Leopard and Intel MBPs?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Alexshimp, Oct 20, 2007.

  1. Alexshimp macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    #1
    I am new to the whole mac scene, I just got my MBPin the summer time... and was wondering if switching to Leopard will give me a performance boost? I feel like sometimes some apps on the mac are a bit slow.....


    The reason I ask is that Leopard is the first OS X that will be released since the Intel Macs came out, so I'd figure they cater to that a bit more?
     
  2. tico24 macrumors 6502

    tico24

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Location:
    Eastleigh, UK
    #2
    I assume you purchased a SR MBP? You'll probably see a little bit of a speed boost as Leopard is designed for the 64bit processor whereas Tiger is primarily a 32bit OS.

    If you're experiencing the spinning beachball a lot of the time, the problem could be more to do with RAM rather than the OS.

    If you're unsure, I'd wait to see what all the leopard reviews and benchmarks say once its out.
     
  3. Alexshimp thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    #3
    Yeh its the SR MBP ... hrm what do you mean Ram? it has 2 gigs in it lol... should not be a problem...
     
  4. miniConvert macrumors 68040

    miniConvert

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Location:
    Kent, UK - the 'Garden of England'.
    #4
    What apps do you have problems with that are a bit slow? Applications running under Rosetta still suck, but I've not had problems with anything native. Firefox can be a little slow off the mark the first time it needs to be loaded, but after that it's instant - and in any case it's a much quicker load than Internet Explorer.

    I doubt Leopard is going to give any apps a kick up the backside. Generally speaking, OS's become more intensive on computer hardware over time, not less.
     
  5. squeeks macrumors 68040

    squeeks

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Florida
    #5
    thats because OSX is a memory hog, upgrade to 4gb, you'll see a nice boost
     
  6. sevimli macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    #6
    Exactly it is not a problem, don't listen everysingle advise here. And of course you can buy extra 2x2gb ram unless you care your budget, but then what would you do with leftover 2x1gb original ram sticks? You can't sell them easily.;)
     
  7. squeeks macrumors 68040

    squeeks

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Florida
    #7
    you keep them incase you have a problem and apple wants to blame it on third party ram...
     
  8. Alexshimp thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    #8
    Yeh but I seriously do not think 2 gig of ram is little... it should be enough.. to run the OS smoothly... I mean overall it does, i just figured for the specs that the mac book comes with, it should be a lot smoother... (it is >2000$ notebook afterall)... I guess I will wait for next week and see what people say... but I do hope there is some performance boost :)
     
  9. noodle654 macrumors 68020

    noodle654

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    Location:
    Never Ender
    #9
    2GB IS A LOT OF RAM. OS X does not use all of it, though 4GB would be nuts. I have never used a computer before that has 4GB of RAM...but that will change in the next week...cough cough...new MacBooks or MBP.
     
  10. kolax macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    #10
    OSX is a memory hogg but it does not hogg up all 2GB's.

    Upgrading to 4GB isn't going to benefit unless you deal with extremely large files and swapping bytes from hard drive to RAM is going to be too slow.

    Going from 2GB to 4GB isn't going to increase things like Firefox loading quicker.
     
  11. yudilks macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #11
    Amen to that.... I've never notice my "Wired" and "Active" memory usage passed 1 GB in total..
     
  12. TheStu macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Location:
    Carlisle, PA
    #12
    Except OS X from what I have seen. I am running the Leopard beta on my MacBook, and honestly, it is just as responsive, if not more so than Tiger. Definitely not nearly as bad as jumping from XP Pro to Vista Business on this machine. That was a step down in responsiveness, Tiger->Leopard is equal footing, if not a step up.

    As for making apps more responsive... I haven't noticed anything extreme. They load up faster, and I can jump between them faster, but the actual app is not usually faster. However, that may change once Leopard made apps start hitting the interwebs
     

Share This Page