Mac Hardware - 5k Supremacy - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > Mac Hardware - 5k Supremacy

frumpsnake: Jan 30, 2001; The sad part is, he wasn't always evil.

jink posted:

I too have used this without issues in Lion.

I did this the other day to enable TRIM:

code:

sudo perl -pi -e �s|(\x52\x6F\x74\x61\x74\x69\x6F\x6E\x61\x6C\x00).{9}(\x00\x51)|$1\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00$2|sg� \
/System/Library/Extensions/IOAHCIFamily.kext/Contents/PlugIns/IOAHCIBlockStorage.kext/Contents/MacOS/IOAHCIBlockStorage

sudo chown root:admin /

sudo kextcache -system-prelinked-kernel

sudo kextcache -system-caches

Works fine, and does a proper find-and-replace rather than hex offsets and/or copying over older pre-Lion versions of the kext like TRIM Enabler does.

frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Jul 21, 2011

# ¿ Jul 21, 2011 02:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 4, 2024 03:54

frumpsnake: Jan 30, 2001; The sad part is, he wasn't always evil.

You might get lucky but I wouldn't expect a free replacement.

# ¿ Mar 31, 2012 20:20

frumpsnake: Jan 30, 2001; The sad part is, he wasn't always evil.

I use the Perl script too, just to make sure it's not copying over an older version of the .kext like TRIM enabler does (or at least, used to).

# ¿ Apr 24, 2012 23:20

frumpsnake: Jan 30, 2001; The sad part is, he wasn't always evil.

Two Thunderbolt ports on the 15 would make me happy.

# ¿ May 14, 2012 22:26

frumpsnake: Jan 30, 2001; The sad part is, he wasn't always evil.

I know they don't have solid WSJ-levels of reliability, but Bloomberg are independently reporting Macbook Pros with thin redesign, retina displays & flash storage (perhaps hybrid?) for WWDC.

Binary Badger posted:

Well, it looks like if you believe this rumor, the next MacBook Airs will be getting USB 3.0 ports. At least that ought to make booting off USB 3.0 flash drives pretty quick.

I don't trust 9to5Mac but their rumours regarding port layout (Magsafe, 2xUSB, audio in/out on left, 2xThunderbolt, USB, SD, Kensington on the right) seem oddly specific.

And seriously, if you're on the road, you probably don't loving need Ethernet, and Apple will happily sell you a monitor/pseudo docking station with Ethernet for your home or office as well as a dongle. It's a non issue. Especially if the rumours are true and you have *five* suitable ports to plug Ethernet capabilities into.

frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 00:36 on May 15, 2012

# ¿ May 14, 2012 23:23

frumpsnake: Jan 30, 2001; The sad part is, he wasn't always evil.

Sprat Sandwich posted:

The mid-2009's GPU is a separate chip, so there should've been plenty of room in the newer ones.

The old 13" got NVIDIA graphics because they were using NVIDIA motherboard chipsets. They weren't discrete GPUs. It was still a two-chip design.

Due to licensing issues, NVIDIA weren't allowed to make chipsets for the i3/5/7 Series, only the old Core 2s, which is why the 2010 13" kept the old Core 2 processor while its larger brothers did not, before switching over to the Intel chipset and relying on the HD3000.

It doesn't matter whether the GPU is integrated into the CPU (like on Sandy Bridge) or the PCH (earlier CPUs), you still need two chips for an integrated graphics solution or three for a discrete solution. You can't fit a discrete GPU into the 13" along with a CPU and motherboard chipset/PCH, there's never been one in any 13" model, and your integrated choices are Intel, Intel, or Intel.

frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 17:39 on May 15, 2012

# ¿ May 15, 2012 17:20

frumpsnake: Jan 30, 2001; The sad part is, he wasn't always evil.

I also like that you chose to compare the lovely mockup to an angled shot that completely hides the curved bottom and makes the current MBPs look thinner than they are.

# ¿ May 15, 2012 18:27

frumpsnake: Jan 30, 2001; The sad part is, he wasn't always evil.

The side-on comparison is at the very top of the article where the other images came from.

But again, it's just a mockup. It could be thicker. It could be thinner. It could even be flat like an iPhone 4/4S. All they "know" is that its not tapered.

# ¿ May 15, 2012 19:17

frumpsnake: Jan 30, 2001; The sad part is, he wasn't always evil.

The discrete 9600M GT was way faster than the integrated 9400M.

9400M

9600M

HD3000

It is hard finding accurate benchmarks for older machines that pre-date Mac Steam though. Maybe someone can do some Portal timedemos.

frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 21:12 on May 15, 2012

# ¿ May 15, 2012 21:06

frumpsnake: Jan 30, 2001; The sad part is, he wasn't always evil.

Pseudo-God posted:

I am just a beginner, so I don't think I will be using anything other than xcode. I am more worried about the cpu. The clock speed seems awfully low, I had that much 12 years ago on my p4. I know they ate not comparable, but the 1.8 i5 and the 2.4 i5 definitely are.

It's obviously quite a bit slower than a 2011 MBP, but thanks to Turbo Boost, the "slow" i5s in the Air easily beat the faster-clocked 2010 MBPs in single-threaded performance and usually equals it in multi-threaded.

If you want a more portable system, there's certainly nothing wrong with its 2010-era performance.

frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 03:14 on May 16, 2012

# ¿ May 16, 2012 03:00

frumpsnake: Jan 30, 2001; The sad part is, he wasn't always evil.

Bob Morales posted:

cbirdsong posted:
If Apple ditches ethernet, they may decide to include two Thunderbolt ports instead, which should allow for two standard monitors with adapters?

That would make too much sense. But there's probably have to be support in the chipset for two ports instead of one, and I'm not sure what the added cost etc would be. Having just ONE of a port that you can do so many things with (especially when not all devices have a passthrough port) is ridiculous.

There are 2 Thunderbolt ports both in the leaked/rumoured design and the currently-shipping 27" iMac.

# ¿ May 22, 2012 22:46

frumpsnake: Jan 30, 2001; The sad part is, he wasn't always evil.

Star War Sex Parrot posted:

I have a sneaking suspicion that the gap between Ivy Bridge and Apple refresh is because Intel is having a hard time hitting thermal requirements. I've assembled a few Ivy Bridge systems now, and every single one has run hot. I wish I hadn't sold my 2600k in favor of a 3770k.

Isn't that because Intel cheaped out and is using standard thermal paste between the chip and the heatspreader on Ivy, rather than the fluxless solder on Sandy?

# ¿ May 23, 2012 19:04

frumpsnake: Jan 30, 2001; The sad part is, he wasn't always evil.

I normally just pick OWC's RAM since it's guaranteed to work in the Mac in question (the Macbook5,1 has always been a bit pickier, particularly if you want 8GB which was actually impossible until 2011) and in addition to the lifetime warranty if you need to RMA it they'll overnight ship you a replacement.

frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 01:52 on May 25, 2012

# ¿ May 25, 2012 01:48

frumpsnake: Jan 30, 2001; The sad part is, he wasn't always evil.

TheAngryDrunk posted:

I'm pretty sure the old ones can use 16gb despite their claims.

Yes, all 2011 MBPs can take 16GB.

I can get 8GB in my 2009 Aluminum MacBook.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2012 20:18

frumpsnake: Jan 30, 2001; The sad part is, he wasn't always evil.

Yeah, the au$700 I saved by buying the base model just went to 4x 3TB drives instead. Time to set up FreeNAS.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2012 21:07

frumpsnake: Jan 30, 2001; The sad part is, he wasn't always evil.

The only guaranteed way to avoid the sleep issue is to put your HDD in the Optibay and your SSD in the HDD bay.

Personally I'd take reliable operation & sleeping over the SMS, particularly when its only protecting your secondary drive & when many HDDs have similar protection built-in and park the heads during falls.

# ¿ Jul 4, 2012 03:11

frumpsnake: Jan 30, 2001; The sad part is, he wasn't always evil.

grahm posted:

A couple more retina MBP thoughts:

1. Under Lion, Chrome Canary is way smoother than Safari to my eyes. A little more lag than Chrome on my 2011 MBP, but totally useable. Interested to try Safari in ML when it's released.

HolePisser1982 posted:

I'd say it's about ten times smoother running on integrated graphics and fifty times smoother running on discrete. Which is really cool.

This is not an exaggeration.

Safari on Mountain Lion has become my default browser on the rMBP because its so, so much faster at scrolling than both Safari 5.1 and even Chrome Dev (even if you force GPU in about :flags)

frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Jul 11, 2012

# ¿ Jul 11, 2012 00:57

frumpsnake: Jan 30, 2001; The sad part is, he wasn't always evil.

No 13" MBP has ever had discrete graphics.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2012 07:30

frumpsnake: Jan 30, 2001; The sad part is, he wasn't always evil.

Decius posted:

Then I must have dreamed up the Nvidia 320M in the 13" Macbook Pro (Mid 2010) of my sister

The 320M is an integrated GPU built into the motherboard chipset just like the GeForce 9400M before it and the Intel HD3000 after it. The non-Pro White Unibody Macbook had the exact same 320M.

The 13" MBPs up until 2011 used an NVIDIA PCH/chipset, not an Intel one. This is why the 2010 13" only had Core 2 Duos while the 15" and 17" had i5s, because NVIDIA weren't licensed to make chipsets that supported newer CPUs, pre-Sandy Intel integrated sucked, and there's simply no room to add a discrete GPU like in the 15".

Considering Apple have never shipped a 13" portable with a discrete GPU, I don't see them starting now in a design with even *less* space.

frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 08:48 on Jul 12, 2012

# ¿ Jul 12, 2012 08:42

frumpsnake: Jan 30, 2001; The sad part is, he wasn't always evil.

~Coxy posted:

The 12" PB (RIP) had a discrete GPU as well so it's not beyond the realm of reason for Apple to fit a third chip into a small laptop.

So did the iBook, that's not the point.

Space doesn't just include physical space but also the battery requirements needed to power everything as well as cooling and TDP requirements. The iBook/PowerBook didn't have to dissipate 80 watts of CPU+GPU heat nor did it require the 20% extra battery the 13" Pro requires (with no GPU) compared to the old 12" PB G4.

The Macbook Air is already about the lowest battery runtime Apple are willing to ship (although moreso on the 11), and that's using lower-clocked low power 17W CPUs as opposed to the 45W CPU in the MBPs, without powering a discrete GPU (another 35W), and powering a non-Retina screen (which on the 15" rMBP involved adding over 22% more battery).

Anyone wanting a 13" Pro isn't going to want to go backwards to the 17W CPUs which would mean even less differentiation between the MBA and the MBP, meaning a hypothetical 13" rMBP really couldn't be much smaller, as opposed to the 15"'s thinner design. Could Apple release such a product? Sure.

But managing to increase battery capacity for a combination of Pro-calibre CPUs, the retina display itself, and a GPU (which is a likely requirement for decent performance in Pro apps at 2560x1600 or 2880x1800) inside a smaller 13" enclosure sounds pretty tough, even for Apple. A thinner 13" MBP would likely be nothing more than a Retina screen bolted onto an Air, to the point where they might as well remove the 13" MBP entirely, sell it as an Retina Air, and 'upgrade' both products at once by combining them.

frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Jul 12, 2012

# ¿ Jul 12, 2012 12:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 4, 2024 03:54

frumpsnake: Jan 30, 2001; The sad part is, he wasn't always evil.

a bad poster yall posted:

I think the step above "best for Retina" would probably be fair usable, but from what I've read that would require irritating scaling which would stress the machine more leading to scrolling being more sluggish etc.

Scaling is essentially free these days. You don't get a performance boost dropping your Xbox's output res from 1080p to 720p and letting your TV scale instead.

The sluggish performance from the higher resolutions on the rMBP is just from the fact that you're pushing 3360x2100 and 3840x2400 pixels (that's 36% and 77% more, respectively) through the GPU in the first place, not that it's being scaled down to 2880x1800.

There'd be practically zero difference in performance between rendering 2880x1800 natively to a 2880x1800 panel and scaling it down to 2560x1600, but cost is another story. They're not going to pack an even-denser display with the same res as the 15" into a cheaper 13", particularly if they're incorporating a discrete GPU for the first time as well.

I'm still curious as to how they're going to get a 13" Retina display, increased battery to power it, and presumably a discrete GPU into a smaller enclosure without dropping to the lower-power CPUs in the Air, and more importantly what the price-point is, but I guess we'll see if/when the rumours pan out.

frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Jul 27, 2012

# ¿ Jul 27, 2012 03:56

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > Mac Hardware - 5k Supremacy