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

Apple Prepping OS X 10.5.7 Update

Just to clarify...

Safari 4 does not install on 10.5.7 but to install software and to run software that already exists on the machine prior to upgrade are two different things.

Safari 4 runs on 10.5.7 just fine if you installed it before you upgraded.

The biggest reason at the moment that I don't think Safari 4 installs into 10.5.7 is that the Safari 4 Public Beta installer contains a component that checks to see which version of Mac OS X you're running. Since this Public Beta installer was released just before 10.5.7 it's possible that the installer just doesn't recognize it as a valid build (just a theory). The same would go for 10.6 which (if memory serves me) didn't even let you install dev builds of Safari 4. I forget :p

For the user that said it didn't work on 10.6 Snow Leopard...ALOT of things won't work on it, the current seeds are still tagged as previews and I'm not positive they are even considered Beta stage yet.

For people with Outlook Web Access issues in Safari... it must be either browser settings or the deployment of OWA that's the issue. I'm able to log into my webmail at mail.microsoft.com just fine (even the E14 builds work).
 
"Apple has also informed developers that the new Safari 4 public beta will not install on the current 10.5.7 build. "

Why apple I love the new features !! why should I not upgrade ????

Anyone tried the new USB drivers after update just in case we can again Pwn our iPhones ? (tough chances) :apple:
 
Stilatos said:
"Apple has also informed developers that the new Safari 4 public beta will not install on the current 10.5.7 build. "

Why apple I love the new features !! why should I not upgrade ????
:
Click to expand...

The way I took this is that Apple will probably release a new build of the Safari 4 public beta (or perhaps the final Safari 4) by the time 10.5.7 is released.
 
chrisgeleven said:
The way I took this is that Apple will probably release a new build of the Safari 4 public beta (or perhaps the final Safari 4) by the time 10.5.7 is released.
Click to expand...

Pretty much what I feel they will be doing. If not then meh. What you going to do?
 
Elven said:
Pretty much what I feel they will be doing. If not then meh. What you going to do?
Click to expand...

No need. All they have to do is deliver the final 10.5.7 as an actual software release. Everyone who's complaining about Safari 4 not running on the internal developer release of 10.5.7, Shut Up! It's not meant for you!

jW
 
Mal said:
No need. All they have to do is deliver the final 10.5.7 as an actual software release. Everyone who's complaining about Safari 4 not running on the internal developer release of 10.5.7, Shut Up! It's not meant for you!

jW
Click to expand...

yes THAT!! :D
 
darrenmoffatt said:
Just to clarify...

For people with Outlook Web Access issues in Safari... it must be either browser settings or the deployment of OWA that's the issue. I'm able to log into my webmail at mail.microsoft.com just fine (even the E14 builds work).
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not that. It was something (at least for me) that cropped up with 10.5.6 and Safari 3.2.1. There's a thread over on the Apple Discussion boards about this. WebKit works fine. Firefox also works fine. It's also an issue with Facebook and others where one is continually logged out. Yahoo Mail doesn't keep the user logged out. All worked fine with Safari prior to the 10.5.6/3.2.1 release/update. :rolleyes:
 
skiaddict said:
Maybe Apple will finally fix the issue preventing safari users from logging into enterprise outlook web access webmail. It used to work fine but for the last few years, newer releases of safari have blocked this. It is ridiculous. Works fine with firefox.
Click to expand...

I've been able to log on fine with all versions of Safari, but frustratingly it would only let me read messages and not actually send anything.

This appears to have been sorted in the Safari 4 beta though, thankfully!
 
Tallest Skil said:
Except that only one has.:confused:
Click to expand...

And that was only because development of the original iPhone delayed Leopard's release.

10.1.7
10.2.8
10.3.9
10.4.11
Click to expand...

10.1 only went to 10.1.5 (and 10.0 only to 10.0.4)

And probably 10.5.8, with the last one being just after the Snow Leopard release.
Click to expand...

Historically the last 10.x update has come a month or so before the release of the next OS version. 10.4.11 is the exception that came after, but that may have been delayed to allow the inclusion of Safari 3, or for some other technical problem.
 
edgarf28 said:
10.5.7 adds also support for ATi HD 48xx video cards and intel i7 processors!!

see: http://www.netkas.org
Click to expand...
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

No offense to nVidia and Apple's judgement in partnering with them, but ATI's current generation graphics cards have the edge over nVidia's. I've said this many times, but nVidia's 8xxx and 9xxx and GT1xx (which is just renamed 9xxx cards) generation don't support 64-bit floats for GPGPU operation while ATI supports them in both their HD3xxx and HD4xxx generation cards. This is exacerbated by nVidia's inability to get the GT2xx series into the mainstream or mobile markets, forcing them to constantly rebrand their older GPUs which were once 8xxx then 9xxx now GT1xx and GT240 and GT250 series.

My ideal configurations for Apple's desktop lineup:

Mac Mini: 9400M
iMac: HD4670 256MB low-end, HD4670 512MB mid-range, HD4850 512MB high-end
Mac Pro: HD4870 512MB low-end, GTX285 1GB high-end

This assumes Apple will stick with single GPU cards while avoiding nVidia 8xxx, 9xxx, and GT1xx series as much as possible to avoid the lack of 64-bit float support.

The 512MB HD4870 is pretty much a mid-range card now at about $175, which is pretty much consistent with the existing HD2600XT's price point when it was originally introduced. The 1GB HD4870 would be better of course, but at $220, it's a bit expensive for what Apple usually bundles as the low-end option. The HD4850 will probably be discontinued soon, so would be a poor choice, as the 40nm RV740 looks to come in at $99, compared to the HD4850's $145, yet perform between the HD4850 and HD4830. At $225, the GTX260 Core 216 is a bit cheap for a high-end option, so the GTX285 at $350 seems reasonable, and is also the fastest single GPU graphics card available, and is cooler than the GTX280 being on a 55nm process instead of 65nm.

Following tradition, the iMac GPUs will probably be mobile based. I believe the current HD2600 Pro in existing iMacs is based on the Mobility HD2600XT, while the 8800GS is actually the 8800M GTS. The Mobility HD4850 seems to perform about the same as the 9800GT (renamed 8800GTX) in various 3DMarks, so it's a definite upgrade. I haven't seem benchmarks for the Mobility HD4670 yet, but it'll definitely outperform the 9600M GT in the MBP, judging by the desktop versions, it'll be close to the Mobility HD3850, and probably be 9700M GT class. I believe the kext for the HD4670 was already found in OS X previous to these 10.5.7 builds.

I should also note that supposedly the new mobile GTX280M is not based on the desktop GTX280, but is rather 55nm G92b based so it is essentially a shrink, overclocked, and rebrand of the existing 9800M GTX. The GTX160M is a rebranded 9800M GTS. Overall, nothing significantly new from nVidia on the mobile GPU front.
 
2wgbsph.jpg


So will these i7s be for the imac or for the mac pro? I don't think they make 8 core I7s?
 
wesleyh said:
2wgbsph.jpg


So will these i7s be for the imac or for the mac pro? I don't think they make 8 core I7s?
Click to expand...
Well the TDP for the Core i7 is too high for the current iMac design. 130W compared to 45W (Core 2 Extreme) and I think 10W for the northbridge in current designs.

Nehalem is probably a reference to the Mac Pro. The Bloomfield in Core i7 is basically the same as Gainestown Xeons just that Gainestown has an additional QPI link enabled and goes through extended validation. They should come from the exact same wafers, since I don't think Intel will make a custom design just to add an extra QPI link.

Is that screenshot from a Hackintosh? That would explain the Core i7 identification.
 
I still think it'll come down to this:

Mac Mini will go to a faster Core 2 Duo CPU.

iMac will go to the Core 2 Quad Q9xxxS series CPUs. Apple could go to a real Core i7 CPU, but that would entail a totally new case design with a beefed up power supply and possibly heat-pipe CPU cooling.

Mac Pro will go to the Gainestown Xeon CPUs based on the Core i7 CPU design.
 
SactoGuy18 said:
I still think it'll come down to this:

Mac Mini will go to a faster Core 2 Duo CPU.

iMac will go to the Core 2 Quad Q9xxxS series CPUs. Apple could go to a real Core i7 CPU, but that would entail a totally new case design with a beefed up power supply and possibly heat-pipe CPU cooling.

Mac Pro will go to the Gainestown Xeon CPUs based on the Core i7 CPU design.
Click to expand...

... Doubt it, this is apple we talking about.

It'll be like

Mac mini 1.6-1.8Ghz Atom/1GB
iMac: Core 2 Duo/2GB on low/mid ends and Core 2 Quad/4gb on the high end.
MacPro: Faster and more efficient current gen Quad core Xeons/2GB, with Gainstown update next year.
 
MikhailT said:
MacPro: Faster and more efficient current gen Quad core Xeons/2GB, with Gainstown update next year.
Click to expand...

That's absolutely wrong.

1. Gainestown IS the current-gen Xeon.
2. Gainestown next year would be blasphemously stupid.

And what's that 2GB thing?

wesleyh said:
So will these i7s be for the imac or for the mac pro? I don't think they make 8 core I7s?
Click to expand...

Bloomfield is i7. Bloomfield is a desktop chip. Apple sells no computers with desktop chips.

Clarksfield is the Nehalem that will go in the MacBook family in Q4 2009/Q1 2010.
Clarksfield is the Nehalem that will go in the iMac and Mac Mini in late Q1 2010.
Gainestown is the Nehalem that will go in the Mac Pro in March-June 2009.

Core i7 will not go in any Mac.
 
Tallest Skil said:
That's absolutely wrong.

1. Gainestown IS the current-gen Xeon.
2. Gainestown next year would be blasphemously stupid.

And what's that 2GB thing?



Bloomfield is i7. Bloomfield is a desktop chip. Apple sells no computers with desktop chips.

Clarksfield is the Nehalem that will go in the MacBook family in Q4 2009/Q1 2010.
Clarksfield is the Nehalem that will go in the iMac and Mac Mini in late Q1 2010.
Gainestown is the Nehalem that will go in the Mac Pro in March-June 2009.

Core i7 will not go in any Mac.
Click to expand...

I'll try to add sarcasm tag next time. You do realize i was making fun of the fact that Apple's current Macs are so outdated (2 gen back), I don't actually think that Apple will skip an entire generation to get to current generation?

As for current, I was actually referring to the Hapertown Xeons or the 5400s Xeons that is the current generation within Mac Pros. There is faster and more efficient 5400 Cpus than currently sold with Mac Pros. Like the 3.4GHz X5492 or the E5450 3.0GHz 80TDP compared to the old 120TDP 3.0Ghz.
 
question

wtf is with this RAW images BS I keep hearing about with the Apple updates.

I never in my life encounter problems with RAW Images, I don't know what it is maybe they're smoking crack someone fill me in if not just bitch at my comment in reply.:eek:

And BTW SNOW LEOPARD IS COMING OUT APRIL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back