iMac Software 1.2.1; Time Machine fix; MacBook benchmarks

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Apple has followed up last week's release of iMac Software Update 1.2 with a new version that addresses Leopard installation issues. Meanwhile, the company has also posted a fix for users who've faced problems backing up more than 10GB of data via Time Machine. And some new Santa Rosa MacBook benchmarks are available.



iMac Software Update 1.2.1 (Tiger)



On the heels of iMac Software Update 1.2, Apple on Tuesday released iMac Software Update 1.2.1 [13.3MB] for users of its 20-inch and 24-inch aluminum iMacs who are running Mac OS X Tiger.



Apple says the latest update "improves the performance and reliability of graphics-intensive games and applications and fixes an issue that some customers encountered when installing Mac OS X Leopard after applying iMac Software Update 1.2."



The update does not appear to target freezing issues experienced by aluminum iMac owners. iMac Software Update 1.2 released last week was expected address those problems, though several users have reported that their iMacs continue to randomly lock up even after having applied the patch.



Time Machine stops backing up



Leopard users have also been experiencing an issue where after about 10 GB or more of data is backed up to an external disk, Time Machine may stop the backup process. The glitch commonly occurs the first time Time Machine backs up a system, as subsequent backups are much smaller.



In a tech support note this week, Apple explained that some external hard disks ship with a Master Boot Record partition type that is incompatible with Time Machine.



"You will need to erase the external disk so that it is supported by Time Machine," the company says. "Once the external hard disk is reformatted, select it again in Time Machine preferences and use it for your backups."



Santa Rosa MacBook benchmarks



Apple quietly released new MacBooks last week which feature (among other things) the Santa Rosa chipset and, for some models, a slightly faster processor. The folks at PrimateLabs have run their usual round of benchmark tests and found that while new models have only modest processor performance gains over the previous MacBooks, the Santa Rosa chipset helps them achieve some impressive memory performance gains.



Memory performance is said to be up almost 15 percent, while stream performance (which relies heavily on memory) is up almost 25 percent.







The new MacBooks also support 4GB of RAM (where the previous MacBooks only "officially" supported 2GB of RAM), making them ideal for anyone who runs memory-intensive applications but doesn’t want to pay the premium for a MacBook Pro.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 19
    Quote:

    making them ideal for anyone who runs memory-intensive applications but doesn?t want to pay the premium for a MacBook Pro.



    For example: Windows XP under either Fusion or Parallels.
  • Reply 2 of 19
    bdkennedy1bdkennedy1 Posts: 1,459member
    If I were one of those Mac users STILL having lockups after all this time, I would check out my states lemon law and get Apple to give me a new machine. There is no excuse for this to have gone on a year.
  • Reply 3 of 19
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    The new MacBooks also support 4GB of RAM (where the previous MacBooks only "officially"supported 2GB of RAM), making them ideal for anyone who runs memory-intensive applications but doesn’t want to pay the premium for a MacBook Pro.



    I see that you put emphasis on Officially, does this mean prior Core Duo based Macs actually accept 4GB of RAM? This is huge for me - please reply.



    Also what's up with the lack of video benchmarks.
  • Reply 4 of 19
    bdkennedy1bdkennedy1 Posts: 1,459member
    I've already been through this with my old Core Duo Mac. The original Core Duo's were only 32-bit processors and absolutely max out at 2GB of RAM because of their architecture. If you put 4GB of ram in them, the OS will only see 2GB.



    The only iMac before the aluminum ones that supports more is the 24" iMac and that max's out at 3gb.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RoamingGnome View Post


    I see that you put emphasis on Officially, does this mean prior Core Duo based Macs actually accept 4GB of RAM? This is huge for me - please reply.



    Also what's up with the lack of video benchmarks.



  • Reply 5 of 19
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RoamingGnome View Post


    I see that you put emphasis on Officially, does this mean prior Core Duo based Macs actually accept 4GB of RAM? This is huge for me - please reply.



    Also what's up with the lack of video benchmarks.





    For pre-late-2007 MacBooks and Mac Minis with core 2 duo:



    They support up to 3 GB. You can put 2Gb+1Gb or you can put 2x2Gb for faster dual channel operation but the OS will only detect and use 3 Gb. Note that this does not apply to non-GMA950 machines. Check www.macsales.com for accurate informations regarding these.



    edited for mac mini/macbook

    edited for core2duo



    cheers,

    Beepboy
  • Reply 6 of 19
    noirdesirnoirdesir Posts: 1,027member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post


    I've already been through this with my old Core Duo Mac. The original Core Duo's were only 32-bit processors and absolutely max out at 2GB of RAM because of their architecture. If you put 4GB of ram in them, the OS will only see 2GB.



    The only iMac before the aluminum ones that supports more is the 24" iMac and that max's out at 3gb.



    The Mid-2007 MacBooks were already using the Core 2 Duos, ie 64 bit processors, albeit on a chipset that was at least partially still 32 bit. That means they supported about 3.2 GB of RAM.



    Original MBP: Core Duo, 32 bit processor, 2 GB RAM limit

    Original MB: Core Duo, 32 bit processor, 2 GB RAM limit



    Second generation MBP: Core 2 Duo, 64 bit processor, 32 bit chipset, 3.2 GB RAM limit (4 GB minus overhead), officially 3 GB

    Second generation MB: Core 2 Duo, 64 bit processor, 32 bit chipset, 3.2 GB RAM limit, officially 2 GB



    Third generation MBP: Core 2 Duo, 64 bit processor, Santa Rosa chipset, 64 bit, 4 GB RAM limit

    Third generation MB: Core 2 Duo, 64 bit processor, Santa Rosa chipset, 64 bit, 4 GB RAM limit



    Actually, if somebody produced 4 GB RAM sticks in the format used in the mobiles they probably would support 8 GB easily as well.
  • Reply 7 of 19
    I have the previous revision of the MacBook that came out before Santa Rosa, the 2.16GHz, Intel Core Duo 2. The MacBook can see more than 2GB of RAM.



    My MacBook will accept 2, 2GB sticks of RAM, which is what I have in their, but only read 3GB of it. This is a limitation of the chipset that was in this version of the MacBook. The new chipset in the Santa Rosa's now supports 4GB,



    Why did I have 2, 2GB sticks of RAM in my MacBook, when I could not actually take advantage of it all? Simple. I wanted the 3GB of RAM, because it was the max at the time the MacBooks would support, but didn't want to have to buy a new set of RAM sticks, when a new MacBook (like the Santa Rosa's) came out that finally supported 4GB!
  • Reply 8 of 19
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,213moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RoamingGnome View Post


    Also what's up with the lack of video benchmarks.



    I was thinking the same but may have come across something:



    "Issue or symptom



    The use of intensive 3D graphics in some advanced gaming applications may have difficulty running correctly on this MacBook's Intel i965 chipset, exhibiting issues with shading, textures, and performance. The MacBook is able able to run a wide variety of consumer-oriented games.



    Products affected



    MacBook (13-inch Late 2007)

    Solution



    Apple is actively working on potential solutions to MacBook graphics issues.



    This document will be updated as more information becomes available."



    http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:d...lnk&cd=3&gl=uk



    http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306764



    Apple have removed their page but it's in the google cache.



    Here's what i really don't understand. They spend so much time and effort trying to work around issues with integrated chipsets. Why on earth can't they see that they'd save all that time and money by simply adding a cheap dedicated GPU? At most it will add $50 to the price of the machine.
  • Reply 9 of 19
    http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other.../53DR2SPAIR2G/



    This page got everything you wanna know. And yeah, its faster with 2x2GB than 1x1GB+1x2GB on GMA series computers.



    Integrated chipsets run cooler, uses less power. With it Intel based mac mini is possible, and the thin Macbook 13.3" factor. On a laptop that I don't intend to play games on, I'd take small form factor, quietness, and longer battery usage any day.



    cheers,

    Beepboy
  • Reply 10 of 19
    I would be nice to see som video benchmarks and another thing:



    Their setup is listed as:

    MacBook (Late 2007)

    Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.20GHz

    1.00 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM

    Mac OS X 10.5 (Build 9A3110)

    MacBook (Mid 2007)



    Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.00GHz

    1.00 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM

    Mac OS X 10.5 (Build 9A581)



    so the test was conducted using two different build versions of leopard, 9a3110 vs 9a581? That sounds a bit strange. It might not affect the benchmark results but at least a comment on why different versions are used would be appropeat.
  • Reply 11 of 19
    Welcome as it is, the MBR advice is not the solution to the various external hard disk problems that some users have experienced since Leopard launched.



    Check out Apple Support's Leopard forums and you will see that there are a range of issues affecting some FireWire connecting hard disks, for which the MBR fix is simply not relevant.



    Here are two from the Time Machine forum - Time Machine's huge initial file copy appears to be the vehicle that flushes out this mis-behaviour. There doesn't appear to be much evidence that Time Machine itself is to blame - these faults can be replicated by trying similarly large file transfers from within Finder.



    "Unable to complete backup. An error occurred while copying files..."

    "Time Machine IS killing or corrupting disks"



    The issues appear to be linked to FW connecting disks - experiencing data transfer failures and slow transfer rates. Not specific to any manufacturer or specific model, Leopard appears to have introduced (or aggravated) some problem with FW Drivers / firmware. It seems for multi-connecting drives, replacing the FW lead with a USB connection is enough to fix the problem.



    Apple support on the forum appears to be limited to the MBR fix ('just reformat your drive') and suggestions to reset FW configuration on your Mac ( 'turn off the machine for 3-5 minutes and see if problem goes away...')



    Not good enough methinks.
  • Reply 12 of 19
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,213moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by beepboy View Post


    Integrated chipsets run cooler, uses less power. With it Intel based mac mini is possible, and the thin Macbook 13.3" factor. On a laptop that I don't intend to play games on, I'd take small form factor, quietness, and longer battery usage any day.



    The Macbook Pro has a pretty fast GPU - even faster than the current iMac one and it doesn't get significantly hot or noisy and battery life is only drained when you are doing intensive stuff with the machine. Apple used to have dedicated chips in both the Mini and ibooks and even in the smaller 12" powerbook. There's no excuse whatsoever IMO as there are only disadvantages to using integrated chips - slow performance, graphics glitches etc.



    What it really boils down to is Apple trying to justify the higher price tag of the MBP so they have to add as many upgrades as possible to make the MBP look like a better deal. People who are happy with the MB and just want better graphics don't get the choice. The laptop lineup should be merged into one lineup with size, color, CPU, GPU options so people who are happy with the smaller screen and lower CPU can get a good GPU without the unnecessary extras.
  • Reply 13 of 19
    zunxzunx Posts: 620member
    Congratulation for the report and specially for the plots-graphs. Much better than awkward tables! Well done!
  • Reply 14 of 19
    shanmugamshanmugam Posts: 1,200member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    The Macbook Pro has a pretty fast GPU - even faster than the current iMac one and it doesn't get significantly hot or noisy and battery life is only drained when you are doing intensive stuff with the machine. Apple used to have dedicated chips in both the Mini and ibooks and even in the smaller 12" powerbook. There's no excuse whatsoever IMO as there are only disadvantages to using integrated chips - slow performance, graphics glitches etc.



    What it really boils down to is Apple trying to justify the higher price tag of the MBP so they have to add as many upgrades as possible to make the MBP look like a better deal. People who are happy with the MB and just want better graphics don't get the choice. The laptop lineup should be merged into one lineup with size, color, CPU, GPU options so people who are happy with the smaller screen and lower CPU can get a good GPU without the unnecessary extras.



    because they can! sames goes to using combo-drive in any Apple computer, because they can!
  • Reply 15 of 19
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post


    I've already been through this with my old Core Duo Mac. The original Core Duo's were only 32-bit processors and absolutely max out at 2GB of RAM because of their architecture. If you put 4GB of ram in them, the OS will only see 2GB.



    The only iMac before the aluminum ones that supports more is the 24" iMac and that max's out at 3gb.



    It's a limitation of the chipset, not the CPU. 32 bit CPUs can address more than 2GB memory, it's not as efficient as if you had a 64 bit addressing system, or really in this case, effectively 34 bit.
  • Reply 16 of 19
    ikirikir Posts: 71member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    The Macbook Pro has a pretty fast GPU - even faster than the current iMac one and it doesn't get significantly hot or noisy and battery life is only drained when you are doing intensive stuff with the machine. Apple used to have dedicated chips in both the Mini and ibooks and even in the smaller 12" powerbook. There's no excuse whatsoever IMO as there are only disadvantages to using integrated chips - slow performance, graphics glitches etc.



    What it really boils down to is Apple trying to justify the higher price tag of the MBP so they have to add as many upgrades as possible to make the MBP look like a better deal. People who are happy with the MB and just want better graphics don't get the choice. The laptop lineup should be merged into one lineup with size, color, CPU, GPU options so people who are happy with the smaller screen and lower CPU can get a good GPU without the unnecessary extras.



    GMA x3100 is not that bad, it runs 3D quite well, much more better than GMA 950. I hope they fix the driver.
  • Reply 17 of 19
    OK, am I the only one weirded out by the Time Machine bug? All these test builds, and no one thought to go to the corner store and buy an external drive to test it for backups? And, of course, Apple blames everyone else, because it couldn't be their software.



    This should have been handled a bit better by Apple...
  • Reply 18 of 19
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by johnmcboston View Post


    OK, am I the only one weirded out by the Time Machine bug? All these test builds, and no one thought to go to the corner store and buy an external drive to test it for backups? And, of course, Apple blames everyone else, because it couldn't be their software.



    This should have been handled a bit better by Apple...



    Do you realize the number of external drives that would entail? Every iteration, every lot build, every driver, etc.?



    As for 'Apple blames everyone else.' what evidence do you have to support your claim?
  • Reply 19 of 19
    rob-art morgan is starting to publish some macbook video benchmarks here.
Sign In or Register to comment.