Are the i5/i7 processors way better than the Core 2 Duo?

Currently travel with my MacBook, but it's heavy (Pro stays home). I'm considering replacing the MB with an Air with 4GB RAM/256GB HD and I'm looking at refurbs. Go with the new i5 or i7 or is the Core 2 close enough? Thanks.

Another part of my thought process is that it's probably better to buy the most recent hardware when one is spending this much as Apple does sometimes stop support for older products.
Apple will offer hardware support options either through them or an authorized reseller for 5-years after the machine is discontinued, it is 7-years in the state of California. From a software perspective, Apple will usually continue to offer security updates for an OS until it becomes the 2nd oldest in generation.
So for example, now we're on Lion, Leopard will fall off the radar.

Similar Messages

Is the Mountain Lion so much better than the Snow Leopard that make it worth buying?

Is the Mountain Lion so much better than the Snow Leopard that I'm currently using and worth the money to buy it? Is it more or less confusing to operate?

OS X 10.7-18.0+ will NOT run any current PPC based programs your running.
http://roaringapps.com/apps:table
If you have a MacPro like your signature says (the tower, not the laptop) then it's not going to have much of a performance loss as say the MacBook Pro's will.
Older, less powerful Mac's have performance losses with the newer OS X Lions, it might be best to stick with 10.6.8 on a older machine until it drops, then spend the money on all new software on a newer machine instead.
One guy was here today and had a 2007 Intel Core 2 Duo and it was struggling to run OS X Mountain Lion, Chrome and Photoshop.
It just didn't have the hardware horsepower for all that bloatware.
My advice if it's not a top end iMac or MacPro, then 2010 is the cut-off point, those 2010 machines and earlier are likely better off on 10.6.8 max.
It all depends upon one's perception of performance really.

Okay, so WHY is intel's legacy driver way better than the new one?

I bit the bullet and installed the intel-legacy video driver because I wanted to see if it was true that the old one was better than the new.
Result: Compiz is REMARKABLY smoother. As in, I'd forgotten just how pretty a silky smooth Compiz setup really is. I've done no benchmarking, don't care to. The point is, for example, I can set the opacity to 85% in the Move Window plugin and it doesn't hose the framerate.
My question is, why? What's going on in the new driver that made the performance totally tank? When there's a new driver and EVERYONE seems to have the same problem, I'm a little confused as to why they "improved" it.

Not only KMS, but also DRI2 and GEM. The next Intel video driver release should support only UXA, getting rid of the legacy cruft and concentrating on supporting one option properly.
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/col … g_features
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/col … t_graphics
Last edited by lucke (2009-06-06 14:08:13)

Is the Macbook Pro Retina display better than the LED display on the new iMac that is coming out?

I am thinking of either buying the Macbook Pro retina display (15") or waiting for the iMac 27" display. I am mainly focusing on the display, so what is better?

vinay.sujan wrote:
Is the MacBook Pro Retina display resolution of 2880-by-1800 a strain on the eyes as I understand the higher the resolution the more strainful the screen can be to the eyes?
Well there are two or three causes of eyestrain with displays different people seem to have.
1: Small type/UI elements
2: Glossy screens
3: Flicker rate
1:
The higher pixel rate combined with the display set at the higher resolution is going to cause UI and type to be smaller and harder to see. In fact it's advised to set OS X to a lower resolouton so it upscales better to match the pixel of the higher display.
Reports coming in say watching HD 1920 x 1080 trailers on the anti-glare 17" is best as the pixel content matches the display almost fullscreen, where on the MBP-R it's upscaled and thus looks blurry.
HD content makers are NOT going to change all their video cameras to support 2880 x 1800 full screen, so in order to get a clearer image playing HD 1080 content, one will have to do so in a smaller window.
2:
The new MBP-R dispalys are 75% less glossy, but not 100% less glossy like the anti-glare models so this can still cause some people problems. This can be lowered to under 1%, however I'm suspecting to do so would be considered giving up a military advantage to China where Apple gets it products made.
3:
I don't know about the flicker rate if it's better or not on the MBP-R's than the previous screens.

The exported mbox is way smaller than the original?

Hi,
I have a local mail account where the mbox comes in at 1,5GB. When I use the export to mbox function the resulting mbox is only 850MB. I have used the "permanently purge deleted mails" option but that didn't change anything about thos 1,5GB. Should I be concerned that half my mails are missing from my new backup?
Thanks a lot.

You might have accidentally "zoomed" the site (zoom works both to make the font larger and smaller). Try resetting the zoom level first before moving into the font settings. You can do that by pressing '''Ctrl+0''' (''that's a zero'') when you're on the problem site.
This article has more information: [https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/how-do-i-use-zoom How do I use Zoom? | How to | Firefox Help]
Any luck?

Is the new (2011) macbook air better than the mac book pro?

Hi,
I am a university student and Im thinking of going from my macbook pro 13" (2008) to the new macbook air i7 notebook but i'm not sure if I should get the new air, it appeals to me alot because of the fact that its so light and portable but im not sure if it will be enough for the programs I may run on it as I am a multimedia computing student I will be running software such as Photoshop, After Effects, Premier pro as well as flash and I dont know if the air will be as good as my pro has been.
Before I take the leap I wanted to know if it was really worth me getting the new air, I love it because its portable, when i take my pro to uni it weighs a ton and the fact that the air is so light makes me want to get it, but if it wont be able to handle the work I need to do on it theres no point in me getting the air .
I was thinking of getting the top of the range air:
1.8GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i7
4GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM
256GB flash storage
the spec for my current pro is:
2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4 GB 1067 MHz DDR3
Is it really worth getting the air or would i be better off getting the new pros? Would really appreciate some advice.
Thanks

It's not a hard core gaming rig, but it plays all the FPS games I like, quite well. It handles hi-def video, just fine. I use it for Photoshop, and it is quite fast. For web browsing, it has no equal. The 2010 maxed out 11" would do it all, except for some hi-def video (1080P), which it would stutter. But my new 2011 maxed 13", is perfect for video (1080P=no problem).
I really don't think a MBP will give you as much, on a daily basis. It (the MBP) has only a few advantages, and except for the built in optical drive (which you can still go external, if need be), none of the advantages you will miss even slightly.
I think the MBP would only serve me, if it spent most of the time deskbound, but I would still need an SSD. Once you have had an SSD, you can't go back. Then, you would have a really pricey MBP.

Is the external isight better than the internal?

I have a macbook, but I am considering purchasing an external isight as well. I know the external has auto focus (I do not believe the internal does) but I am more interested in color. Does the external have better color and low-light picture? Is the same 1/4 inch chip from the external used in the internal, or is the internal a lessor chip?
I enjoy the macbooks isight, but I would like to make some movies with iMovie. The internal is not overly impressive with it's colors when doing this. Sharpness is also not excellent, it seems the external will definitly improve upon this.
Any input is greatly appreciated. I would really like to hear from owners of both cameras who could possibly compare and contrast these two.
Kalel

Hi Kalel,
I agree with Eddie. I have an external mounted on my G5 at the office and an internal on an Intel iMac at home. If nothing else, the ability to reposition makes the external the hands down winner.
Personally, I believe the external records ambient light better than the internal, but I have different lighting situations at both locations.
Both the internal and external have autofocus.
One of the best additions you can get for either one is a program called iGlasses. I has been mentioned many times in this forum with plenty of user comments.
Good Luck
John

In what way Exchange Server 2013 archiving is better than the other 3rd party application ?

Hi All,
Can anyone here please share some thoughts and comments regarding of which feature of Exchange Server 2013 archiving is better than the 3rd Party application like Symantec Enterprise Vault ?
Any comments and suggestion would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
/* Server Support Specialist */

It's free.
Ed Crowley MVP "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems."
yes, as long as we are using the Exchange Server 2013 Enterprise Edition.
/* Server Support Specialist */

Why are the jpgs that are generated in my camera better than the ones i create from the nef file in camera raw?

i shoot raw+ jpg in camera, for some reason the jpgs that come from my camera (nikon D300) always seem better than the jpgs i create
from the nef files in camera raw. i am saving at the highest quality. the jpgs from the camera seem to have more detail in highlights
better color more vibrant, sharper. could my camera be doing some enhancements to the jpgs before processing?

I had similar thoughts back when I first started shooting raw. Really, it's just a matter of editing to your personal taste.
Yes, that camera applies lots of presets before creating the jpeg, as Trevor.Dennis mentioned. Also, as he said, you can far surpass native jpegs with raw.
If you need it more vibrant, make it so. If you need to bring down the highlights, do so. Need sharpening? Apply some.
Here is one of my edits that I made a tutorial of: Sunrise Raw File Edit - Adobe Lightroom - Landscape Photography - YouTube. It is one of my less dramatic edits, but still a good one.
I don't want to clutter this thread with links, but if you take a look at my Facebook page, I put a lot of before and afters up in January and February. A Google search for Benjamin Root Photography will bring it up.
I shoot in raw, and highly recommend it.
I'll leave you with a nice NEF RAW file before and after:
BTW, D300 is a nice camera, I've used it...
Benjamin

ATI Radeon HD 4870 not better than the Nvidea Geforce 120?

I bought av new ATI Radeon HD 4870 card to my MacPro. But are wery disappointed. My old NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 performes almost better than ATI. I ran Cinebench test and this is the results:
*NVIDIA GeForce*
Rendering (Single CPU): 3225 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18880 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.85
Shading (OpenGL Standard): 6107 CB-GFX
*ATI Radeon HD 4870*
Rendering (Single CPU): 3218 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18852 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.86
Shading (OpenGL Standard): 5846 CB-GFX
I also ran the Photoshop Actiontest from www.retouchartists.com on a large .tiff file, and my ATI Radeon used 1,10,2 and NVidea used 1,09,4. That is almost 1 second better for the old card.
Apple says that the ATI 4870 card performs 2x better than the Nvidea 120. That is not my experience!

Hello,
I currently have a 2008 3.0Ghz Harpertown mac pro and I am trying to figure out what to do here. I just purchased the 24 inch cinema display, but yet I have a nice 1GB 4870 ati radeon I got off ebay. Its more powerful than the Apple version, but lacks the mini-display port.
Currently, I have the ATI RADEON 2600 XT connected, though inactive, while my 4870 is active.
So, should I just get the Nvidia GT 120 and keep my 1GB 4870, or should I get rid of the 4870 I have and just buy Apple's? Either way, the GT 120 works in a 2008 mac pro despite what Apple says on their site that it only works in 2009 mac pros.

Is the iPhone 5 better than the Samsung Galaxy S4/Lumia 1020?

Is the iPhone 5 better than the Samsung Galaxy S4/Lumia 1020?

Like almost everything in this world is a matter of choice, but, if it is to logically make a choice here are a few criteria you should consider before picking up a smartphone:
Do you really need it? - if not, the money will stay better in your account;
Set up the budget and consider the fact that smartphones get upgrades faster than computers and laptops, will you be able to upgrade?
Which operating system are you familiar with?
What are your needs and expectations from the smartphone?
What type of person you are (email/chat/SMS/Social Media-man aka. communications, multimedia, productivity, gamer, etc.) this will help you chose the appropriate hardware and check out what are your options regarding the existing applications for your needs;
Are you always on the run or work in an office? - this will help you decide from the battery life point of view;
If you own a tablet you might just need a simple smartphone.
Samsung does not really innovate in terms of functionality and usability, they only copy what others do and make it their own way. Android is not a mature operating system, yet. I like some of its features, of course, but I can rely on it when it comes to productivity as I'm a person who sends 100's of emails per day and need to easily manage the messages.
You can have the best hardware in the world but that's useless if you operating system is bad at managing those resources, you will not be able to exploit the device to the fullest and you might cry over the money you've spent :-) Nevertheless Samsung has a large market share, makes good phones, but not quite smart, they are rather... intelligent, a smartphone is smart from the day you buy it, you don't have to put it in training mode :-)
As about Lumia, I don't have much to say, it's what iPhone had at the iPhone 4 version minus the 40MP camera and the operating system. If I want a good camera then I buy a camera, a Canon or Nikon :-) Yes, the Krait CPU, so what? That CPU is managed by a Wi*dows OS and that should say everything. I'm not against Micr*soft, they had/have their part in technology progress, but I'm more into stable operating systems, I'd chose Android over Wi*dows, yet Nokia were always great at hardware and batery life. Bad choice for Nokia, look at their sales and you will understand.
That's just my two cents, but iPhone is the choice of millions when they chose their first smartphone: is user friendly, solid, great hardware specs, lovely screen, wonderful support, high-level security, multimedia at its best, a design that catches the eye, looks and feels great in your hand, it's light, you have millions of verified apps in the store and a nice community to tell you all these :-)

When transferring volumes to a new drive, is a cloning app better than the finder?

When transferring volumes to a new drive, is a cloning app better than the finder?
I’m adding a new (bigger) external hard drive. I have created five partions on it as the old drive has. Is it, better, faster, more accurate, etc. to use an app, or just drag and drop the folders on to the new partitions. The sofware I have are; TechTool6, Drive Genius3 & SuperDuper. Two of the partitons have a Mac OS on them. The others just have files.
Thanks,
Larry

If the drive is to be functional as a boot drive then cloning is the better approach as it will grab all hidden configuration files and preserve the file access permissions properly; however, if you are setting up a data drive then the Finder's copy options should be adequate. To ensure file permissions are properly attributed to the copied files, select them and press Command-C to copy, followed by Shift-Option-Command-V to paste the items in the new location and preserve their file attributes (you may need to authenticate when copying them in this manner). If you do not need to preserve permissions then a basic drag-and-drop copy should suffice.

Is the reception of iPhone 5c better than 5s.

Was advised at a Telstra store that the reception of the iPhone 5s was worse than that of the 5c. Am thinking of upgrading from 4s.
Has anyone experienced this?

Not sure about the 5C but the 5S is hugely worse than the 4S for data. And tethering is a dead loss in poor signal areas where it would work reliably with the 4S.
However it's not that simple - the 5S voice call performance seems BETTER than the 4S. I did a 45 minute call yesterday during a drive through several known blackspots where my 4S and indeed other non-Apple phones reliably drop the call, and not only did the 5S maintain the call but I didn't even have any dropped audio at all.
But despite the audio being solid I couldn't get ANY data out of it at all - and yes it was on 3G so should have been able to do voice and data simultaneously.
So my guess is a serious bug in the firmware or baseband around data handling rather than inherently poorer hardware in the 5S. Or at least that's what I hope as one wouldn't expect a newer phone to be worse than the previous model especially after the bizarre mess of the iPhone 4 and antennagate!

Is the 17 inch better than the 15 inch mac book pro?

Which one is better to get and use? 15 or 17 inch?

I have both. One is not necessarily better than the other, really depends on what you plan on using the computer for. Even though the 17" is classified as a portable computer, IMO it's not very portable at all. Go to a store, view handle each for yourself. The 17" is quite large, mine sits on a desk as a desktop replacement. In terms of performance, equipped the same(processor, RAM & GPU), there is only about a 3% performance gain with the 17". Not enough to write home about. The big advantage of the 17" is screen real estate. But, if you want portability, get the 15".

Is the range of the extreme better than the express ?

IS the range of the extreme better than the express ?

My extreme seems to have better range also, although my extreme and express are located in different parts of my home. The extreme has an extra antenna, which aside from allowing a faster throughput speed, helps with range as well.

Are the i5/i7 processors way better than the Core 2 Duo?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for