Leopard and Intel MBPs?

Alexshimp

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Oct 5, 2007
12
0
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?
 

tico24

macrumors 6502
Jun 17, 2007
480
0
Eastleigh, UK
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.
 

Alexshimp

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Oct 5, 2007
12
0
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.
Yeh its the SR MBP ... hrm what do you mean Ram? it has 2 gigs in it lol... should not be a problem...
 

miniConvert

macrumors 68040
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.
 

sevimli

macrumors 6502a
Jun 26, 2007
725
64
ChiTown
Yeh its the SR MBP ... hrm what do you mean Ram? it has 2 gigs in it lol... should not be a problem...
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.;)
 

Alexshimp

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Oct 5, 2007
12
0
you keep them incase you have a problem and apple wants to blame it on third party ram...
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 :)
 

noodle654

macrumors 68020
Jun 2, 2005
2,066
19
Never Ender
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.
 

kolax

macrumors G3
Mar 20, 2007
9,186
115
thats because OSX is a memory hog, upgrade to 4gb, you'll see a nice boost
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.
 

yudilks

macrumors regular
Jan 30, 2006
173
0
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.
Amen to that.... I've never notice my "Wired" and "Active" memory usage passed 1 GB in total..
 

TheStu

macrumors 65816
Aug 20, 2006
1,245
0
Carlisle, PA
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.
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
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
919
  • MrGunnyPT
5
Replies
5
Views
587
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • blast87
1
Replies
1
Views
707
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.