Can LMG at least try to be reasonable? - screen recording is possible on a dual-core.

[TomvanWijnen]

2 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

Fair enough but that’s fairly light usage. For general use as a main laptop I personally wouldn’t be comfortable with 4GB

My sister's laptop has just 4 GB with a 2c4t CPU. It works just fine. I've never heard her complain about too little RAM. She has no other Windows devices, nor does she have a tablet.

 

Sure, more would be nicer, but it's just too expensive. This works just fine. Would I buy a dual core with 4 GB of RAM today? Yes, yes I would. I buy nearly all my stuff second hand, so it would likely be really cheap. I already have enough stuff though, so no need for more.

 

As for something new... if the price is right, then why not?

[TempestCatto]

4 minutes ago, TomvanWijnen said:

My sister's laptop has just 4 GB with a 2c4t CPU. It works just fine. I've never heard her complain about too little RAM. She has no other Windows devices, nor does she have a tablet.

 

Sure, more would be nicer, but it's just too expensive. This works just fine. Would I buy a dual core with 4 GB of RAM today? Yes, yes I would. I buy nearly all my stuff second hand, so it would likely be really cheap. I already have enough stuff though, so no need for more.

 

As for something new... if the price is right, then why not?

Or is she so accustomed to it's slowness and laginess that she doesn't think otherwise? Like if you gave her a slight bump in specs she'd probably think it was the best thing since sliced bread. Just a thought.

[TomvanWijnen]

1 minute ago, TempestCatto said:

Or is she so accustomed to it's slowness and laginess that she doesn't think otherwise? Like if you gave her a slight bump in specs she'd probably think it was the best thing since sliced bread. Just a thought.

That could certainly be true! She seems to be happy with it though, which is all that matters I think. I'm planning to put my old SSD in to replace the HDD, but she actually said that she was not sure whether she wanted that...

[Kilrah]

Both are right. Can't complain when you've never seen better... and on the opposite when you're always on a high end desktop then even a decent quad core laptop is frustratingly slow

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

23 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

when you're always on a high end desktop then even a decent quad core laptop is frustratingly slow

no? only when you tax it hard. 

 

i had a 15" 2011 MBP which had a quadcore i7 and 16gb of ram, and it was awesome in school. i had to run VM's and using that compared to shitty plastic dualcore 8gb ram laptops my classmates had was glorious. i loved the performance. but for everything else it was bulky and heavy and stupid. and then the gpu died and i started getting random restarts and other weird behavior due to that. 

 

i went back to a dualcore, the 2012 13" MBP i still have now, for the reliability. and honestly it wasn't too bad. yes, running 3 VM's along with chome (30 tabs at least) and loads of other stuff like Pages with 4 documents open was slow. was it frustratingly slow? no... it just depends on your expectations. 

[Zodiark1593]

26 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Both are right. Can't complain when you've never seen better... and on the opposite when you're always on a high end desktop then even a decent quad core laptop is frustratingly slow

Honestly, I don’t care much so long as it’s got a SSD. If I need more than dual core (or Atom) power, I’ll defer it to my desktop. I don’t really require a powerful laptop for my use case at this time. Though I’d really appreciate something decent for typing on with good battery, but not important enough to drop the money on right now. 

[Kilrah]

That's my point. My expectations are "as good as I'm used to", and they're obviously not matched. 

Can I make do with it? Of course, and I do. But anytime I'm doing something slightly demanding, or opening a program takes 2 seconds more I'm still wishing I was on my desktop.

[Guest]

On 4/11/2020 at 8:16 AM, Twilight said:

LMG, next time proof-read your scripts because this was just straight up misinformation. 

LMG isn’t exactly the best at this. Quite a lot of misinformation is really intended for jokes. James, Riley and Alex are the worst at this.
 

let’s also not turn this into a Mac vs PC thread. Both computers are great at what they do and it’s really preference into what you want. 
 

As always if you want low-ad, great information, no bias, don’t go for LMG.

[Kilrah]

3 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

James, Riley and Alex are the worst at this.

Yeah, I must say I've been a bit disappointed by Alex in the SC's. With no preparation he's getting more stuff wrong than "reasonable" IMO. Doesn't have that "feel" for the things. 

But you might say it's got its place since it's closer to what a random user opening the box might experience. 

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

LMG isn’t exactly the best at this. Quite a lot of misinformation is really intended for jokes. James, Riley and Alex are the worst at this.

Well this was a short circuit video, right?

They are meant to be quick and not that well researched, so it's understandable that they have inaccuracies in them. This whole thread seems like it's blowing some quick comment out of proportions.

[lewdicrous]

All this talk and no one thought of tagging them? Why....

@AlexTheGreatish Some people don't like the video you made, or at least some of the things you said in it.

[leadeater]

On 4/11/2020 at 9:58 PM, Lord Vile said:

Also MacOS is a LOT more efficient than windows.

Going to have to disagree there, Mac OS runs great if you meet certain minimums otherwise it's atrociously slow. As Apple started making changes and updating the OS it became unbearably slow on any device without and SSD and 8GB ram. Don't have that? Well might as well throw it in the bin, however luckily the older systems which would not meet that are upgradable unlike the devices of today for the most part.

 

So I would have to say when it comes to the very low end Windows does a better job and not specifically requiring as much ram or an SSD, just don't use a 4200 RPM HDD though that is very painful on Windows too, mine has one.

 

Mac OS isn't nearly as resource light as it used to be, not by a long shot, but the applications for Mac OS are still better optimized for the OS and use less resources.

 

I bring this issue up because Apple essentially made over 300 Mac devices I managed at the time useless with just a single OS update, so yea I'm still salty about that.

[Lord Vile]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Going to have to disagree there, Mac OS runs great if you meet certain minimums otherwise it's atrociously slow. As Apple started making changes and updating the OS it became unbearably slow on any device without and SSD and 8GB ram. Don't have that? Well might as well throw it in the bin, however luckily the older systems which would not meet that are upgradable unlike the devices of today for the most part.

 

So I would have to say when it comes to the very low end Windows does a better job and not specifically requiring as much ram or an SSD, just don't use a 4200 RPM HDD though that is very painful on Windows too, mine has one.

 

Mac OS isn't nearly as resource light as it used to be, not by a long shot, but the applications for Mac OS are still better optimized for the OS and use less resources.

 

I bring this issue up because Apple essentially made over 300 Mac devices I managed at the time useless with just a single OS update, so yea I'm still salty about that.

Any machine with a HDD is unbearable slow...
 

You mean the applications that’s essentially baked into MacOS are more efficient? Almost like the OS is too... 

 

Comes a point where the spec can’t match the software. Different ball game to windows but you get better software from Apple vs Microsoft. 

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Any machine with a HDD is unbearable slow...

No they weren't, the current version of Mac OS at the time was performing very well. 7200 RPM HDD for a computer that is turned on at the start of the day and left on all day with networked home drives was extremely snappy. That changed immediately after the OS update, no changes to software or configuration settings and renders multiple computer labs below the minimum performance expectation of users to not complain, now they were.

 

11 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

You mean the applications that’s essentially baked into MacOS are more efficient? Almost like the OS is too... 

3rd party ones too, but again no current Mac OS is not "more optimized". Used to be? Yes. Is now? Hardly. Things change you know, what once was may not be anymore.

 

[Lord Vile]

7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

No they weren't, the current version of Mac OS at the time was performing very well. 7200 RPM HDD for a computer that is turned on at the start of the day and left on all day with networked home drives was extremely snappy. That changed immediately after the OS update, no changes to software of configuration settings and renders multiple computers labs below the minimum performance expectation of users to not complain, now they were.

 

3rd party ones too, but again no current Mac OS is not "more optimized". Used to be? Yes. Is now? Hardly. Things change you know, what once was may not be anymore.

 

Dunno I’ve had to fix Windows PCs with HDDs and god they’re bad, like it’s frustrating have slow it is just to boot never mind load up all your startup apps where you have to leave it 5 mins just to settle, especially where you’re constantly rebooting from checking, the HDD itself and installing drivers to fix shit. And that’s on a 7200RPM newer HDD not one from 2011. 

 

Which version of MacOS was this Btw? And can’t you just roll back the version? 

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Lord Vile said:

Dunno I’ve had to fix Windows PCs with HDDs and god they’re bad, like it’s frustrating have slow it is just to boot never mind load up all your startup apps where you have to leave it 5 mins just to settle, especially where you’re constantly rebooting from checking, the HDD itself and installing drivers to fix shit. And that’s on a 7200RPM newer HDD not one from 2011. 

Well sometimes we do need to bring up user made situations, you don't have to have so many startup applications and services, you also don't need to go and disable a ton of the default ones either. I know what you are talking about but that doesn't have to be, but yes an SSD is far better but the problem I'm talking about does not go away after bootup for any length of time. The OS just became unbearably slow always and this was not a problem on the ones with SSDs, 8GB was better again but 4GB was ok ish but not really.

 

4 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Which version of MacOS was this Btw? And can’t you just roll back the version? 

I think it was 10.9. No because we needed a lot of the fixes in 10.9, this was during the run from Apple where they had a LOT of issues with the OS after transitioning from 10.6 to 10.7+. That said 10.8 was actually pretty good after the mess of 10.7.

 

The problem comes from Apple really only caring about home users, small businesses etc where the computers are standalone or single user use cases. Mac OS is widely used in the education sector and they basically threw all those users under the bus and as far as I could see made no effort to quality check any of the changes around Active Directory domain joining, SMB share access, their new disaster of management engine Profile Manager. But all these are separate to making computers that were what I would consider snappy at the time to unusable from a single OS update. Getting slower over time sure, understandable. The problem was Apple made no mention of any significant changes that would cause this and the recommended hardware specs were the same for 10.8, and 10.7 to 10.8 was painless and I'd say performed better.

[Lord Vile]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well sometimes we do need to bring up user made situations, you don't have to have so many startup applications and services, you also don't need to go and disable a ton of the default ones either. I know what you are talking about but that doesn't have to be, but yes an SSD is far better but the problem I'm talking about does not go away after bootup for any length of time. The OS just became unbearably slow always and this was not a problem on the ones with SSDs, 8GB was better again but 4GB was ok ish but not really.

 

I think it was 10.9. No because we needed a lot of the fixes in 10.9, this was during the run from Apple where they had a LOT of issues with the OS after transitioning from 10.6 to 10.7+. That said 10.8 was actually pretty good after the mess of 10.7.

 

The problem comes from Apple really only caring about home users, small businesses etc where the computers are standalone or single user use cases. Mac OS is widely used in the education sector and they basically threw all those users under the bus and as far as I could see made no effort to quality check any of the changes around Active Directory domain joining, SMB share access, their new disaster of management engine Profile Manager. But all these are separate to making computers that were what I would consider snappy at the time to unusable from a single OS update. Getting slower over time sure, understandable. The problem was Apple made no mention of any significant changes that would cause this and the recommended hardware specs were the same for 10.8, and 10.7 to 10.8 was painless and I'd say performed better.

To be fair I’ve had no issues so far but I a home user. Only really used MacOS sparingly in education at uni and that was mainly because keynote just tends to end up looking more professional than PowerPoint. Couldn’t really use it outside productivity because I was doing chemistry and all the modelling software was only for windows and Linux. Was better on Linux. 

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

9 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

let’s also not turn this into a Mac vs PC thread. Both computers are great at what they do and it’s really preference into what you want. 

it's mostly been a "how low spec can you go for it to be usable" thread lol. 

 

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

Going to have to disagree there, Mac OS runs great if you meet certain minimums otherwise it's atrociously slow. As Apple started making changes and updating the OS it became unbearably slow on any device without and SSD and 8GB ram. Don't have that? Well might as well throw it in the bin, however luckily the older systems which would not meet that are upgradable unlike the devices of today for the most part.

 

So I would have to say when it comes to the very low end Windows does a better job and not specifically requiring as much ram or an SSD

i disagree for a few reasons:

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

I think it was 10.9. No because we needed a lot of the fixes in 10.9, this was during the run from Apple where they had a LOT of issues with the OS after transitioning from 10.6 to 10.7+. That said 10.8 was actually pretty good after the mess of 10.7.

i had a 2009 MacBook when El Capitan was current which is newer than all of the one's you mentioned, and that had 4gb of ram and an ssd. did i run out of ram? sometimes. however that was with 3 apps open, those being Safari, Pages and Spotify, and i had many tabs open in Safari. if you are reasonable with a machine that low spec (2ghz core 2 duo that's less than half the speed of my 2012 MBP with an i5) and don't try to multitask that hard with 10 tabs in a webbrowser and other things open it's fine. 

 

as for the ssd requirement, i don't really think so. Windows gets hurt more on a hdd because it does things when you don't want it to. for example when Windows decides it's time to update it just does it and it trashes your performance on a hdd. even 2 hdd's in Raid 0. however, when macOS has an update you can just ignore it. 

 

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

The problem comes from Apple really only caring about home users, small businesses etc where the computers are standalone or single user use cases. Mac OS is widely used in the education sector and they basically threw all those users under the bus and as far as I could see made no effort to quality check any of the changes around Active Directory domain joining, SMB share access, their new disaster of management engine Profile Manager. But all these are separate to making computers that were what I would consider snappy at the time to unusable from a single OS update. Getting slower over time sure, understandable. The problem was Apple made no mention of any significant changes that would cause this and the recommended hardware specs were the same for 10.8, and 10.7 to 10.8 was painless and I'd say performed better.

10.7 to 10.8 was not the same. 10.8 cut off 2006 and 2007 Mac's i believe. 

 

regardless, i can agree somewhat here. Microsoft Domain stuff is good for organisations. that's probably why so many companies are forced to use Windows. but, that focus on organisations is letting home users down, since (in my opinion) macOS is MUCH better for home use. eventually that will bite Microsoft in the ass, because when more and more people switch to Mac they will want a Mac in the workplace too. 

 

i forget though, doesn't Apple have something very similar to Microsoft Domain? i guess your whole organisation needs to be Apple for it to work but if it is then there are options right?

[leadeater]

26 minutes ago, Twilight said:

i had a 2009 MacBook when El Capitan was current which is newer than all of the one's you mentioned, and that had 4gb of ram and an ssd

Right so you had the exact thing I said was a requirement for the OS to not run like garbage, so you counter point is what exactly? Have you actually used a Mac with an HDD running 10.9 or newer?

 

26 minutes ago, Twilight said:

when macOS has an update you can just ignore it. 

You can in Windows, there are settings you know.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Right so you had the exact thing I said was a requirement for the OS to not run like garbage, so you counter point is what exactly? Have you actually used a Mac with an HDD running 10.9 or newer?

you said 8gb of ram. i had half that. 

 

i haven't personally but i've troubleshooted people's Mac's

[leadeater]

28 minutes ago, Twilight said:

i forget though, doesn't Apple have something very similar to Microsoft Domain? i guess your whole organisation needs to be Apple for it to work but if it is then there are options right?

Open Directory, but don't go thinking that was any better. You still need that to run Profile Manager and manage your Macs and Open Directory in 10.7 and 10.8 had a nasty habit of just breaking for no good reason at all.

 

Both are just LDAP implementations so there isn't a great deal of difference between them, just inherent requirements to use one or the other or both to manage your devices.

 

But the problem with Mac OS at that time was not to do with Active Directory support but network authentication and how it was handling the logins so it was broken no matter what your authentication source was, AD or Open Directory or something else.

 

And it didn't help that Apple was going through progressively removing support for the old management framework Managed Preferences without providing the equivalent in Profile Manager or it was broken so not usable. You could set this and it would work but not if you also set that, this setting does exist but doesn't actually do anything. It was just a big problem we had to turn to 3rd party management software like JAMF Pro (formally Casper).

 

Mac OS X 10.6 was such a fine polished OS that had functional management features, happily sat on any network be it pure Open Directory (OD) or AD + OD and you could configure like for like parity user experience between Mac OS X and Windows. Network Homes/Folder Redirection + Roaming Profiles, Manage Preferences/Group Policy all just work, flawlessly. Then I guess Apple feel off a cliff and hit their hit and decided not to QA half their changes to the OS.

[leadeater]

14 minutes ago, Twilight said:

you said 8gb of ram. i had half that. 

I said both and in a later post also said 4GB is usable but not ideal. Maybe I didn't emphasize the SSD part enough. But yea without an SSD is just ran far too slow and waiting didn't make it go faster, where even with Windows even if you proliferated your system with startup programs and services they would settle at some point and be at least a bit faster.

 

SSD + Windows = Significantly better experience

SSD + Mac = No throwing it out the Window

 

48 minutes ago, Twilight said:

since (in my opinion) macOS is MUCH better for home use

Yes, I may not have said that directly but that is what Mac OD does best, my problem is for while there that's all it could really do which caused me massive headaches. Still it's not the best fit for everyone though.

 

49 minutes ago, Twilight said:

eventually that will bite Microsoft in the ass, because when more and more people switch to Mac they will want a Mac in the workplace too. 

Not until the home market is bigger or higher revenue than the business market and I'm doubtful that will ever happen.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Twilight said:

10.7 to 10.8 was not the same. 10.8 cut off 2006 and 2007 Mac's i believe. 

If you read that again it actually says 10.8 and 10.9 were the same, but I wasn't really talking about supported model just the hardware spec.

 

Quote

The official system requirements of OS X 10.8 are 2 GB RAM, 8 GB available storage, OS X 10.6.8 (Snow Leopard) or later, on any of the following Macs:[14]

 

Quote

OS X Mavericks can run on any Mac that can run OS X Mountain Lion; as with Mountain Lion, 2 GB of RAM, 8 GB of available storage, and OS X 10.6.8 (Snow Leopard) or later are required.[11] Mavericks and later versions are all available for free.[12]

 

From what I can see also the same official model supported between those as well. Also even 10.10 has the same requirements. For the general user it's was more likely they would have gotten newer hardware where I was having keep a standardized refresh cycle and also have to do OS upgrades sooner than I'd like to fix issues which just added more. I ended up going round every iMac and upgrade the ram but that wasn't as bad as when that school wanted to run all their Macs dual boot bootcamp and two of the labs had a batch of iMacs with bad HDD firmware that prevented the system fan from working properly under Windows and they would just roast themselves, had to take off the screen and LCD panel of all of them and put in a resistor on the probe cable that usually plugged in to the HDD forcing the fan to run at a constant RPM. Finally won that argument a year later, if you buy a Mac run Mac OS and only Mac OS, dual boot is more than twice the management effort and problems.

[WkdPaul]

Sorry, didn't read all 5 pages before replying.

 

 

 

On 4/10/2020 at 4:22 PM, TetraSky said:

[ snip ]

 

I'm not sure about macs, but on Windows, it's not rare to see dual cores working at over 50% most of the time on IDLE, only to be pinned at 100% more often than not because it just can't handle the load the moment you start doing anything. Even more so when you have more and more stuff running in the background these days.

Does it work? Sure. Could it be better? Absolutely.

 

[ snip ]

 

I agree dual cores should be out. But if you have a dual-crore that idles at 50%, it's an issue with your installation, not the hardware.

 

My wife still uses a 2nd gen dual-core pentium (B820 IIRC), and it's nowhere near 50% at idle. Does it suck? Yeah, does it peaks at 100% utilization from time to time? Of course. But it's closer to 5-10% at idle (and I haven't done any major cleanup for the last 2 years).

 

Nowadays, 8GB of RAM and an SSD is what really makes a difference (my work laptop has a shit HDD, and it will often feel slower than my wife's 8yo laptop, even though my work laptop has a 6300U).

Edited April 14, 2020 by wkdpaul

[Guest]

11 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Well this was a short circuit video, right?

They are meant to be quick and not that well researched, so it's understandable that they have inaccuracies in them. This whole thread seems like it's blowing some quick comment out of proportions.

LMG videos in general. This isn’t really the first time, but I agree it’s mostly on SC and the WAN show.