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.
Mac OS X Lion Roundup: Recovery Partitions, TRIM, Core 2 Duo Minimum, Security Focus
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wow. Your company is going back to PCs? Because you just read a rumor that five your old Macs won't be upgradeable to an OS to be released probably late this year? This is a different situation from Snow Leopard vs. G5, where the machines affected where high-end machines; this time it is the oldest and slowest Intel Macs around.
Where I work when they buy a new computer they downgrade to WindowsXP. They have over 30,000 employees. All of our laptops have that Windows 7 sticker but they all run XP. They spend so much money on downgrading!
I find recovery partitions pretty pointless because the only times I need to use them are 1) when the HD dies and need to reinstall Windows or 2) a virus has infected Windows which requires a reinstall, but that same virus has also infected the recovery partition so reinstalling off that won't get rid of the virus. So if Apple is planning to get rid of DVD drives, I think they should just include a free USB key with every Mac instead.My Dell XT2's recovery partition is 2.00 GiB on its 128 GB SSD. Where is your faculty finding Windows laptops that ship with 5 GB drives?
High quality SSD drives support, and benefit from, TRIM.
Garbage collection lets the drive guess about unused space. TRIM lets the OS tell the drive that space is unused, so that the garbage collection *knows* which space is unused.
Garbage collection isn't bad, but TRIM is better. TRIM *and* garbage collection is best.
Yes, seriously. Recovery partitions have been available on Windows since the XP days. Nice to see Apple realizing the value of having a protected partition for repair/recovery purposes.
It makes Apple look kind of stupid for the "Redmond, start your photocopiers" banners, doesn't it.
Has anyone tried running Lion off a Core Duo Mac? It seems like the limitation is arbitrary.
I still remember Leopard leaving out all ppc systems 867Mhz or less and people still figured out how to install Leopard on their older macs.
I still remember Leopard leaving out all ppc systems 867Mhz or less and people still figured out how to install Leopard on their older macs.
most likely you'll be able to install lion on a core Duo mac, it just won't be officially supported & it will need to be done via a workaround like installing it on a USB hard drive first
Apple wants to move to the modern Objective-C runtime. 32-bit Intel Macs are half a decade old.
Now the question is, what about the early Core2 Duos that have a 32 bit EFI and boot only in 32 bit mode? Are they going to update the 32 bit EFI or are those machines obselete too? If Apple doesn't upgrade the EFI the machine won't run 64 bit.
this is not a fully capable 64bit OS. lots of people are still running 32bit apps. itunes for one is still 32bit as is iphoto
Apple maybe ready for 64bit, but App developers, including some of their own apparently aren't
That doesn't mean it is necessary. It is a "nice to have" if your flash controller isn't crap. Since they already implemented it in previous implementation most newer controllers just keep it around. Any current controller that solely depends upon TRIM is using it as a crutch and are just being lazy and/or cheap.
Total BS. Any decent GC algorithm is not guessing. It either identifies garbage or it doesn't. Attributing this to guessing is spewing nonsense.
If it were really guess then sometimes it would collect non garbage.
When weaved into the wear leveaing attribute the GC algorithm knows with certainity that the old cell that used to have the data doeesn't. There is absolutely no guessing involved.
The only benefit of TRIM is when there hasn't been any wear leveling done in a while and need a set of "prepared cellls" that is bigger than the ones already queued up. That's it. So as long as the GC keeps the list of queued up cells long enough to satisfy the common data bursts it isn't necessary.
TRIM is also nice so that the drive as something to do when you are not using the drive. It providers more flexibitly to move the housecleaning can be timeshifted.
Given higher density MLC cells wear out faster than wider, old stuff there is no reason why the the wear leveling shouldn't be actively moving stuff around under the covers.
TRIM isn't necessarily always better. The TRIM commands have to be sent down to the drive. That means the drive cannot be getting read/write requests. "better" perhaps in that it gives the GC algorithm a bigger window to get work down but at the core it isn't.
The information that TRIM provides is eventually propagated to the drive. When the file system starts reusues those freed blocks the drive will find out. TRIM advantage is that the info is perhaps communicated sooner. It is not that the information isn't communicated at all.
Yes but you are twisted about which one of those are more critical.
Last edited:
like I said, I'm willing to bet you'll be able to install Lion on 32bit CPU's, but it will be via an external drive then installed inside what ever mac you have.
Perhaps the main objective of the org is to run machines that are an average of 6-7 years old. They probably are not only going back to PCs but to XP.
There seem to be alot of IT "gurus" who seem to have latched on the extended lifetime that XP got as being the "norm" ( should be able to run an OS for 10 years ).
Yeah, but the CPU difference the Core Duo and the original Core 2 Duo's, is negligible.
Erm, my MBP has a 32bit chipset, a 32bit EFI, but a 64bit CPU. It's still very much a 64 bit world.
Windows 7.... It can even run on 8 year old computers. Slowly, but it is supported.
Windows itself still doesn't have a full Recovery Partition, at least not in the way Lion's is setup. Lion's partition is basically the equivalent of the Lion install disk being kept on a hidden partition, so you can do everything including system recovery and reinstallation from it.
Windows XP allowed you to install the Recovery Console to the disk as a separate OS. You can only do very limited commands from this console.
Windows Vista had a system recovery OS which is quite a bit more full-featured than the recovery console from XP days, but still doesn't have things like reinstallation support. It also can only be run off the disc, except if your computer's manufacturer installed it to the computer (they generally do it as part of their recovery toolkit).
Windows 7 had the same recovery OS as Vista, but for the first time, it was installed by default on all computers that shipped with the OS. It still isn't able to reinstall your OS, but you can do troubleshooting and repairs from it.
Now you can't count manufacturer's recovery partitions, which have been around for a long time. They aren't a part of the OS itself, and it's essentially 3rd party software on the computer.
TL;DR: Windows' Recovery Partition doesn't compare to OSX's, since it only does troubleshooting and simple repairs. OSX has a much more full-featured recovery partition which includes system reinstall.
That is my question. If Apple does not upgrade the EFI to 64 bit, it is just a 32 bit computer with a 64 bit processor?
Only my old CoreDuo 1.66 MacMini won't work. Mind you it's still running Leopard - couldn't be bothered update it (it's a webserver so didn't want to break anything)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Seems silly to buy a new laptop now. Should just wait until Lion comes out and grab a new laptop that will be refreshed and possibly a new model.
It will be my first Mac is almost 16 years!!
Seems silly to buy a new laptop now. Should just wait until Lion comes out and grab a new laptop that will be refreshed and possibly a new model.
It will be my first Mac is almost 16 years!!