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

bc008

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Aug 6, 2007
1,718
0
Michigan
I have a 2.4 GHz Aluminum Macbook. Which upgrade would provide the most bang for my buck? I plan on doing both in time, but I am going to purchase as the money comes available, which wont be for a while. As I have to wait, what will help my machine the most first?
 
You really wont see much performance changes in Snow Leopard at all. Unless for some reason the developer version was purposely made the same speed as Leopard.
 
It uses less RAM than Leopard, and applications written for it will do the same.

hmm. All very intriguing posts. I guess I will have to wait 4 days to see if people really notice a speed boost. I am going to purchase both in the end anyways, So I am not to worried, just wondering what you guys thought. :)
 
SL is 64bit, which uses more than 32bit.

I don't think that matters as on a MB wouldn't its kernel in Snow Leopard automatically be 32-bit? There are a few threads stating that only certain models of Macs will actually support 64-bit kernels??? And, most Macs will be able to run 64-bit apps with 32-bit kernel. And memory allocation doesn't depend on kernel but rather on apps and CPU...

I don't really know for sure, but I do know that Snow Leopard requires 1 GB RAM whereas Leopard only required 512 MB... However, I think that Snow Leopard would better utilize it with 64-bit apps.

Back to the OP>>> it depends. Honestly, I doubt you're using your full 2 GB of RAM. Snow Leopard will make your MB faster for sure. You could use Activity Monitor and check how much RAM is allocated with your normal array of apps open... also check swap to see if too high (read about what should be using Google or this forum).

I would do Snow Leopard if it were me.

Good luck...
 
I don't think that matters as on a MB wouldn't its kernel in Snow Leopard automatically be 32-bit? There are a few threads stating that only certain models of Macs will actually support 64-bit kernels??? And, most Macs will be able to run 64-bit apps with 32-bit kernel. And memory allocation doesn't depend on kernel but rather on apps and CPU...

I don't really know for sure, but I do know that Snow Leopard requires 1 GB RAM whereas Leopard only required 512 MB... However, I think that Snow Leopard would better utilize it with 64-bit apps.

Back to the OP>>> it depends. Honestly, I doubt you're using your full 2 GB of RAM. Snow Leopard will make your MB faster for sure. You could use Activity Monitor and check how much RAM is allocated with your normal array of apps open... also check swap to see if too high (read about what should be using Google or this forum).

I would do Snow Leopard if it were me.

Good luck...


Right now, all INTEL (SL is NOT PPC Compatible) Macs support 64-bit (run CPU-x and look for "EMT64" if you dont beleive me), but the OS (Leopard, Tiger, etc) is all 32-bit. And you cannot run 64-bit apps on a 32-bit kernel. Not possible. You can run 32bit apps on a 64bit OS, but not the other way.
 
Right now, all INTEL (SL is NOT PPC Compatible) Macs support 64-bit (run CPU-x and look for "EMT64" if you dont beleive me), but the OS (Leopard, Tiger, etc) is all 32-bit. And you cannot run 64-bit apps on a 32-bit kernel. Not possible. You can run 32bit apps on a 64bit OS, but not the other way.

Wrong

Core 2 Duos Macs are 64-bit. Core Duos are 32-bit.

No Macs will run with the 64-bit kernel by default in Snow Leopard except the Xserve for compatibility reasons.

You can run 64-bit apps over the 32-bit kernel.

End of story.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.