Power4 vs Intel Woodcrest & Clovertown

Does anyone know how the Power4 chip (currently in G5's) compares specs-wise, with Intels Woodcrest (dual-core) or Clovertown (quad-core).
Thanks for the info!
Content edited by an Apple Discussions Host

When I write, I often find that I end posts with what I wanted to say. Put summary at top helps.
What I'm trying to find out:
Has Apple ever directly sold, or, has Apple ever officially offered the X1900 w/ S-Video Port - under one of the following Apple Service Part Numbers (661-3297, 661-4335, 661-4911)??
I don't know. I do know some X1900s are being replaced even if out of warranty, as are 2600s also.
For $249 the ATI 5770.

Similar Messages

OS X Server Intel ??

Any idea when OS X Server for Intel will be available?
I have lots of clients interested to buy Macs for network and services server, but I am not crazy to tell them to buy a PPC Mac today!!
And some of them need a small server that will use a single Mac Mini.
However... today I need to use OS X for Intel, compile UNIX applications and install.

No announcement on OS X Server (Intel) has been made, but to hazard a guess I'd say it would be tied in with the release of an upgrade to the XServe line. Now that the Intel Woodcrest and Conroe chipsets have been released, the ball is in their court. Something may come out of the WWDC keynote in a couple of weeks.
Apple doesn't really market OS X Server for use on any of its workstations (e.g. Mac mini), so the delay is understandable from their perspective. However, you may be able to accomplish most of what you need just with the base OS X install as a small workgroup server - AFP/SMB file services, Apache web hosting, and network gateway support (via Internet Sharing) are all available in the workstation version, to at least a limited degree.
What OS X Server features in particular do you need to run on an Intel Mac?
PowerBook G4, et al. Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Buying a Used Mac Pro

Hello
Looking for viewpoints on used Mac Pros. I have an opportunity to pick up a 2.66 Dual Core with 12GB's RAM, (cheaply). I realize these are older machines, nevertheless, it will be an improvement for someone with no money using older Dual Core 2.0 G5 desktops.
I came upon this ad for a machine apparently offering several types of Processors. I'm proficient, but never swapped out processors before.
"Available with two 2.66 GHz (5150) Dual-core Intel Xeon "Woodcrest" or 2.0 GHz (5130), 2.66 GHz processors or 3.0 GHz (5160) Dual-core or 3.0 GHz (X5365) Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processors, this customized desktop enables faster computing."
I suppose what I'm asking; of the older Mac Pro models, which would be more efficient, easiet to upgrade with multiple esta ports. I'm editing a Hugh project in standard def.
No HD here ...
Thanx
Mike

Thank you Michael
Adding/modifying/improvising; I pride myself in just that. I've rebuilt several G5 Dual Cores, adding faster graphics & esata cards, and maxing ram. But I believe render times and general work-flow will be improved with a Mac Pro and FCP7, (an improvement over FCP6). No not need to go above Lyon. No money here, but a HUGH investment in a standard def. documentary.
No sense investing in $600-800 for a Mac Mini or iMac trying to access multiple drives. The G5 is a longer lasting workhorse.
I've investigated RAID; it won't help in my case. Not with #8 2TB drives maxed with archival footage, and media. RAID means having to reformat all over again. No thank you Nor do I trust a 'bridged' enclosure. Just a 'straight up' esata connection. Been burned before loosing data thru bridges.
I'll try to find a 2008 or later Mac Pro, (no funding), and yes, thanks for sharing favorable comments/configurations about your 2.66 Dual Core. I've read about sneaking that esata cable thru the housing. Will I be able to access all drives thru both a 2 port cable extension as as well as a PCI card with 4 additional esata ports?
Thank youhttp://www.ww2survivorstories.com/previews.html

Latest Production Checklist: Hardware

Hi
I was in a process of trying to order some hardware for our production environment. The current hardware recommendations have last been update a couple of years ago. Would love to know if anyone has evaluated current hardware options and are they significantly different to the ones listed.
http://coherence.oracle.com/display/COH34UG/Production+Checklist#ProductionChecklist-Hardware
If the server hardware purchase is still in the future, the following are suggested for Coherence (as of December 2006):
The most cost-effective server hardware platform is "commodity x86", either Intel or AMD, with one to two processor sockets and two to four CPU cores per processor socket. If selecting an AMD Opteron system, it is strongly recommended that it be a two processor socket system, since memory capacity is usually halved in a single socket system. Intel "Woodcrest" and "Clovertown" Xeons are strongly recommended over the previous Intel Xeon CPUs due to significantly improved 64-bit support, much lower power consumption, much lower heat emission and far better performance. These new Xeons are currently the fastest commodity x86 CPUs, and can support a large memory capacity per server regardless of the processor socket count by using fully bufferred memory called "FB-DIMMs".
It is strongly recommended that servers be configured with a minimum of 4GB of RAM. For applications that plan to store massive amounts of data in memory – tens or hundreds of gigabytes, or more – it is recommended to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 16GB or even 32GB of RAM per server. As of December, 2006, commodity x86 server RAM is readily available in a density of 2GB per DIMM, with higher densities available from only a few vendors and carrying a large price premium; this means that a server with 8 memory slots will only support 16GB in a cost-effective manner. Also note that a server with a very large amount of RAM will likely need to run more Coherence nodes (JVMs) per server in order to utilize that much memory, so having a larger number of CPU cores will help. Applications that are "data heavy" will require a higher ratio of RAM to CPU, while applications that are "processing heavy" will require a lower ratio. For example, it may be sufficient to have two dual-core Xeon CPUs in a 32GB server running 15 Coherence "Cache Server" nodes performing mostly identity-based operations (cache accesses and updates), but if an application makes frequent use of Coherence features such as indexing, parallel queries, entry processors and parallel aggregation, then it will be more effective to have two quad-core Xeon CPUs in a 16GB server – a 4:1 increase in the CPU:RAM ratio.
A minimum of 1000Mbps for networking (e.g. Gigabit Ethernet or better) is strongly recommended. NICs should be on a high bandwidth bus such as PCI-X or PCIe, and not on standard PCI. In the case of PCI-X having the NIC on an isolated or otherwise lightly loaded 133MHz bus may significantly improve performance.

It should not be an issue as long as your Ip remains the same ...
Search for Datacenter migration in the forums and you should get more information

Thought about it for a while, but yep, I'm still confused...

What is a PCI express card ??
I'm configuring a new Mac pro set up, but don't really want to buy/fit a PCI express card as I wont be using a xserve RAID, not to mention I can't even find out what a PCI express card is!!! When I was looking through the FCP system requirements on the site, it says....
"An AGP or PCI Express Quartz Extreme graphics card (Final Cut Studio is not compatible with integrated Intel graphics processors)"
I will be running
* 2 x 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Clovertown” processors (8-core)
* 16GB of 667MHz DDR2 fully buffered ECC RAM
* 4 x 750 GB HD's 1 partitioned for windows
* ATI Radeon X1900 XT graphics card.
* 2 x 23" HD displays
* 2 x optical drives.
This graphics card and this set up is fine isn't it? I'm not doing heavy duty 3D, it's for SD and HD tv production.
WHAT IS A PCI EXPRESS CARD ??? over to you, smart people..
Mac Pro Mac OS X (10.4.10)
Mac Pro Mac OS X (10.4.10)

Welcome jiminez, all Mac-Pro carries PCI-e short for PCI Express,
and the lset of G5 aswell,
So there is PCI/PCI-X and PCI-E,
read up on it see site below,
http://www.directron.com/expressguide.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI_Express
http://www.interfacebus.com/DesignConnector_PCIExpress.html
Fr.BlayZay.

Solaris 10 x86 stable on Intel Xeon Woodcrest CPUs?

We are looking at deploying Solaris 10 x86 for a new mail server project (using ZFS as the FS). In the past, we've purchased mostly Dell PowerEdge servers, and this will be our first foray into Solaris. I'm looking at using a HP Server for this project, and would like to use one of the new models that has the Intel Xeon 51xx "Woodcrest" family of CPUs. I see that there is a kernel patch available that enhances the stability of Solaris under this platform, and wanted to hear experiences from others as to the stability of Solaris 10 x86 with the Woodcrest Xeon's.
TIA.

FYI, I was able to install a copy of Solaris 10 x86 8/07 on my GX150.
I guess there is some changes in the Kernel between releases that have caused the incompatibility.

IMac 24" - 2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Duo or Extreme? Confused

Hey there, sorry if this is a really stupid question, but I recently bought the top model iMac 24", which is advertised as coming with a 2.8Ghz Intel Core 2 Extreme processor. However, when I got to 'About My Mac' it say it's a 2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Duo. Am I being stupid, or is this not right? Thanks

The Intel iMacs (and Mac Mini) have always used laptop processors: Initially the Core Duo - Yonah, then the Core 2 Duo - Merom and now the Core 2 Extreme - *Merom Extreme*.
Apple doesn't use any of the faster, cheaper, desktop Intel processors (like the desktop Core 2 Duo which is called Conroe ). The Mac Pros use the workstation/server processors Woodcrest or Clovertown.
<hr width="200">
Guilty Party,
My Core 2 Extreme 2.8GHz reads Core 2 Duo too. Now I accept that these are both basically the same processor but I rather think OS X should report the processor fully so have left feedback to Apple to request the change.
cheers
mrtotes

PS CS3 much slower than CS2 on Intel Mac. I don't get it.

Yes, very very strange.
I work with very large files, so I just got a spiffy new Mac Pro. It's my first Intel machine, so I expected that CS2 would drag a little bit, due to Rosetta. In fact, moving from one processor to eight of them seems to have much more than compensated. Nevertheless, I ordered CS4 and while I wait I downloaded the demo of CS3.
I expected that CS3 would fly (no Rosetta) but have found my test tasks taking an inordinate amount of time... much slower than CS2 on the same Xeon workstation, and slower than CS2 on my old iMac (single 2.1GHz G5)
Since I work with extremely large files, I got a hardware RAID5 made up of four 15,000RPM SAS drives. I can't get enough RAM to avoid using scratch disk, so I attacked the biggest performance bottleneck. I did get 8GB of RAM; would have gotten more, but I read that it won't matter until CS goes 64-bit in CS5 at the earliest.
The rest of it: dual quad-core 2.8GHz "Woodcrest" Xeon processors, NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT graphics card, OS X 10.5.5, all updates (Apple and Adobe) applied as of 6pm Wednesday October 8th.
I'm running two tests as my benchmark: open a file (PSD created with CS2, 75" x 75" at 400ppi, two layers, RGB with one additional channel) and resize to 75" x 75" at 800ppi. Once that is done, I rotate the new, massive file counterclockwise 18.5 degrees.
On my old setup, 2.1GHz SP G5 iMac with CS2, these tasks took 38m 30s and 1h 33m 22s respectively.
New machine with CS2: 10m 09s and 29m 14s respectively
New machine with CS3: 42m 38s and 1h 36m 24s
(above tests run repeatedly: these numbers are the fastest numbers for each configuration)
I have nothing else running for these tests, except for Activity Monitor. What I've observed with Activity Monitor: the old G5 was pegged at (or very near) 100% CPU the whole time. Mac Pro with CS2, Photoshop ran most of the time on one CPU at a time, but spiked up as high as 250% CPU usage just for Photoshop.
I haven't seen Photoshop CS3 use more than 80% of one processor the whole time on the Mac Pro. Mostly it sits around 35%.
One more informal test: if I open that same file and downsample from 400ppi to 200ppi, CS2 does it in 1m 40s. CS3: 6m 57s. I don't have the iMac any more so I can't tell you how long it would take there.
In both CS2 and CS3 the scratch disk is my startup volume, but it's a RAID. I can't add any more drives except for external drives. I could have configured it to one dedicated system drive and a second scratch volume made up of the remaining three drives, but I consulted with people who know RAID better than I do who agreed that since everything is going through the SCSI controller and everything gets written to multiple drives in order to make it faster that I'd get a performance hit by splitting the RAID into two volumes, even if multiple processes are trying to get at the same drive array. Even adding a Firewire 800 drive for scratch would be slower than using the RAID. Or so I've been told.
So, this seems absurd. CS3 is not using Rosetta, right? So it should be flying on my machine. What on earth could I have done to a fresh CS3 (demo) install to make it slower than CS2 on my old G5? Is the CS3 demo crippled? Is there a conflict having CS2 and the CS3 demo on the same machine?
I'm stumped.

>Ya see, this is the attitude you really, really should get over. The Photoshop CS3 (10.0.1) code is just fine... it's your system (hardware/software) which, for some reason is not providing an optimal environment.
Jeff, I agree completely. You seem to be assuming that I actually think Adobe wrote bad code. In fact, I believe Adobe did NOT write bad code (and I wrote that) but that the condition that you are suggesting (CS3 being slowed by having having scratch and system on the same volume to a far greater extent than CS2) could only be caused by bad code by Adobe. Since I believe that, as you say, a universal difference of this magnitude between CS2 and CS3 would be noticed by huge numbers of users, I doubt that what I am seeing is the result of having scratch and system on the same volume.
In case I'm being less than clear:
Scratch and system were on the same volume for CS2.
Scratch and system were on the same volume for CS3.
On my system CS2 performs tasks three to four times faster than CS3.
ergo, either there is some problem other than scratch and system being on the same volume (perhaps something that exacerbates the scratch/system/same volume issue, OK, I accept that possibility) or else the change has been between CS2s and CS3s handling of scratch disks.
If for the sake of argument we rule out the possibility that CS3 handles the condition of scratch and system being on the same volume worse than CS2 does, the only possibility left is that there is SOMETHING ELSE WRONG WITH MY SYSTEM.
I am trying to find out what that other thing is. You're the one insisting that scratch and system being on the same volume is the cause of the CS3 slowdown. Accusing me of not believing that there's something wrong with my system misses the mark entirely. I ABSOLUTELY believe there is something wrong with my system.
> Your RAM tests sound pretty thorough, but if I had your large-files workflow I would buy two (or preferably 4) 4-GB sized matched RAM DIMMs, remove all the existing RAM, and install only the new RAM to further test whether or not the old RAM is anomalous.
Thanks Allen,
Actually, this is exactly what I've done, though in a different order. My system shipped with two 1GB chips. I bought two 4GB chips from OWC and installed them, and found my CS2 performance to increase significantly. It was only then that I tried installing the CS3 demo. When I found CS3 running my tests more slowly than expected, I pulled the new RAM out and tried with just the original 2GB and tested both CS2 and CS3 again. Then I took the original 2GB out, put only the new RAM in and tested CS2 and CS3 again, finding the same results. Currently I have all 10GB in the system and for the moment I'm setting aside the possibility of a problem with the RAM (or at least setting aside the possibility that the RAM chips are just plain bad) because that would indicate that both the new and the old RAM are both bad in the same way. That seems unlikely.
So I guess I'll have to drag the system down to the Genius Bar if I don't see an improvement from rearranging my hard drives.
The update there is that last night I backed up my system, and this morning I deleted my RAID5 set, blowing away everything on my system until I can restore from backup. The new configuration is 1 JBOD drive plus three drives attached as RAID0.
Unfortunately, neither of the new volumes is visible when I go to restore from backup. For the moment, this little experiment has cost me my entire system. The upshot is that it may be some more time before I have any more information to share. Even when I do get it working again, I can expect restoring to take the same 12 hours that backing up did.
I will certainly post here when I've got my system back.

Sun's JVM works better with AMD or Intel?

Hi,
I would appreciate if someone lets me know about
what eventually works better or more friendly with Sun's JVM (JIT): the AMD CPUs or the Intel ones.
It's a complex issue, I understand it, but I'd be glad to read some random opinions as anyway.
It just seems to me that Sun's Java works (a bit) better with AMD, I tried an app
on a x64 AMD of 1.8 Ghz and there was practically no difference
in startup time (and execution) than a Pentium D at 3.4 Ghz (which has 2 cores) -
I expected to see like a double increase in performance or so (yes - it doesn't only depend on the CPU).
From the JavaOne 2008 conference (which I watched over the web) I have the impression that AMD is
(much) more commited to improve the JVM to work fast with its chips than Intel (Intel was generally praising
how Sun started selling servers with Intel chips).
A link to an article/webcast/blog/analysis would be just great.
Thanks in advance.

xlinuks wrote:
It just seems to me that Sun's Java works (a bit) better with AMD, I tried an app
on a x64 AMD of 1.8 Ghz and there was practically no difference
in startup time (and execution) than a Pentium D at 3.4 Ghz (which has 2 cores) -
I expected to see like a double increase in performance or so (yes - it doesn't only depend on the CPU).Pentium Ds use Intel's Netburst architecture which is very difficult to get useful performance from for most loads.
The more apt comparison would be with Woodcrest Xeons and later models. These should be roughly on par with AMD CPUs. There will be significant differences for some concurrent loads, but I doubt there's a consistent pattern where one CPU vendor is faster than the other.

Should I have waited for the Clovertowns?

I have ordered a mid-range MP with the X1900. .. knowing that the quad chips will be here at year end. Typically, I would expect to see Apple turn the high end into a Dual-Quad and keep the lower 2 at single quads...for a while..then make the mid a dual quad also.
But this is new territory and I'm wondering if you guys think the quads will be available beginning of year..low/mid and high.
Should I have waited...:) or do we actually think Apple is going to release a firmware update down the road that will allow us to upgrade these first towers??
12 PB Mac OS X (10.4.7)

As far as I understand it the Clovertown processors, due to Intel rush to be moving forward, are not a true quad-core processor rather two dual-core processors on the same die. While having an 8-core system does sound pretty cool the real performance benefits of 4 more cores is at the moment debateable.
Should you have waited? Probably not. By waiting you'll be pushing back your purchase a minimum of 6 months, which is assuming a quad-core processor make it into the next Mac Pro, which means you'll be with a Mac Pro for that time. Put a price on that.
I remember the large number of people who were waiting on PowerBook G5s… the ones that never appeared. There's always something better around the corner and it really comes down to how many corners you're prepared to go around. I know for myself I wasn't prepared to wait till next year to buy a Mac Pro even though it's made me buy a first revision.

ALSO Just purchased a refurbished Mac Pro Quad 3.0 GHz Intel Xeon!

Hi All, I'm new to this forum but having a severe case of Extreme Buyer's Remorse / Best Bang For The Buck Syndrome...Yesterday I also purchased a Refurbished Mac Pro Quad 3.0GHz, 2GB, ATI 1900 from the Apple Store for $2299. Seemingly, the difference between the one I bought and Barry is that mine came with a second Superdrive. For the same price, I thought why not?
So, here's the nature of my anxiety: I'm not totally conversant in Mac Pro-speak and am having a hard time understanding exactly what I purchased, when it was originally manufactured, etc.. The receipt I was provided indicated I bought a machine with 2 dual-core processors along with a model number that apparently does not exist in any universe other than the Apple Store, FB052LLA.
I've made a number of phone calls today to the Apple Store and they said without the serial number (which I won't have until I receive the unit) they cannot tell me exactly what the base unit was before the config was made. I very much want to know:
-Is this a 5100 series Quad Core or 5300 Series Eight Core or something else?
-When was it likely originally released?
-Most importantly, was the $2299 money well spent when MacMall is now offering a Quad-Core 2.8Ghz, 2GB, ATI 2600 for $2214?
My anxiety level rose just typing all this out, so thanks in advance!!
Larry

Apple Mac Pro Quad Xeon 3GHz Workstation, model no. MA052LL/A, with two SuperDrives and ATI Radeon X1900 XT 512MB video for $2,299 (was $3,349). This is your model with the "MA" in the Model No. replaced with an "FB". Presumable the FB = Refurbished.
I believe this model was released August 2006 and contained Intel Xeon 5100 series ("Woodcrest") processors. It was discontinued Jan 2008.
The Machine ID should be MacPro1,1
Ref http://www.apple-history.com/
"Announced at WWDC in August 2006, the Mac Pro completed Apple's transition to Intel processors, replacing the PowerMac G5 (Late 2005) as Apple's professional desktop Mac. The Mac Pro was based on two 64-bit, dual-core Intel Xeon 5100 "Woodcrest" processors, which included a 128-bit Vector Engine. The Mac Pro's case resembled its PowerMac predecessor's--with the exception of a second optical drive bay--but the interior of the case was completely redesigned. The Xeon processors required less heat-dissapation than G5 processors, allowing a smaller cooling system. The Mac Pro had four easily accessible hard drive bays (for a BTO maximum of 2 TB of storage) and easy access to its 8 RAM slots, which allowed for a Maximum of 16 GB of RAM.
With the Mac Pro, Apple decided to do something different in terms of configuration. Since the majority of Apple's professional customers tended to heavily-customize their Macs at purchase time, Apple offered a single, heavily customizable Mac Pro model. In effect, this shifted the decision-making for what configurations to sell to the resellers, leaving Apple with a streamlined manufacturing process. The single model sold for $2,499, and included two 2.66 GHz, dual-core Intel Xeon 5100 processors, 1 GB of RAM, a 250 MB hard disk, a SuperDrive, and an Nvidia GeForce 7300GT graphics card with 256MB of VRAM. BTO options included 2.0 and 3.0 GHz processors, up to 16 GB of RAM, up to 2 TB of storage, a second SuperDrive, a variety of graphics cards, and Airport Express and Bluetooth support."
Your MacPro has 4 cores (2 per processor) and not the Mac Pro (8 core) you mentioned.

Installation problem on Intel

I have tried to install Solaris 8 on my Dell machine.
I have tried to boot both directly via CD and by using Device Configuration Assistant on a floppy..
The first screen says this....
SunOS Secondary Boot version 3.00
WARNING: ACPI Tables not in Reclaim Memory
prom_panic: kmem_free block already free
Entering boot debugger:
[130ee5]:
and when i hit enter and choose c (continue execution), the m/c hangs and asks me to push ctrl-alt-del to reboot..
I don't know what the ACPI tables are .. and how i can fix this...
Anyone who knows this... please help..
Thanx a lot..

I have heard about the ACPI that may be a Power Managemnet Tools or something, it always be found in Microsoft Window 2000 Device Manager, sorry I can't help you to solve the problems.....because I also have some installation problem on my Intel paltform @_@.

Installation problem on Intel - IV Machine

Hi,
I am having Intel P-IV machine, with 845 motherboard, sdram, seagate hdd and tnt vga. when i am trying to install solaris 8 in my machine after proceding upto booting from disk (or) cdrom i have selected cdrom then, when i say 1. Interactive or 2. Jumpstart, after selecting Interactive Installation my system is rebooting automatically.
Can any one tell me the solution regarding this issue.
Thanks in advance,
Mohammed Abid Ali

This case is similar to the case handled by Jurgen Keil on Digest Number 385 except that my case, it has a different error message.
At the prompt "Select type of installation" (or the prompt
"Select (b)oot or (i)nterpreter:", I type the command "b kadb -d". I see a General Protection Fault and some messages which cause the system to reboot. But I can't capture all the errors/messages cuz there's no system dump device configured.
How do I configured the system dump device so I can send you more details?
Thank you.

MacBook/Intel 945GM + xrandr - TV

Hi,
I'm not able to send output to my TV. Any help would be greatly appreciated...
I'm on a MacBook 2,1 and using a mini-DVI adapter which outputs to S-Video
lspci:
00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/GMS, 943/940GML Express Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 03)
00:02.1 Display controller: Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/GMS/GME, 943/940GML Express Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 03)
xrandr (no options)
Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1280 x 800, maximum 4096 x 4096
VGA1 connected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
1024x768 60.0
800x600 60.3 56.2
848x480 60.0
640x480 59.9
LVDS1 connected 1280x800+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 286mm x 178mm
1280x800 59.9*+
1024x768 60.0
800x600 60.3 56.2
640x480 59.9
DVI1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
TV1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
I've tried:
xrandr --output LVDS1 --mode 1280x800 --output VGA1 --mode 800x600 --right-of LVDS1
xrandr --output LVDS1 --mode 1280x800 --output VGA1 --mode 1024x800 --right-of LVDS1
and get a screen flicker but just see black with slightly diagonal white lines/dots scrolling down the screen.
The searching I've done pulls up a lot of people trying to output to monitors but not TVs. I'm unfamiliar with if there is anything special about doing this. The OS X side works fine with this setup and it'd be great to not have to reboot whenever I wanted to watch something. Some searches have mentioned setting custom modes and trying to set TV_STANDARD to PAL or NTSC. I've tried this and get:
$ xrandr --output VGA1 --set TV_STANDARD PAL
X Error of failed request: BadName (named color or font does not exist)
Major opcode of failed request: 150 (RANDR)
Minor opcode of failed request: 11 (RRQueryOutputProperty)
Serial number of failed request: 31
Current serial number in output stream: 31
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Hi,
I'm not able to send output to my TV. Any help would be greatly appreciated...
I'm on a MacBook 2,1 and using a mini-DVI adapter which outputs to S-Video
lspci:
00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/GMS, 943/940GML Express Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 03)
00:02.1 Display controller: Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/GMS/GME, 943/940GML Express Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 03)
xrandr (no options)
Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1280 x 800, maximum 4096 x 4096
VGA1 connected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
1024x768 60.0
800x600 60.3 56.2
848x480 60.0
640x480 59.9
LVDS1 connected 1280x800+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 286mm x 178mm
1280x800 59.9*+
1024x768 60.0
800x600 60.3 56.2
640x480 59.9
DVI1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
TV1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
I've tried:
xrandr --output LVDS1 --mode 1280x800 --output VGA1 --mode 800x600 --right-of LVDS1
xrandr --output LVDS1 --mode 1280x800 --output VGA1 --mode 1024x800 --right-of LVDS1
and get a screen flicker but just see black with slightly diagonal white lines/dots scrolling down the screen.
The searching I've done pulls up a lot of people trying to output to monitors but not TVs. I'm unfamiliar with if there is anything special about doing this. The OS X side works fine with this setup and it'd be great to not have to reboot whenever I wanted to watch something. Some searches have mentioned setting custom modes and trying to set TV_STANDARD to PAL or NTSC. I've tried this and get:
$ xrandr --output VGA1 --set TV_STANDARD PAL
X Error of failed request: BadName (named color or font does not exist)
Major opcode of failed request: 150 (RANDR)
Minor opcode of failed request: 11 (RRQueryOutputProperty)
Serial number of failed request: 31
Current serial number in output stream: 31
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

I have a 2.2 GHz Intel Core i7 macbook pro that has lion installed when I recieved it, according to the support pages AHT is supposed to work over the internet if it wasn't installed, Mine wasn't and it doesn't work. Where can I download it from?

I Have a 2.2 GHz Intel Core i7 macbook pro, I recieved it with OSx 7.2 lion installed, I need to us AHT (apple hardware test) according to the support page that I copy here
Additional Information
Apple Hardware Test is included on the DVDs that are shipped with some Macintosh computers. If the copy on your hard drive becomes unavailable, use the DVDs to run Apple Hardware Test.
For Intel-based Apple computers that shipped with Mac OS X v10.5.4 or earlier, Apple Hardware Test is located on the Mac OS X Install Disc 1 and should be included with your computer.
For Apple computers that shipped with Mac OS X v10.5.5 to 10.6.7, Apple Hardware Test is located on the Applications Install Disc 2 and should be included with your computer.
For some Apple computers that shipped with OS X Lion, if Apple Hardware Test cannot be found on the hard drive, an Internet-based version starts up instead.
This doesn't work as the additional information statement says it should above. Could someone at apple give me an idea of where to get it or what the "REAL" solution is, since it doesn't work on an internet version which was confirmed today at the Genius Bar in the Apple store.
Please help me

chrisfrommarion wrote:
Thanks, while it worked on yours it doesn't work on mine, any other ideas?
Are you holding down the "d" key, all by itself, just after the system shuts down for a restart?
And how long did you hold it down?
I held mine down for about 40-50 seconds. Then I lookat at my routers WAN light and it was flickering so I let up on the d key.
If that does not work then maybe there is something wrong with your MBP. Is that the reason you want to run this test, something isn't right with your unit?

Power4 vs Intel Woodcrest & Clovertown

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for