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.
Macs are SLOWER than PCs. Here’s why.
- Thread starter maflynn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't understand what you mean. They don't what and what does boot camp have to do with a hackentosh?
It is a civil issue since it is in violation of the EULA. For "normal" users installing it on non-Apple hardware is basically piracy and the way that is handled is the same as pirating anything else. Apple won't bother you as a single pirate, but if you're doing this as a business or on a large scale then they'll force compliance.
The EULA rules are less about bothering regular users and more about stopping macOS third party hardware from being sold. Which used to be a thing before Jobs returned to Apple.
Logitech has that feature built in, and it works great on their MX Master 2S. You connect the mouse to one device via their receiver, and other device via bluetooth. So when you switch screens between 2 different devices, there is literally no lag at all.
I don't know if they have a keyboard with the same solution, but I would guess that they do. Search it up.
I use Corsair K63 keyboard, and with one keyboard shortcut I connect to different devices.
I agree with all of that. I just have no idea what the previous poster was talking about. I'm assuming that was intentional.
I would never buy something like that. And luckily Apple, will never make one again. Leave the past in the past.
This is true. Though I owned a 2007 Macbook Pro, and the thermals weren't great then either.
Merom generated a lot of heat but I think that the chips from IBM generated even more for less performance. Penryn was an improvement. I used my 2008 MacBook Pro for ten years and didn't feel that there were excessive heat problems but it was a 17-inch system which probably had more room for moving air in and out.
I don't agree, in fact many professionals today in the actual white/gray/black hat communities would strongly disagree with that statement. Actual terms have concrete definitions, it's why you don't see professionals that actually disassemble and study malware won't make statements conflating malware and viruses. Just because the public incorrectly uses the term "virus" to mean the same thing as "malware", trendy or not, is still wrong by definition.
Actual hacking is nothing more than finding a need improve and/or fix something to perform better and/or become more reliable for yourself and for others as well. So even a child can notice that their battery operated toys may have problems, but when they take the time to find out what's going on, try a few things to make things better, and share that information to their friends because they have the same toys, that's what hacking was based around. If their efforts gain attention from the toy manufacturers themselves and they implement improvements to prevent those problems, that's the end goal of actual hacking.
For professionals, it's common place to find people who specialize in particular areas of interest, for example 802.x technology. When someone discovers that when x is applied to y and produces an unexpected (negative) result, but continues to try and find a way (if possible) to make or suggest improvements to mitigate (or eliminating) existing problems, that is a hack. OSWP's specialize in wireless security constructs, far more than a typical IT professional would.
If professionals were to adopt your idea of what hacking is, which is incredibly vague, would have little to no actual value. So if you were to tell me that an online newspaper was hacked, it really doesn't reveal much useful information.
An actual person in our field are more interested in what happened by understanding how it was implemented. We use terms like attack vector to describe what sort of method was used. For example using an attack vector based around exploiting Java-based vulnerabilities differ from using attack vectors based around exploiting MS Exchange (email) or SQL-based vulnerabilities.
Last edited:
Totally unscientific, but it seems with each redesign there was some complaints about heat, and so it might be that apple felt that the complaints for this much hotter machine will not generate that much push back. What probably made matters worse and have more people focus on the heat was that thy forgot to add that software update and the new MBPs throttled horribly. Now more and more people were looking and focusing on the heat even after that update.
If I can find the link I'll repost it, but I did some research on that and in almost all cases misapplied thermal paste has a negligible impact on Temps
Conventional wisdom dictates that too much will cause high tempts but I've seen some tests that counter that thought
My early 2013 MBP definitely had too much TIM applied at the factory. After I purchased the MBP, I cleaned and reapplied the TIM. There is a thread on this board detailing others that had the same heat problems I had with mine. The MBP idled about 5-10c less although it had no impact on the throttling under load.
I still like my MBP even though the throttling irritates the hell out of me. Throttling is a corner case of use that I don't run into often but it is irritating when I do.
I built a desktop about eight years ago that my daughter uses and she said that CPU temps were running around 95 degrees so she asked me for Thermal Paste. She had removed the heat sink for some reason. After applying the paste, temps dropped to 50 but she said that current temps were lower than they were when I applied it. It's also possible that it needs to be reapplied from time to time. She told me that it should be reapplied every five years - I have no source on that.
I did read about thermal paste issues on MacBook Pros many years ago.
I don't think that I've run into throttling but I'm using older MacBooks and I split loads among two of them now.
I did read about thermal paste issues on MacBook Pros many years ago.
I don't think that I've run into throttling but I'm using older MacBooks and I split loads among two of them now.
Here's what I was talking about
Your savings were probably more due to using a better thermal paste then cleaning up the over-application.
Here's one video of a number that I came across that debunks the myth that too much is really bad. Now there are situations where too much can be bad, particularlly with electrically conductive thermal paste but by and large it doesn't matter.
it is possible. The key is I had a noticeable improvement in idle temperatures. I couldn't find that thread from back in 2013 to try to refresh my memory.... It's been 6 years so the details are hazy.
That isn't the only video I found, and I was surprised because the conventional wisdom is that manufacturers use way too much, but by the same token most laptops don't run overly hot and yet I see people complaining about how much thermal paste was used.
I think they use caution and non-conductive TiM to be sure they used enough. I know on both my MBP and Dell XP 15, it was spread a good half an inch around the socket once the heat sink was applied.
I think the only worry when using too much is possible air bubbles. You don't want little hot spots above your CPU where air is trapped.
Please enlighten me, if CPUs can be overclocked indefinitely and without significant problems then why is it called OVERclocking at all? Over what exactly?
The concept of overclocking is significantly more complicated nowadays with a feature called turbo boost. The CPU effectively overclocks itself.
When we say overclock, it is referring to the CPU clock speed running faster than it's advertised clock speed. Or in this instance, its base clock speed.
CPUs are 'binned'. They are tested to meet a certain standard. If you have a wafer, 30 CPUs may be able to handle a base clock of 3.3GHz, 50 may be able to handle 3.2GHz, etc. They are then given the model number that corroborates to a standard. I don't know how it works now because I don't read up a lot on it, but it wasn't uncommon for CPUs to have disabled components that failed to meet standards and repackaged as a lower model CPU. One of the more famous I can remember was converting a Radeon 9500 Pro into a 9700. I believe they still do this for GPUs, but at a much lower range. So you won't see a high end part being repackaged as a low end part.
Overclocking isn't even guaranteed. Each CPU in a model may overclock at different speeds. My i7 6800k overclocks to 4.2GHz with a vcore of 1.225. Others can overclock theirs to 4.6 with a vcore of 1.2. Some can't go above 3.8 with a very high vcore.
Last edited:
I'm sure this has been mentioned, but you can manually set fan RPM to at the least deal with some thermal throttling issues. The default values are VERY conservative. My laptop has basically stopped loading websites because of heat and cranking up the fan solves the issue.
While I tend to agree that when it comes to premium products from both PC and Mac offerings, the PC versions with respective price ranges, tend to perform higher for certain things, esp games. The real problem isn't as simple as thermals being the problem.
[doublepost=1557036976][/doublepost]
Misapplied paste by OEM's are usually the result of either people (the techs assembling that part of the machine) or machines that apply the paste (no human involved).
However the "negligible temp" portion is not entirely correct. It's much less about the tiny temp differences, it's more about the impact of that temp difference/improvement.
For example, if the results from lowering those temps means that the CPU throttles less (or in a perfect situation, brings it down to zero), and Turbo Boost (on Intel CPUs) are able clock higher on average and/or achieve higher peaks, the impact on performance can be significant.
[doublepost=1557036976][/doublepost]
Misapplied paste by OEM's are usually the result of either people (the techs assembling that part of the machine) or machines that apply the paste (no human involved).
However the "negligible temp" portion is not entirely correct. It's much less about the tiny temp differences, it's more about the impact of that temp difference/improvement.
For example, if the results from lowering those temps means that the CPU throttles less (or in a perfect situation, brings it down to zero), and Turbo Boost (on Intel CPUs) are able clock higher on average and/or achieve higher peaks, the impact on performance can be significant.
To add a data point. I ran a 2018 MacBook Pro max spec flat out rendering using handbrake pretty much 24 hours a day for about 5 months.
Motherboard got fried and had to be replaced.
Bit nervous now to continue the project of mass converting old WMV's and avi's to h.265 .mp4
Motherboard got fried and had to be replaced.
Bit nervous now to continue the project of mass converting old WMV's and avi's to h.265 .mp4
My anecdotal experience suggests that the biggest factor is not paste application, but paste quality. Better paste = lower temps.