Did you use a conductive paste like Arctic Silver 5? You may have bridged something you shouldn't have around the chips. ESD is very unlikely. I've been very cavalier with that since the 90s and have yet to kill a component, let alone a board with static.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Debating between getting a PowerBook G4 DLSD or a 2006 MacBook Pro
- Thread starter MacFoxG4
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
FWIW, I killed a GPU by accidentally touching its heatsink while the system was running. Felt the discharge and the picture turned psychedelic. And that was that.
The 128 VRAM is used for the higher resolution on the 2nd display as well as the main display. Both the 15" DSLD and the 17" DSLD both have native 1400x960 display, whereas the 15"non-DLSD only has 1280x854, so there is no benefit with more VRAM unless you need a higher resolution on the 2nd display or play games that benefit from more VRAM. However, 64MB VRAM is enough for a minimum Leopard setup as I have a Nvidia FX5200 with 64MB VRAM in my PowerMac G5 and the only downside is that X-PLANE 9 is running a slightly lower resolution as it could with 128MB VRAM.
The 17" DLSD's LCD is 1680×1050.
(And the FX5200 is a piece of **** no matter how you look at it.)
Fair enough. On a live system with current running through, all bets are off. Either that or you are one of those X-Men mutants.
This doesn't make sense to me.
Since when did current run through a heatsink? I thought those were OK to touch because (as long as it's using a non-conductive paste / pad / adhesive), they aren't making contact with the rest of the circuitry.
That's another reason I don't use AS5, by the way.
Last edited:
Sorry for nitpicking about the Windows route but if the 2006 MBP has a Core Duo,
Though if it's got a Core 2 Duo then yeah, it's *probably* going to be able to run 2004, provided you put a SSD and max out the RAM.
EDIT: it seems that W10 v2004 might have a 32bit version, after all... But I'd rather err on the side of caution
Way I understand it, they've only stopped releasing 32-bit OEM versions to sellers, so you should still be able to install 32-bit Windows 10 on all hardware that supports it. So, a Core Duo Mac should still work. Its days are probably numbered, for what it's worth, and if I had to guess, the limitation will be gpu driver support.
Yeah indeed that's what I'm fearing the most, I have many machines at home that have lackluster driver supports, and as such I'm obligated to keep them running 1909. Notably because of the GPU drivers (there's been something about older nVidia drivers causing W10 2004 to crash or behave oddly).
At this point, it might make sense to run Linux on the 2006 MBP or pony up for a 2007 C2D model.
At this point, it might make sense to run Linux on the 2006 MBP or pony up for a 2007 C2D model.
... with a fixed GPU.
[automerge]1592296313[/automerge]
Does this also affect the 8600 in the 2007/2008 MBP?
if it were me, i would try to find a 15" 1.67ghz high-resolution model. i'm a pretty big fan of having more screen real estate for multitasking, and because of this i doubt i could survive with a measely 1440x900 resolution.
The DLSD only gets you 60 more vertical pixels than the 1440x900 screen on the MBPs.
If you want to get serious about screen real estate in a 15", at least jump up to a 2010-2012 with a 1680x1050 screen. Or, really, get a 2012 so that you get a quad core, USB 3.0, and a GPU that won't die.
(this post brought to you from a 2012 15" with an HR-AG screen).
Then a 17" DLSD it is for screen estate.yeah but I don't like Intel macs that much
PowerPC is where my hearts at
I have a 13" Retina that I use as my travel laptop.Or get a 15" retina and run it at 2880×1800 with no scaling. That's what I do.
I had a few tell me an Air was a more logical choice, but I couldn't handle the screen resolution. I run the 13" Retina a 1680x1050, which is the same as what I have on my 15" main laptop.
Default "best for Retina" scaling is the same as the old standard res screens-1280x800 for 13" and 1440x900 for 15". They look beautiful at that resolution, but that's too cramped for me.
The 17" 1920x1200 screens are also beautiful. I have one pre-unibody with that screen, and of course all the unibodies have it. I really need to send my 2011 to Dosdude to be fixed.
@bunnspecial - I agree 100%.
As a sidenote, I will never understand why the 13" Air was upgraded to 1440x900 in 2010 but the 13" MBP wasn't. If anything, I'd have expected the opposite.
As a sidenote, I will never understand why the 13" Air was upgraded to 1440x900 in 2010 but the 13" MBP wasn't. If anything, I'd have expected the opposite.
...actually, you're likely right. I did use AS5 for that specific project because I wanted to use "the good stuff" as opposed to my usual Deep Cool Z5. There may have been some jostling around as I tried to reposition the motherboard on to the heat sink, and perhaps some thermal paste got smeared around to where it shouldn't have gone.
I'll also take this opportunity to say how annoying the process of changing the thermal paste was on the 2006/7 MacBook Pro. On the A1181 MacBook it's dead simple because the heatsink is an assembly that screws on top of the CPU. I was genuinely shocked when I saw that the heat pipes and heatsink plate were integrated into the bottom of the case itself, and I had to awkwardly manuever the entire motherboard to fit correctly into place.
yeah, i've been thinking about getting a mac laptop (i have a thinkpad t430 running debian right now) and if i do get one then it will either be a 15" high-res or a 17" high-res
I guess it's safe to assume yes. Though I have not yet tested with my 6150SE and my 8800GTS in my old systems.... with a fixed GPU.
[automerge]1592296313[/automerge]
Does this also affect the 8600 in the 2007/2008 MBP?
I don't know how far could you go in terms of ancient drivers with W10 v2004, I'd say anything below 7xx series should be a no-op but I'm not entirely sure.
EDIT: According to this post in the nVidia Forums, any driver prior to verison 358.00 or older will cause a crash.
This means that any card below the 4xx series won't work most likely, according to this list.
Last edited:
It's unfortunate, but there is still Linux though, if all else fails.
No biggie. I have other boxes to run W10 on when I feel like it.
One thing I forgot about was the dead RAM slot issue in the 2005 PowerBook G4s. I made a thread about it awhile back and I re-read the replies I got there. From what I understand, if the DLSD has a dead RAM slot you can make up for the loss of memory by using a single 2 GB stick. This is not possible on the earlier SLSD models. I have run Leopard on 1 GB of RAM before (My Sawtooth only had 1 GB of RAM when I bought it) and I remember getting okay performance on TFF, but I would prefer running Leopard on 2 GB. So, I think I will rule out the SLSD.
Speaking of RAM, how much RAM does Snow Leopard need to be comfortable?
I've seen a lot of posts about newer Mac OSs and Windows 10, so here's my two cents on that. I personally do not plan on running Catalina. The bad reviews and lack of 32-bit app support put me off. I think Mojave would be as far as I would want to go. Another thing that puts me off of newer Mac OS in general is the System Integrity Protection because, from what I hear, it makes installing third-party apps harder. So if I wanted to, say, give High Sierra or Mojave a Leopard theme, I wouldn't be able to do it without disabling SIP. If I was going to run modern Mac OS, I would probably be looking at a used unibody (mid-2012 or earlier) instead. I did actually consider this route too, modern Mac OS, but with Leopard or Snow Leopard themeing, but the issues I mentioned made me reconsider. I think Mavericks was the last Mac OS to have the 3D dock, but I'm not sure what browser support is like or if I can still download Mavericks from Apple.
As far as Windows 10 goes, it would be pretty cool to dual boot Windows 10 and OS X, though I already have Windows 10 on a Lenovo IdeaPad. It would be a fun experiment for sure, but I don't think it is one I feel like performing at this time.
Speaking of RAM, how much RAM does Snow Leopard need to be comfortable?
I've seen a lot of posts about newer Mac OSs and Windows 10, so here's my two cents on that. I personally do not plan on running Catalina. The bad reviews and lack of 32-bit app support put me off. I think Mojave would be as far as I would want to go. Another thing that puts me off of newer Mac OS in general is the System Integrity Protection because, from what I hear, it makes installing third-party apps harder. So if I wanted to, say, give High Sierra or Mojave a Leopard theme, I wouldn't be able to do it without disabling SIP. If I was going to run modern Mac OS, I would probably be looking at a used unibody (mid-2012 or earlier) instead. I did actually consider this route too, modern Mac OS, but with Leopard or Snow Leopard themeing, but the issues I mentioned made me reconsider. I think Mavericks was the last Mac OS to have the 3D dock, but I'm not sure what browser support is like or if I can still download Mavericks from Apple.
As far as Windows 10 goes, it would be pretty cool to dual boot Windows 10 and OS X, though I already have Windows 10 on a Lenovo IdeaPad. It would be a fun experiment for sure, but I don't think it is one I feel like performing at this time.
4 GB is comfy for Snowy - I have 8 GB in my 2011 MBP and only really use it on Snowy when running a VM.
[automerge]1592495975[/automerge]
The latest Firefox still works on Mavericks as of today, and I could hook you up with a clean Mavericks image (straight from my MBP's recovery partition) if necessary.
[automerge]1592496184[/automerge]
OS X has gotten by without SIP for years - so disabling it wouldn't cause hell to freeze over.
Last edited: