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

Snow Leopard on Macbook 4.1 (last gen white book)??

A

ai4281

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Aug 16, 2008
29
1
I bought this macbook for school in early september. Its a 2.4 ghz whitebook with Intel GMA X3100 (sigh.) and 2GB DDR2 ram.

Will this be good enough to run Snow Leopard when it comes out? If not, I want to sell this and get the new one with Nvidia to prep for the new OS...
 
I thought snow leopard is gonna be more graphic intensive and required 64 bit processor... well, it'd be great if mine runs snow leopard. thx
 
Supposedly Snow Leopard will work on all Intel macs, 32-bit or 64-bit and will supposedly be a lot more optimized, especially for multiple-core processors.

In theory, this means that any Intel mac will see a speed boost with Snow Leopard.
 
Nobody is going to be able to give a definite yes or no answer, because we don't even know what is in Snow Leopard, and what the computer requirements will be. But I would assume that you should be able to, Apple wouldn't have the largest market to sell it to if they prevented the most recent Macs from being able to upgrade to it.
 
Funny, I just had this thought as well. I figure we'll be okay. As much as Apple REALLY wants our money, they wouldn't make our last gen systems obsolete. Hell, my system is less than a week old! I'm personally looking forward to Snow Leopard. Leopard has all these little quirks that annoy me and I would love a full 64-bit environment. Means I can go buy that 8GB RAM kit and actually use the RAM! :D
 
Snow Leopard will work fine! The C2D is 64-bit and will handle everything with no issue.

Why would you think that it wouldn't work great with the next update? Let's think...no major update outside of video for the new MacBooks, the white MacBook is still a great machine and top notch...
 
ai4281 said:
I thought snow leopard is gonna be more graphic intensive and required 64 bit processor... well, it'd be great if mine runs snow leopard. thx
Click to expand...

Yours is 64-bit and so is all C2D machine, relax. :)
 
You shouldn't anticipate what an OS would require. Instead, just wait for Snow Leopard and upgrade if you need to. For one thing, the Snow Leopard would be free with a new computer at that time so you'll save ~$100 by waiting. Secondly, there's no assurance that today's current Al book would be supported any better than the Whitebook.
 
i also have a white macbook, but i got mine in november shortly after leopard came out.
here are my specs
Model Name: MacBook
Model Identifier: MacBook3,1
Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
Processor Speed: 2 GHz
Number Of Processors: 1
Total Number Of Cores: 2
L2 Cache: 4 MB
Memory: 1 GB
Bus Speed: 800 MHz
Boot ROM Version: MB31.008E.B02
SMC Version (system): 1.24f2
Sudden Motion Sensor:
State: Enabled

can i install snow leopard??
i just downloaded the GM and just wanna be safe, i have time machine backups though so i guess its no biggie if i mess up right?
 
italiaNiCK02 said:
i also have a white macbook, but i got mine in november shortly after leopard came out.
here are my specs
Model Name: MacBook
Model Identifier: MacBook3,1
Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
Processor Speed: 2 GHz
Number Of Processors: 1
Total Number Of Cores: 2
L2 Cache: 4 MB
Memory: 1 GB
Bus Speed: 800 MHz
Boot ROM Version: MB31.008E.B02
SMC Version (system): 1.24f2
Sudden Motion Sensor:
State: Enabled

can i install snow leopard??
i just downloaded the GM and just wanna be safe, i have time machine backups though so i guess its no biggie if i mess up right?
Click to expand...

come on guys.... I'm the one who should be ashamed about my sepcs lol

you guys have an awesome macbook!

mine's the second gen WhiteBook.
2GHz C2D with 2GB RAM and 950GMA.... :/

well I don't know why you guys are asking this but YES! it can totally run.

My macbook has become much faster upon installing the 10A432 GM Build or whatever you want to call it.

it also freed up 20gb of hdd space upon installation.

It'll run much faster than leopard, since you guys have better specs, then yes it'll be much faster than mine.
 
Should I worry??

I'm currently running 10.5.8 with no issues.

I have the late 2006 Macbook, 1.83ghz C2D 2gb ram.
 
ms.annette said:
I'm currently running 10.5.8 with no issues.

I have the late 2006 Macbook, 1.83ghz C2D 2gb ram.
Click to expand...

Nope.

From what I've been reading though......

If you have a Macbook with an x3100 you'll be in 32-bit kernel mode due to driver issues with the x3100. Really, it shouldn't/won't affect much anything visibly on the user side so w/e
 
michael.lauden said:
why is this a discussion

http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html
Click to expand...

What those specs aren't showing though is that certain models originally shipped with 32-bit EFI firmware (original Mac Pro) or the intel integrated graphics, and it looks like those models won't be able to run the full 64-bit kernel.

This is all pre-release speculation/observation from the dev copies, so we'll see what materializes after SL is released in retail form.
 
jlewis2k1 said:
hmm, ok I have this same MacBook and it will NOT boot in 64-Bit kernel... but this is a 64-Bit machine... Any ideas as to why it won't?
Click to expand...

Apple locked the MacBooks out from booting to the 64-bit kernel.

Don't fret, shouldn't make any difference. If anything, it's easier in 32-bit mode for 3rd party driver support. You can still run programs/apps/extensions in a full 64-bit environment even with the 32-bit kernel.
 
NewMacbookPlz said:
Apple locked the MacBooks out from booting to the 64-bit kernel.

Don't fret, shouldn't make any difference. If anything, it's easier in 32-bit mode for 3rd party driver support. You can still run programs/apps/extensions in a full 64-bit environment even with the 32-bit kernel.
Click to expand...

Well thats dumb... any reason they would do this?
 
jlewis2k1 said:
Well thats dumb... any reason they would do this?
Click to expand...

Because it won't make much any difference for an end user. Does your computer support >32GB RAM? No.

It doesn't matter.

I swear, I've said this at least 20 times recently around here: All the Programs/Apps/Extensions that are 64-bit capable will run as such. They will use up to the 4GB RAM if needed, but seeing how you have 4GB total maximum, that's clearly a null and void issue. These programs/apps/extensions run in full 64-bit mode independent of the kernel.
 
NewMacbookPlz said:
Because it won't make much any difference for an end user. Does your computer support >32GB RAM? No.

It doesn't matter.

I swear, I've said this at least 20 times recently around here: All the Programs/Apps/Extensions that are 64-bit capable will run as such. They will use up to the 4GB RAM if needed, but seeing how you have 4GB total maximum, that's clearly a null and void issue. These programs/apps/extensions run in full 64-bit mode independent of the kernel.
Click to expand...

Ok, I understand where you are coming from. Just breathe :)
 
NewMacbookPlz said:
Because it won't make much any difference for an end user. Does your computer support >32GB RAM? No.

It doesn't matter.

I swear, I've said this at least 20 times recently around here: All the Programs/Apps/Extensions that are 64-bit capable will run as such. They will use up to the 4GB RAM if needed, but seeing how you have 4GB total maximum, that's clearly a null and void issue. These programs/apps/extensions run in full 64-bit mode independent of the kernel.
Click to expand...

The reason you have to answer it so much is because people expect an OS in 2009 (nearly 2010) to have a 64-bit Kernel.

Windows can do it
Linux can do it
Mac OS X... can't

While there's little tangible benefit for a lot of users, it's pointless dragging out the transition any longer than necessary.

Mac OS X's 64-bit support is generally good, but it would be a lot better if everything was 64-bit.
 
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