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

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by ai4281, Oct 18, 2008.

  1. ai4281 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2008
    #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...
     
  2. Nukemkb macrumors 6502a

    Nukemkb

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Location:
    Columbia, SC
    #2
    I'm curious why you'd think it would not be ok? recent generations run new OS fine historically.
     
  3. ai4281 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2008
    #3
    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
     
  4. hogfaninga macrumors 65816

    hogfaninga

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2008
    Location:
    Chestnut Tree Cafe
    #4
    It will run fine with yours.
     
  5. chrisgeleven macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2002
    Location:
    Manchester, NH
    #5
    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.
     
  6. davidwarren macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
  7. JML42691 macrumors 68020

    JML42691

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    #7
    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.
     
  8. beret9987 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #8
    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
     
  9. Warbrain macrumors 603

    Warbrain

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #9
    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...
     
  10. kamm macrumors regular

    kamm

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    #10
    Yours is 64-bit and so is all C2D machine, relax. :)
     
  11. molala macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    #11
    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.
     
  12. italiaNiCK02 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    #12
    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?
     
  13. MarkCooz macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Location:
    California
    #13
    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.
     
  14. ms.annette macrumors regular

    ms.annette

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    Location:
    SoCal
    #14
    Should I worry??

    I'm currently running 10.5.8 with no issues.

    I have the late 2006 Macbook, 1.83ghz C2D 2gb ram.
     
  15. NewMacbookPlz macrumors 68040

    NewMacbookPlz

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    #15
    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
     
  16. NewMacbookPlz macrumors 68040

    NewMacbookPlz

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    #17
    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.
     
  17. adztaylor macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    Preston, UK
  18. ms.annette macrumors regular

    ms.annette

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    Location:
    SoCal
  19. jlewis2k1 macrumors 6502a

    jlewis2k1

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    in your closet
    #20
    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?
     
  20. NewMacbookPlz macrumors 68040

    NewMacbookPlz

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    #21
    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.
     
  21. jlewis2k1 macrumors 6502a

    jlewis2k1

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    in your closet
    #22
    Well thats dumb... any reason they would do this?
     
  22. NewMacbookPlz macrumors 68040

    NewMacbookPlz

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    #23
    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.
     
  23. jlewis2k1 macrumors 6502a

    jlewis2k1

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    in your closet
    #24
    Ok, I understand where you are coming from. Just breathe :)
     
  24. Daveoc64 macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Location:
    Bristol, UK
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page