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

Macbook + Leopard

J

JK.online

macrumors member
Original poster
Nov 28, 2006
49
0
I know there has been 1000 threads about Macbooks and Leopard, however, everything I've searched for has resulted in threads discussing whether or not people should wait to buy their Macbooks when they are bundled with Leopard.

My question is whether or not a Macbook will be able to sufficiently run Leopard (the nice graphical touches). The Macbook I intend to buy will be a Core 2 Duo with 1GB of RAM, so I was just wondering if the Macbook was likely to get an upgrade after the conference to see if I should wait.

Buying Leopard isn't a problem, I just want to ensure that the Macbook will have sufficient hardware to run the OS.

Cheers!
 
The MB will run leopard just fine. Think of it, would Apple release a notebook that won't run their OS? Apple is well aware that they're updating their OS in just a few months - they wouldn't release hardware that couldn't handle it.

The GMA950 is much more powerful than most give it credit for.. and processor-wise, the MBP isn't all that much faster than the MB, anyways.
 
the MB should be fine. in my opinion, the best thing you can do to upgrade any computer is upgrade the RAM. you might find that Leopard is more RAM-intensive than Tiger (is that even possible?!) and you might want to upgrade the RAM later on. i think Apple might up the basic RAM in the MBs just like they did with the MBPs but there's been no major reports of this. it's just my experience that Apple's software (the OS, specifically) requires a lot of RAM.
 
Anything Apple has now will run Leopord. I'm sure even the old refurb stuff will be just fine...
 
The only thing I would worry about is the graphics card in those. What do they have for VRAM and such? If I remember correctly... it's just an intel integrated graphics right?
 
TheSpaz said:
The only thing I would worry about is the graphics card in those. What do they have for VRAM and such? If I remember correctly... it's just an intel integrated graphics right?
Click to expand...

the graphics card is plenty powerful. leopard isn't going to turn OSX into a top of the line video game.. and for anything else, the integrated graphics does just fine.

i really don't understand why so many dog on the GMA950 as much as they do.. it's like they latched on to the concept of integrated vs. dedicated and assume it must be sh*t because a bunch of computer nerds around these forums said so.
 
Yeah just an integrated graphics card.

However, when I purchase Leopard, it's likely I'll grab 2GB of RAM to go with it. This should be sufficient? I'm sure it will run on previous Mac's but I'd like it to perform at (almost) optimal levels. Is this likely?
 
JK.online said:
Yeah just an integrated graphics card.

However, when I purchase Leopard, it's likely I'll grab 2GB of RAM to go with it. This should be sufficient? I'm sure it will run on previous Mac's but I'd like it to perform at (almost) optimal levels. Is this likely?
Click to expand...

as i said earlier, adding more RAM will only help. if you install more RAM, it'll run faster (and thus better) than if you had only 1GB.
 
JK.online said:
Yeah just an integrated graphics card.

However, when I purchase Leopard, it's likely I'll grab 2GB of RAM to go with it. This should be sufficient? I'm sure it will run on previous Mac's but I'd like it to perform at (almost) optimal levels. Is this likely?
Click to expand...

current Tiger 10.4 require 256MB to run, I doubt leopard would ask for more than that, altho Im sure you need at least 512MB to run it smoothly, 1G is good enough.
 
clevin said:
current Tiger 10.4 require 256MB to run, I doubt leopard would ask for more than that, altho Im sure you need at least 512MB to run it smoothly, 1G is good enough.
Click to expand...

But you're always better off getting as much RAM as you can afford (max out).
 
I suspect that, like all the major upgrades, Leopord will bring a bit more snappiness over Tiger.

If we are lucky, we may also experience increased zing.
 
You may not benefit from all the speed that Leopard can offer with regard to Core Animation and Core Image. The Apple site says:

When a programmable GPU is present, Core Image utilizes the graphics card for image processing operations, freeing the CPU for other tasks. And if you have a high-performance card with increased video memory (VRAM), you'll find real-time responsiveness across a wide variety of operations.

Core Image-capable graphics cards include:

* ATI Mobility Radeon 9700
* ATI Radeon 9550, 9650, 9600, 9600 XT, 9800 XT, X800 XT
* nVidia GeForce FX Go 5200
* nVidia GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
* nVidia GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL, 6800 GT DDL
 
Except that, I believe, the GMA950 supports Core Image now.

Yes, if Apple upgrades the MacBooks to Santa Rosa next spring, which includes the improved GMA3000 integrated graphics chip, that would be better. But, that's a ways off, and while probably pretty certain, no one knows for sure when the platform will ship (much less when Apple will update the line—look at how long it took for Core 2's after they launched). Any MacBook made now will run Leopard admirably, especially since Leopard will be fully 64-bit, and now that the MacBook has a 64-bit capable chip in the Core 2 Duo, that'll be a boost as well.
 
Okay - I'm likely to be using the Mac for word processing and Photoshop. I know that currently, Photoshop runs quite averagely because of Rosetta. In 2007, when CS3 is released, is it likely to run nicely on the Macbook regardless of it not having the X3000?

One more thing, will the Macbook (with the GMA950), I know it will 'support' Leopard, but will it be able to take advantage of some of the nice graphical additions (if there are any?) or is it going to be severely limited by the GMA950?

Sorry to sound so paranoid - in all likelihood I'll be buying the Mac before Christmas (It will be my first mac... I'm switching) and I'd just like it to be fast and fantastic.

Cheers.
 
None of the graphical additions are significantly more strenuous than what's in Tiger now, certainly less strenuous than any proper 3D game. I wouldn't worry about that.

As for Photoshop, it doesn't use the graphics card for acceleration at all—it's CPU and RAM-dependent. And with a gig (or more) of RAM and a Core 2 Duo, once Photoshop is Universal it'll ****ing fly. :)
 
Killmoms - you've absolutely put my mind at ease! Thank you! I'm now about to go and order my first mac ever! Looking forward to it!

Thank you everyone who gave advice in this thread!
 
a456 said:
You may not benefit from all the speed that Leopard can offer with regard to Core Animation and Core Image. The Apple site says:

When a programmable GPU is present, Core Image utilizes the graphics card for image processing operations, freeing the CPU for other tasks. And if you have a high-performance card with increased video memory (VRAM), you'll find real-time responsiveness across a wide variety of operations.

Core Image-capable graphics cards include:

* ATI Mobility Radeon 9700
* ATI Radeon 9550, 9650, 9600, 9600 XT, 9800 XT, X800 XT
* nVidia GeForce FX Go 5200
* nVidia GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
* nVidia GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL, 6800 GT DDL
Click to expand...

intel GMA950 support Core Animation and Core Image. please check wiki for "core image"
 
I have a feeling that Leopard has been running (well) on the MacBook since it was released (somewhere in Cupertino).
 
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