Sorry, I think I mean 2.5k, which would be 2560x1600.

On a 30" 16:10 display, which would also be my pick for a build like that.
(There's also 2560×1440 (16:9) or 2560×1080 (21.3:9)).
A 3440×1440 ultrawide may also work via DisplayPort 1.1a or even dual-link DVI - but I don't know how prevalent dual-link DVI is on ultrawides - since that resolution requires a 319.75 MHz pixel clock at 60 Hz using CVT-RB timings.

2k, 4k, 6k refers to the horizontal pixel count, in case that gets confusing.

I know. The issue with "2K" is people use it to refer to a horizontal resolution of both 1920 pixels (by rounding up) and of 2560 pixels (by rounding down), so it's ambiguous.

I think the Mac Pro with the Radeon HD 5870 supports two 2.5K displays, one through the dual-link DVI the other through Mini-Display.

Correct. The 5870 doesn't work in Leopard though.

Not sure of the refresh rate but probably faster than I can shake off a wet cat. One way to know.

Assuming CVT-RB timings and a 330 MHz pixel clock limit for dual-link DVI: 2560×1600 at 73.3 Hz.
Assuming CVT-RB timings and a 360 MHz pixel clock limit for DisplayPort 1.1a: 2560×1600 at 79.5 Hz.
Finding a 30" LCD which can do refresh rates higher than 60 Hz is the bigger challenge.

So all of the listed ATi cards should work in all 4,1 and 5,1 Pro's. Does any of this indicate whether 10.5 would make use of them?

All the ATI cards listed will fully work out of the box in 10.5 and provide graphics acceleration, including Core Image and Quartz Extreme.
I deliberately excluded later cards such as the 5770 and 5870 since these require 10.6.
But when it comes to further accelerating certain apps beyond that level (GPGPU, OpenCL, or whatever that stuff is called... I'm not an expert on that), you'd have to perform further research with regards to which, if any, of the cards 10.5 provides drivers for can do that.

 

[MrCheeto]

Amethyst, thanks for sharing all of your knowledge. I think I've got what I need until I get my hands on the right machine.

In the mean time, here is an EXACT use-case testimony. I'm sorting through old hard drives and checking the partitions in Disk Utility. I plugged a SATA drive in and Disk Util says...nothing about the drive itself. All it says is it's a 4.6gb partition. All I can do to format it is edit the 4.6gb partition. Problem is...the hard drive is labeled 250gb. So I unplugged it and took it to the Snow Leopard machine. Ah...there's the drive AND the partition AND the partition tools to make a 250gb or so partition.

How do they get away with this S***? If I didn't have a "old piece of crap", I'd be screwed.

 

[Amethyst1]

I think I've got what I need until I get my hands on the right machine.

Looking forward to hearing about your progress.
May I ask why you're going for a single-CPU, quad-core 5,1 rather than a dual-CPU, 8-core 4,1 if you want the most powerful Leopard machine?

 

[MrCheeto]

What? Who said quad core?

I’ll buy either a 4,1 or 5,1 with either tray. Obviously the goal is to end up with two 3.33ghz quad cores.

If it’s a single CPU, I’ll use it for now and get the most out of it. I’ll buy a pair of 3.33ghz Nehalem chips and throw one in. At some point I would buy a dual tray and drop the other chip in. Or if I get lucky I’ll find a dual CPU Mac and just drop the 3.33ghz processors in.

I do now understand that trays can’t be swapped between 4,1 and 5,1 so I would prefer a 5,1 if I can only find single CPU models as they would have much more tray availability.

 

[m1maverick]

I do now understand that trays can’t be swapped between 4,1 and 5,1 so I would prefer a 5,1 if I can only find single CPU models as they would have much more tray availability.

IME it might be easier to purchase a dual CPU 5,1 instead of buying a single CPU 5,1 and buying a dual CPU tray. As an owner of a single CPU 5,1 it took me years to find a reasonably priced dual CPU tray for a 5,1. Asking prices for them on Ebay exceeded, or were slightly less, than an entire dual CPU system. Prices have come down in the last year so this may no longer be the case. Just something to be aware of if you intend to buy a single CPU 5,1 and upgrade to a dual CPU 5,1.

 

[Jack Neill]

I was so hyped for Leopard, I bought a disc of it at Best Buy and I didn't even own a Mac yet.

 

[eyoungren]

I was so hyped for Leopard, I bought a disc of it at Best Buy and I didn't even own a Mac yet.

Leopard vastly improved my laptop situation. In late 2009, my TiBook died and I replaced it with a 17" PowerBook G4. The TiBook was running Tiger and I cloned my backup of the Ti's hard drive to the new AlBook.

It wasn't until around 2012 when I got Leopard and installed it that I discovered I'd been living with a TiBook installation of Tiger. All of a sudden the keyboard backlight worked, and other Albook related features were suddenly accessible. Had I simply reinstalled Tiger and transferred my content way back in 2009 I'd have had that experience. But I'd lived so long with that TiBook that I didn't realize I was missing anything until installing Leopard.

 

[ahurst]

It wasn't until around 2012 when I got Leopard and installed it that I discovered I'd been living with a TiBook installation of Tiger. All of a sudden the keyboard backlight worked, and other Albook related features were suddenly accessible. Had I simply reinstalled Tiger and transferred my content way back in 2009 I'd have had that experience. But I'd lived so long with that TiBook that I didn't realize I was missing anything until installing Leopard.

I have a lot of love for Tiger as an OS, but my goodness do I ever miss Quick Look when I'm using it. Hands down one of my top 5 macOS features, Leopard was huge for that alone!

 

[eyoungren]

I have a lot of love for Tiger as an OS, but my goodness do I ever miss Quick Look when I'm using it. Hands down one of my top 5 macOS features, Leopard was huge for that alone!

If you've heard my stories around here, the main reason I love Leopard over Tiger is for Finder's stability in mixed networks. In a Mac only network, Tiger is great. But add in a PC server with security and PC clients and things get wonky quick.

Tiger also has a real archaic print server compared to Leopard. which was a problem from 2013 to 2018 at my last job. The MP I was using could not print correctly when directly connected to the old laser printers. Printer sharing was the solution but it failed on the Macs running Tiger a lot.

 

[MrCheeto]

add in a PC server with security and PC clients and things get wonky quick.

Then it's simple: we kill the PC-man 😈

 

[eyoungren]

Then it's simple: we kill the PC-man 😈

LOL.

Yeah, if only it were that simple…

Let me explain a bit about the company I worked for for 14.5 years. This was a company that up until 2013 was still using a press from 1958. It was old, it was tired and it couldn't handle shades well. If your color was 19% or less it went white. If it was 80% or more it went 100%.

Up to 2013 our process was to print newspaper pages one by one, which got shot downstairs by camera one by one to get a negative. Those negatives got stitched together in imposed spreads so we could burn plates. Only then, were the plates mounted on the press. If we had a four color page or a two color page, I had to print seps on the laser printer so each color could be run through the camera.

Now at my first job in 1999 I worked for the Desert Sun. That's a Gannet owned newspaper (daily) and it was DIRECT TO PLATE DIGITALLY in 1999! This job wasn't even direct to NEGATIVE in 2013!!! And there were f*ing LASER PRINTERS that would do direct to neg!

So, the dad of my boss comes to me in late 2012 and asks me about DTP. It means replacing just about everything. Computers, press, DTP equipment, buying a freaking RIP (Raster Image Processor), imposition software. Yeah, the whole smack. They're looking at over $30k in costs.

Why? Because they didn't upgrade over the years. And the only reason they had the process they had then was because another employee invented it. And guess what? They asked HER about all this FIRST. Not me, their COMPOSING MANAGER!

At the end, I was buying f*ing copy paper myself because my boss wouldn't go out and buy it. Too expensive I guess, IDK. But I was still expected to do my job and how do you print proofs without paper?!

So from 2013 to 2018 we made PDFs and sent those to a local printer that was/is DTP! This was until my boss had had enough of trying to run a business and cashed out.

On the final day, my former boss knows my schedule, so conveniently makes himself VERY ABSENT, leaving the new owners of the business to awkwardly and embarrassedly inform me that I no longer work there.

The man was a coward, pushed off as much as he could on others, but still expected to reap privilege and benefit from his position as a publisher of the official city newspaper.

So, when you say it's simple, yeah no. I worked with what I had and they refused to buy anything new unless they absolutely could not get around it. The work G5 died in 2013 and in order to get a new Mac Pro I had to make my boss believe that the G5 was truly dead. Otherwise, he'd have happily paid me the $60 it took to replace the LB and told me to put the G5 back in operation.

He wasn't happy when I brought that G5 back to life.

I'd tell you about the time my paycheck bounced and all the overdraft fees I incurred because of that, but that's another story.

 

[Slix]

Back when Leopard was the latest OS, our family used it on both our eMac and 2007 iMac. When Snow Leopard came out, it greatly sped up nearly everything on our iMac. It really felt like a new machine. I didn't experience any crazy bugs like some of the ones that are mentioned online during that time, but I was still a kid and just doing basic stuff: emails, internet browsing, iTunes, typing a paper once in a while. Leopard is in a lot of ways better than Tiger on PPC, but I'd say it is a much better experience going with Snow Leopard on Intel after all the updates it got in those couple years. But I commend you for wanting to get a unique Mac for a unique reason!

I think the most powerful computer I own that can run Leopard is probably my 2006 Mac Pro. I've got some newer MacBooks and a 2008 iMac, but those probably don't have the sheer power that the Pro does, despite being a year or two older.

 

[MacFoxG4]

Leopard is my favorite version of OS X. I love the 3D dock and the UI overall. Having used it on both Intel (C2D) and PPC (G4 7455 and G5 970fx), I will say it does indeed feel faster on Intel. My only gripe with it on Intel is that some PPC Native apps run slower or not at all under Rosetta. I like using the new software that users in the MacRumors community have come up with for Leopard and while some of that software works on Intel, there are apps that do not. For example, PowerCord (a Discord client for Leopard) works on PPC Leopard, but not on Intel Leopard. Because of situations like that I use Leopard more on my 1.5 ghz G4 Sawtooth than on any of my Intel Macs.

I have used Snow Leopard and while I like it in some way, namely for software compatibility reasons, I don't like it in others. For example, the removal of HFS standard write support annoys me because it means I can't copy files to the micro SD card I use with my SCSI2SD, which replaced the HDDs in my 68K Macs.

I think your choice of Mac is excellent. I've never owned a Mac Pro, but I imagine Universal binary or Intel native apps as well as the OS itself would absolutely fly on there.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

I'm afraid of blocking all of my PCI slots with two double-width GPU's.

Just as an option, you don't necessarily have to keep your GPUs inside the case...

 

[MrCheeto]

Just as an option, you don't necessarily have to keep your GPUs inside the case...

I can't argue with this. I'd want the card "in" the case, but wouldn't mind using something to give me some flexibility as to where I mount it.

 

[MrCheeto]

Bros, you got me this far... Operation Norge