Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

ArtOfWarfare

macrumors G3
Nov 26, 2007
9,560
6,059
To use xcode 4.3 you had to have OSX 10.7.3. I did the upgrade that broke a number of PPC apps that I used and loved that are not updated any more. At that point I realized that it is better off to have separate hardware like a new Mac Mini, or what you recommended of installing a whole different OS and updating that firewire drive would work too.

The goal is to separate my day to day computer from my programming computer to avoid the next "You have to update to use the new xcode or other thing".

You just need two installs of Mac OS X then. I'm not quite sure what that entails, but I imagine it's similar to having Windows XP and OS X on your Mac on seperate partitions and using Boot Camp... Just have your programming version of OS X and your FCP compatibility version of OS X as installs on seperate partitions.
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
You just need two installs of Mac OS X then. I'm not quite sure what that entails, but I imagine it's similar to having Windows XP and OS X on your Mac on seperate partitions and using Boot Camp... Just have your programming version of OS X and your FCP compatibility version of OS X as installs on seperate partitions.

You of course don't even need to unless there's a new API you really need/want to implement. If you use only APIs from the 2.0 - 4.0 days of iOS, you really never need to upgrade your Xcode or iOS SDK really. Apple will still publish you on the App Store.

My code is now at the level it requires iOS 5 (unfortunately, discounting the iPhone 3G as a possible target) due to me using GLKit and an OpenGL ES 2.0 pipeline. Sure I could scrap that, go to the fixed function OpenGL ES 1.1 implementation and just run with that, but GLKit brings many improvements and ES 2.0 is much more flexible. That means I now need minimum Snow Leopard to develop and build iOS applications, which is still decently old as far as Mac software/hardware goes. Good thing iOS 6 doesn't really bring anything I need, though that's not an issue to me since my MBA is running on ML just fine.
 

Theclamshell

macrumors 68030
Mar 2, 2009
2,741
3
Screen Resolution and size are very important. Developing for the iPad is becoming annoying on a 17" MBP.
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
That's why I bought a Dell instead of a Thunberbolt Apple Screen.
They have a really good resolution (2560x1440).

They have the same resolution. The ATD is also 2560x1440. Of course, to fit the Retina iPad, you have to use the rMBP running at 2880x1800 with the hack or the 30" Dell, the U3011 with 2560x1600 resolution (16:10 instead of 16:9 on the 27" U2711).

Or just get a Retina iPad and a 99$/year registration if you ask me.
 

jnoxx

macrumors 65816
Dec 29, 2010
1,343
0
Aartselaar // Antwerp // Belgium
My bad, I bought the U3011, and I also have the 27" version. Thinking of swapping that one with the 30", but then it probably won't fit the desk.
And you are correct, it does have 2560x1600, only thing I didn't like, is to buy the expensive extension to get the resolution working on latest mac mini ;/
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
With the standard they told me, you can't get the resolution out of it (I couldn't neither), so I had to buy an extension to get the full resolution out of it.
I couldve been badly misinformed, and then it would suck :(

Wait, are you using DVI ? Because the U3011 has 1 DisplayPort input. The DP input can support the full resolution of 2560x1600 with just a DP cable. The Mac Mini's TB port is a 1.1a DP port equivalent. You can just technically run a DP cable, which is 4.73$ from Monoprice.

If you're using DVI (there is no reason to use DVI at all, DP replaces it completely and is much superior), then yes, single link DVI cannot run that resolution, you need to use a mDP or TB to Dual Link DVI adapter which costs 99$.

But again, since the U3011 has a DP input... why even bother with DVI ?
 

jnoxx

macrumors 65816
Dec 29, 2010
1,343
0
Aartselaar // Antwerp // Belgium
Wait, are you using DVI ? Because the U3011 has 1 DisplayPort input. The DP input can support the full resolution of 2560x1600 with just a DP cable. The Mac Mini's TB port is a 1.1a DP port equivalent. You can just technically run a DP cable, which is 4.73$ from Monoprice.

If you're using DVI (there is no reason to use DVI at all, DP replaces it completely and is much superior), then yes, single link DVI cannot run that resolution, you need to use a mDP or TB to Dual Link DVI adapter which costs 99$.

But again, since the U3011 has a DP input... why even bother with DVI ?

Oh.. That explains alot :)
It's just, the monitor is also connected to my game computer, and to get full resolution out of it there, I had to use DVI, therefore I assumed It was the same for the Mac, but i've been proven wrong, i'll just sell the crap, and do it like you said. Thanks for the info mate, appreciate it!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.