Most collectible early Intel Mac

[Amethyst1]

When did the 13" retina move to 8GB standard?

The original (Late 2012) 13” rMBP came with 8 GB; the Late 2013 was downgraded to 4 GB standard. The mid-2014 was upped to 8 GB again.

And look at something like the 2015 MacBook - I wonder if one of the reasons for its poor performance is the fact that it entered the world... right... in the face of this trend. The 2015 MacBook would probably have been a screamer running the type of applications that people were running on 2008-era Intel systems.

The 2015 rMB’s CPU performance is similar to a 2011 MBA according to Geekbench.

I don't know when Apple would have started developing the 2015 MacBook, but it's possible this change completely took them by surprise...

The Broadwell CPUs it uses were supposed to be released earlier than late-2014 but they were delayed.

 

[gpat]

And look at something like the 2015 MacBook - I wonder if one of the reasons for its poor performance is the fact that it entered the world... right... in the face of this trend. The 2015 MacBook would probably have been a screamer running the type of applications that people were running on 2008-era Intel systems. I don't know when Apple would have started developing the 2015 MacBook, but it's possible this change completely took them by surprise...

We're getting off-topic, but I owned a 12" rMB in 2017 flavor and it just had too many design-based flaws.
Sure it would have screamed running 2007 software on 2017 hardware but that never was the point.
Also a factor effectively took Apple by surprise, and that was Intel failing to evolve their CPU roadmap like their plan promised.
Ironically Intel resumed making good products just after Apple ditched them.

 

[VivienM]

Ironically Intel resumed making good products just after Apple ditched them.

Not sure I would agree with that - they've resumed making good, high-power products. But... laptop chips? I don't think they have anything that matches the performance/power profile of the Apple silicon chips. And it's worth noting that Apple isn't really trying to make a high-power desktop chip...

In any event, I am sure that even if Intel was 10-20% better than Apple silicon, Apple would still prefer to have harmonized Macs with the rest of their products...

 

[redheeler]

One thing you gain in Tiger on Intel is the ability to virtualise e.g. Linux or Windows so if I needed a “better” web browser while in Tiger, that would be the ticket.

It's possible on PowerPC as well, just way too old and slow to be usable for a modern web browser...but if we're talking about vintage/collectable hardware and software then it doesn't seem like that would stop anyone

 

[Amethyst1]

It's possible on PowerPC as well, just way too old and slow to be usable for a modern web browser...

Yeah, using Virtual PC... no thanks. I want something usable, not just working

 

[redheeler]

Yeah, using Virtual PC... no thanks. I want something usable, not just working

Then you're missing the point of collecting vintage hardware – it's definitely not usability!

 

[Amethyst1]

Then you're missing the point of collecting vintage hardware – it's definitely not usability!

So be it. I'm buying hardware to use it.

 

[redheeler]

So be it. I'm buying hardware to use it.

Then you wouldn't be messing around with Tiger on an Intel Mac at all. You'd be repurposing it with Linux or something more modern. I did this successfully with a 2009 Mac mini, the thing is a rock-solid server.

 

[VivienM]

It's possible on PowerPC as well, just way too old and slow to be usable for a modern web browser...but if we're talking about vintage/collectable hardware and software then it doesn't seem like that would stop anyone

I think one just needs to accept that web browsing is not an option on vintage/collectible hardware...

... although, now that I think about it, maybe that's not that true for early Intels, only PPCs. Is the problem with early Intels the lack of modern web browsers for early OS X versions (it looks like High Sierra is where most browser developers are at today... whereas they still almost seem to support Windows 7), or is just the performance/RAM of the things not being enough?

(Certainly, in G4 PPC land, I would say it is the latter.)

 

[VivienM]

So be it. I'm buying hardware to use it.

To use it for modern workflows or vintage workflows?

 

[gpat]

Running a browser in a VM while being hosted by an old OS is a bad idea regardless.
The host OS is still unpatched and insecure while connected, you'd be exposed to all sorts of attacks.

 

[Amethyst1]

Is the problem with early Intels the lack of modern web browsers for early OS X versions (it looks like High Sierra is where most browser developers are at today... whereas they still almost seem to support Windows 7), or is just the performance/RAM of the things not being enough?

It can be both. I have a 2010 MBA with a 1.4 GHz Core 2 Duo and 2 GB RAM. It can run High Sierra and thus the latest version of Firefox, but performance is just not good enough in my book.

To use it for modern workflows or vintage workflows?

Vintage workflows using period-correct software.

 

[B S Magnet]

Internet browsing was also regarded as a light activity back then.

Nah. Web browsing was big back then for most, as well.

But the change to which you speak, of sites being slower on older gear, is for one reason alone: it isn’t the computers.

It’s for all the tracking-based advertising and heavy javascript/XHR weighing down the web sites themselves. Also, the cookies associated with that ad-tracking is a player here (even if cookies themselves are tiny strings).

Some javascript advances were meant to make loading a page faster by incorporating a “progressive loading” feature (which can reveal itself as one scrolls down a just-opened page), but these advances were incorporated into later iterations of javascript. Other, more recent javascript functions, many of which are designed to “app’ify” a page (where XHR steps in), weigh down substantially the loading and functionality of the page.

I used to think responsive web site coding was a major factor. My thoughts changed when I re-built my web site in 2013 and I heavily modified a responsive theme for WordPress.

When done well, though, responsive-aware javascript doesn’t weigh down the loading of a page on an older system nearly so much as embedded javascript and XHR-related functions used for ad tracking and app’ifying, respectively.

Anyway, I needed to get this bee out of my bonnet. Also, using uBlock Origin legacy plus uMatrix legacy, and making browser-level optimizations, can and do make older systems move nearly as quickly on many web sites as in, say, 2008 — just so long as those sites aren’t heavily relying on more recent JS/XHR (a good example, paradoxically: iFixit’s web site).

 

[theMarble]

The X1900 is an EFI32 card and won’t initialise in a 2008 Mac Pro.

"Some reports have come in that the Radeon X1900 XT does not work on their "2008" Mac Pro. We have had no problems running it in our 2008 Mac Pro 3.2GHz. We asked ATI about this issue. They suggest performing the firmware update on the Radeon X1900 XT while it is installed in a 2006 or 2007 Mac Pro. Then moving it to the 2008 Mac Pro."

This is from barefeats, right after the '08 MP was released to the public. They have 1 or 2 pages of GPU comparisons on the '08, which do contain the X1900 XT. I'm not sure whether there are any differences between the X1900 XT shipped as a CTO in the 1,1/2,1 and the upgrade kit sold on apple.com.

 

[Amethyst1]

"Some reports have come in that the Radeon X1900 XT does not work on their "2008" Mac Pro. We have had no problems running it in our 2008 Mac Pro 3.2GHz. We asked ATI about this issue. They suggest performing the firmware update on the Radeon X1900 XT while it is installed in a 2006 or 2007 Mac Pro. Then moving it to the 2008 Mac Pro."

@LightBulbFun confirmed elsewhere the X1900 works in a 2008 MP so I apologise for my mistake.

 

[Amethyst1]

But then you can't use the matching Thunderbolt Display

You can if you have the right eGPU

 

[LightBulbFun]

@LightBulbFun confirmed elsewhere the X1900 works in a 2008 MP so I apologise for my mistake.

yeah I looked into this a bit, there where a few firmware updates for the X1900 XT intel card and the earliest firmwares are EFI32 only IIRC

so there is some truth to it, and why some people do report that it does not/did not work for them, but a fully firmware updated card will work in a MacPro3,1 (and maybe even all the way to a 5,1? tho I dunno if thats ever been tested LOL)

obviously said card wont work properly beyond 10.7.5 still! (no without OS patching)

 

[theMarble]

and maybe even all the way to a 5,1?

If it works in a 3,1 on Leopard, then there isn't any reason that I can think of why it wouldn't work on a 4,1 running Leopard. Snow Leopard and Lion I know work fine with the 1900 on a 3,1.

 

[Heindijs]

I thought the 2012 Mac mini was only available with integrated Intel graphics, but maybe I misread the specs or Wikipedia was wrong? Or is the Intel 4000 better than the AMD 6630?

The 2012 unibody MacBook Pro is an interesting idea. I actually have a friend who has a 13", hasn't used it for years and years, I could probably make her an offer she can't refuse and get it from her. But... I guess I worry about swelling batteries being a problem for a collector item (I had a mid-2014 retina 15" MBP, great machine, but the battery swelled once, was repaired, then was starting to swell again when I traded it in for the M1 Max MBP).

After reading some of you guys' comments, I started vaguely looking for 27" iMacs with 69xx video cards. Though unibody iMacs kinda scare me...

Even though the dedicated graphics might just be a tad better, the HD 4000 has one huge advantage which is Metal support. Makes the 2012 Mini and other Macs way more usable in 2023 than any 2011 Mac.
That is if you want to run a modern version of macOS on it of course. I can't imagine it would matter much with pre Mojave versions

 

[rampancy]

I think one just needs to accept that web browsing is not an option on vintage/collectible hardware...

... although, now that I think about it, maybe that's not that true for early Intels, only PPCs. Is the problem with early Intels the lack of modern web browsers for early OS X versions (it looks like High Sierra is where most browser developers are at today... whereas they still almost seem to support Windows 7), or is just the performance/RAM of the things not being enough?

It can be both as @Amethyst1 mentions, but in my own experience it's more of a lack of modern web browsers for early Intel OS X (itself a consequence of software limitations).

Case in point is my experience with the MacBook 1,1, the A1181 with the 32-bit Core Duo that's one of the most limited early Intel Macs out there: Installing even an older version of Linux (e.g. Zorin 15.3 Lite, the last version of Zorin from 2019 that runs on 32-bit x86) affords access to up-to-date versions of Firefox and Chrome. I can even run the latest version of Pale Moon too, which is only 10.7+ on the Mac.

 

[VivienM]

Wait a second... why did I not think of the 2010 Mac Pro?

 

[theMarble]

Wait a second... why did I not think of the 2010 Mac Pro?

That’s certainly the most powerful Early Intel, but nowhere near the most collectible.

 

[VivienM]

That’s certainly the most powerful Early Intel, but nowhere near the most collectible.

Why not?

My definition of "most collectible" was (or at least, evolved in the course of this thread) trying to find something with the broadest software support that would be representative of that era. Some equivalent to, say, the MDD G4 in PPC land. And, assuming games are one of the things one is interested in (there is a big body of 32-bit-only Intel games... and in fact, a lot more games than I originally thought when I got my MDD G4 made the migration to early Intel), one would want a discrete GPU.

That led to the 2011 iMacs, which have discrete GPUs, can run every OS X from Snow Leopard to High Sierra, i.e. covering the entirety of the 32-bit Intel era. But... the problem with the 2011 iMacs that was pointed out to me is the unreliable GPUs. Oops. A bit of a problem for a collector item. And iMacs are not exactly fun to open up and maintain.

So... the case for the 2010 Mac Pro seems obvious enough, by that standard? It will run Snow Leopard to High Sierra, it should be relatively easy to keep running (easy to swap/get/etc parts), the GPU should be quite good (hey, my Windows gaming box at the time also had an ATI/AMD 5770... so that should handle any 32-bit-only games just fine), etc.

Interestingly, looking back at the first couple of responses... the 4,1/5,1 Mac Pros had been suggested there. So... why did I go off on an iMac tangent?

 

[Hrududu]

Lots of discussion about versatile/powerful Intel Macs, and some of them aren't even that early. I'd say "early" would probably land within the first 5 years of the switch. Collectable would be machines that were short lived, unusual, or impactful. I'd go with:

Core Solo Mac mini: Not many sold, of those that were, many were likely updated later on. Only Mac to feature a single core Intel CPU.

Original MacBook Air: Defined a new era of ultra-thin notebooks. Arguably the most impactful Apple notebook since the Titanium PowerBook. The late 08/09 honorable mention for being a far better and upgradable machine keeping that formfactor

Black MacBook: Same specs as their white counterparts in most situations, but the Apple uncharge for the black plastic definitely made them more difficult to find. First black notebook since the PowerBook G3.

Late 2008 MacBook Pro 15 & 13" Aluminum MacBook: First of the unibody MBPs. Short lived, dual GPUs and the user accessible battery, ExpressCard slot on the 15" model, Wide spread of supported OS versions.

Honorable Mentions:

Mid 2007 iMac: With the CPU upgrade, supports perhaps the widest range of MacOS versions from 10.4 on. First of the Aluminum and glass era.

2010 MacBook Air 11: Arguably the lowest spec Intel powered notebook made & first of the modern wedge Air design. First Mac to return to the sub 13" footprint that disappeared with the 12" PowerBook and iBook.

Late 2009 iMac 27: First of the 27" model, first to offer a true quad core CPU with its first gen i7, Target Display mode, uniquely more versatile GPU than later 2011 models.

 

[VivienM]

Late 2008 MacBook Pro 15 & 13" Aluminum MacBook: First of the unibody MBPs. Short lived, dual GPUs and the user accessible battery, ExpressCard slot on the 15" model, Wide spread of supported OS versions.

The crazy thing is... a friend of mine had a 13" aluminum MacBook which replaced his titanium PowerBook G4 1GHz (last/greatest PB able to boot OS 9). I think both got worn out or broke so he certainly doesn't have them anymore, but I find somewhat amusing that he would have had two of what would turn out to be the most collectible Apple laptops...

(Those titanium G4s... it's really a shame they didn't age well and are now beyond rare. The world is full of aluminum G4s, but who wants a PPC machine that can't boot OS 9?)