Pairing BT items to Linux machines is one of the more irritating issues in any Linux. As we're talking Macs here, it's plainly the software, not the machinery.
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.
What have you done with an early Intel recently?
- Thread starter Project Alice
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I got that screen but blue-black color scheme with MBP 17" 2011 and OCLP 2.20 + Monterey. I thought my GPU is broken (AMD HD 6570M). I then remembered how I had huge problems with my iMac 2011 (which btw also has the HD 6570M) when upgrading OCLP from 1.5 to 2.0. Had to recover all from backups and install OS from scratch to get it back up and running, huge pain. Upgrading decision was stupid from my part as the 1.5 was already really stable and there was nothing new for Monterey anyway. So, I decided to try the OCLP 1.5 with the MBP 17" 2011 too.
Well, what do you know! It works just fine and the screen is normal.
👍It seems like the post 2.0 OCLP-versions broke something for the older gear. And again, do not upgrade if the system works already!
Look familiar?
I see you ran Linux but anyways...could be driver/sw related...or not.Attachments
Last edited:
Thanks for thinking with meI got that screen but blue-black color scheme with MBP 17" 2011 and OCLP 2.20 + Monterey. I thought my GPU is broken (AMD HD 6570M). I then remembered how I had huge problems with my iMac 2011 (which btw also has the HD 6570M) when upgrading OCLP from 1.5 to 2.0. Had to recover all from backups and install OS from scratch to get it back up and running, huge pain. Upgrading decision was stupid from my part as the 1.5 was already really stable and there was nothing new for Monterey anyway. So, I decided to try the OCLP 1.5 with the MBP 17" 2011 too.
Well, what do you know! It works just fine and the screen is normal.
It seems like the post 2.0 OCLP-versions broke something for the older gear. And again, do not upgrade if the system works already!
Look familiar?
The issues are already present on the preboot screen. In the screenshot I was running GRML which is used for flashing GPU's. The artifacts are system wide and sometimes the iMac boots up with a random colour on the screen.
I've decided to return the card and try another one 🤞
I bought the same exact model that was my first Mac, a (black) mid 2007 2.16ghz C2D MacBook and it came on Lion so of course I threw chromium legacy and YouTube at it. Performance is a bit all over the place, but it will be corrected with intel tiger and force me to work on PPCMC 7 Intel edition. Still surreal playing 720p YouTube on the official website with it… so many memories. Only with 2GB RAM right now, so maxing it out will happen soon enough.
TIL C2D Macs do actually throttle under heat load… prop up one side of it on your bed with the box that came with your replacement 3.5mm headphones, and suddenly you get pretty good 720p performance with a C2D 2.16ghz on Lion with 2GBs of ram and chrome legacy. I could see on chrome legacy I still somehow had a bit of ram free and that was not the bottleneck, but I always swore these things didn’t thermal throttle back in the day but here I am with irrefutable proof that they do 🤣 they weren’t pushed enough to need that then I guess.
TIL C2D Macs do actually throttle under heat load… prop up one side of it on your bed with the box that came with your replacement 3.5mm headphones, and suddenly you get pretty good 720p performance with a C2D 2.16ghz on Lion with 2GBs of ram and chrome legacy. I could see on chrome legacy I still somehow had a bit of ram free and that was not the bottleneck, but I always swore these things didn’t thermal throttle back in the day but here I am with irrefutable proof that they do 🤣 they weren’t pushed enough to need that then I guess.
Last edited:
As far as I'm aware, 12s are included, and apparently some 13s also. It does say so somewhere, despite the intro having you believe that anything past Core 2 Duo isn't early enough!
Of course, I've wrecked my own reputation here by buying a 2017 iMac...
Of course, I've wrecked my own reputation here by buying a 2017 iMac...
Sure. The 2012 cMP 5.1 is the same thing as the 2010 cMP 5.1.Stupid question
And in any case I would count anything up to about 2013-2014 as such.
If we take it from the constructive point of view, the break-even point is imho 2012.Stupid question
Before 2012: no metal graphics, no USB3, mainly no Thunderbolt, problematic EFI to run Windows directly, problematic graphics reliability.
From 2012 on all these above mentioned points solved.
I would draw the demarcation line at the beginning of the i-series. Anything before it is "early". Anything that officially runs Monterey is "late". Those in between are "middle". (If you're not going to have a middle, and only go with early/late, then Mojave official compatibility is a good spot, as it also mark several other major appearance changes, after which design plateaued for almost a decade.)As far as I'm aware, 12s are included, and apparently some 13s also. It does say so somewhere, despite the intro having you believe that anything past Core 2 Duo isn't early enough!
Of course, I've wrecked my own reputation here by buying a 2017 iMac...
IMO "early Intel" doesn't mean early Intel processors but early Intel Macs. Just like the forum section title says.
Then there is the way to examine what years Intels were made (2006-2020) and split that in the middle getting early and late from that. So, that would put the line to year 2013. But, personally I would put the line a year earlier because:
- Macbook Pro: 2012 unibodies - last ones you could upgrade RAM (at all) and drive and battery easily. Can run Catalina. But, year 2012 is little problematic as the Retina MBP was introduced, I would put all Retinas to late side.
- iMac: 2012 ie. last one without glued glass and easy access for maintenance and upgrades. Can run Catalina.
- Mini: 2012 was the last one you can upgrade RAM. Can run Catalina.
- Mac Pro: 2012 was the last cMP. Can only run High Sierra stock, can do Mojave but needs a GPU upgrade to one supporting Metal.
Everything after that was different in some considerable way.
MBA is a weird one: nothing special was upgraded at any time. Only processors got upgrades over time, otherwise pretty much same stuff. Even the display was the basically same until in the very end I think they finally put Retinas in them? MBA 2012 can run Catalina like most other 2012s. From 2013 onwards they can run Big Sur, Monterey etc.
Then there is the way to examine what years Intels were made (2006-2020) and split that in the middle getting early and late from that. So, that would put the line to year 2013. But, personally I would put the line a year earlier because:
- Macbook Pro: 2012 unibodies - last ones you could upgrade RAM (at all) and drive and battery easily. Can run Catalina. But, year 2012 is little problematic as the Retina MBP was introduced, I would put all Retinas to late side.
- iMac: 2012 ie. last one without glued glass and easy access for maintenance and upgrades. Can run Catalina.
- Mini: 2012 was the last one you can upgrade RAM. Can run Catalina.
- Mac Pro: 2012 was the last cMP. Can only run High Sierra stock, can do Mojave but needs a GPU upgrade to one supporting Metal.
Everything after that was different in some considerable way.
MBA is a weird one: nothing special was upgraded at any time. Only processors got upgrades over time, otherwise pretty much same stuff. Even the display was the basically same until in the very end I think they finally put Retinas in them? MBA 2012 can run Catalina like most other 2012s. From 2013 onwards they can run Big Sur, Monterey etc.
Last edited:
The beginning of Metal compatibility, which is essential to run later versions of macOS without snail-style emulation.
The form was kept the same but USB3 from 2012 and Thunderbolt were really a major step.
The form was kept the same but USB3 from 2012 and Thunderbolt were really a major step.
Which was imho a clever approach.
With exactly the same i5 processor, the same RAM, the same OS, a MBA with it's TFT screen used for office jobs half the power that a 13" MBP Retina used, which is essential when you are weight-constrained off-grid.
The desktop was less crisp, but the usable real estate was even slightly larger than those of MBPs.