What have you done with an early Intel recently?

[DCBassman]

With the Macbook Pro 8,2 happily settled on Macos 14.3.1, I've been trying to decide what to do with the mid-2011 iMac. Bar the graphics, it's fully upgraded, so the basic machine spec is very good - i7, 32GB RAM, nice SSD.
Can't seem to sell it, so decided to keep it just as a toy. Windows box is back to daily driver duties. The MBP is daily driver away from home. Reading through some of the other posts on here, an itch for an 11" Macbook Air has developed. What models/years would be best to look out for?

 

[Amethyst1]

[…] reading through some of the other posts on here, an itch for an 11" Macbook Air has developed. What models/years would be best to look out for?

Recommended:
2012 because: max 8 GB RAM, USB 3.0, Metal-capable GPU.
2013/2014 additionally has better battery life and faster PCIe SSDs.
2015 additionally has Thunderbolt 2 and DisplayPort 1.2 for 4K60 support on external displays.

Not Recommended (unless you're fine with these limitations):
2011 because: max 4 GB RAM, USB 2.0, non-Metal GPU.
2010 additionally has a dog-slow CPU (1.4/1.6 GHz C2D).

 

[B S Magnet]

2010 additionally has a dog-slow CPU (1.4/1.6 GHz C2D).

1) Don’t say this where @TheShortTimer might hear it
2) What about greyhounds

 

[Amethyst1]

1) Don’t say this where @TheShortTimer might hear it

I have a 2010 11” MBA as well

 

[rin67630]

Recommended:
2012...2013-2015...

I am not a fan of the 11" models. They look somewhat like netbooks with a poor "HD-Ready" screen resolution.
The 13" models are ways better with a 900*1400 screen resolution, which renders the same data than the Retina models (but –of course– more pixelated).

And you ought to chose the 8GB RAM models, the soldered RAM cannot be retrofitted.

 

[B S Magnet]

And you ought to chose the 8GB RAM models, the soldered RAM cannot be retrofitted.

Except when it can.

 

[Amethyst1]

I am not a fan of the 11" models.

The OP specifically asked about 11” so I provided my take on those. I’m not a fan of their displays either FWIW.

The 13" models are ways better with a 900*1400 screen resolution, which renders the same data than the Retina models (but –of course– more pixelated).

I might as well get a 13” retina MBP then which is just slightly thicker and heavier but has an “infinitely” better screen.

 

[DCBassman]

Recommended:
2012 because: max 8 GB RAM, USB 3.0, Metal-capable GPU.
2013/2014 additionally has better battery life and faster PCIe SSDs.
2015 additionally has Thunderbolt 2 and DisplayPort 1.2 for 4K60 support on external displays.

Not Recommended (unless you're fine with these limitations):
2011 because: max 4 GB RAM, USB 2.0, non-Metal GPU.
2010 additionally has a dog-slow CPU (1.4/1.6 GHz C2D).

Excellent, thank you.

I am not a fan of the 11" models. They look somewhat like netbooks with a poor "HD-Ready" screen resolution.

I have a small collection of Asus Vivobooks with the same screen size/resolution, so it's home turf for me.

 

[TheShortTimer]

1) Don’t say this where @TheShortTimer might hear it

I'm the first to acknowledge its limitations, which is why I'm delighted with how far I've been able to push it beyond what Apple's engineers had conceived.

2) What about greyhounds

Eh?

I have a 2010 11” MBA as well

He does indeed.

I am not a fan of the 11" models.

Too bad. I am!

They look somewhat like netbooks with a poor "HD-Ready" screen resolution.

None of my netbooks come remotely close to my 11" MBA's appearance wise or in any other way for that matter.

 

[rin67630]

The OP specifically asked about 11” so I provided my take on those. I’m not a fan of their displays either FWIW.


I might as well get a 13” retina MBP then which is just slightly thicker and heavier but has an “infinitely” better screen.

The 13" Retina screen is much prettier, but it does not display more information than the default recommended Retina screen.
And the 13" MB Air had a better screen resolution (900 x 1440) than the 13" non-retine MB Pro which had only 800 x 1280.

 

[Amethyst1]

The 13" Retina screen is much prettier, but it does not display more information.

It does, because it offers a 1680×1050 HiDPI mode which is what I’m using on mine.

 

[rin67630]

It does, because it offers a 1680×1050 HiDPI mode which is what I’m using on mine.

Ok, you can even push the resolution further than standard 4:1 on the Retinas, but you lose on crispness and at full 1:1 resolution, it is frankly unusable: everything is so tiny...

P.S. On Windows, even the 1,5 x resolution is crisp. That is what I use on my 15" MBA.

 

[B S Magnet]

Eh?

“‘Slow as a dog,’ but greyhound fast. Me talk this way too.”

---

Open announcement to all!

Don’t like your Core iX 11-inch MBA (anymore)?

NO PROBLEM!

Send your unloved, working 11-inch MBAs to:

B S Magnet
11 Unsoldered RAM Mews
New Canada City, ON A0Z 0R4
Canada

 

[Amethyst1]

Ok, you can even push the resolution further than standard 4:1 on the Retinas, but you lose on crispness and at full 1:1 resolution, it is frankly unusable: everything is so tiny...

Yeah, that is the trade-off macOS' way of handling "non-integer" scaling forces the user to make.

P.S. On Windows, even the 1,5 x resolution is crisp. That is what I use on my 15" MBA.

I use that setting on my (Windows) work-issued laptop too.

 

[Dronecatcher]

I installed Big Sur on my 2009 MBP at the weekend via OpenCore and I can't quite believe how slick it runs considering the age and spec of the machine. I bumped the RAM to 8GB and installed a cheapo SSD but even so, browsing in Safari is so fast - bit shocked!

 

[B S Magnet]

I installed Big Sur on my 2009 MBP at the weekend via OpenCore and I can't quite believe how slick it runs considering the age and spec of the machine. I bumped the RAM to 8GB and installed a cheapo SSD but even so, browsing in Safari is so fast - bit shocked!

It never ceases to amaze me whenever a new report of a “modern” build of macOS installs and works really well on a vintage Mac, such as 2008–09-era MacBook/Pros/Airs. It really re-directs the mirror back onto Apple’s decision making process for allowing installations even in circumstances where they, outright, say they won’t support it.

The two things holding me back from running Catalina, Big Sur, Monterey, or even Sonoma on my pre-2011 Macs are A) the 32-bit application thing; and B) the ongoing deterioration in the quality and forethought of the current-era UI/UX… I’m not impressed.

 

[rin67630]

The two things holding me back from running Catalina, Big Sur, Monterey, or even Sonoma on my pre-2011 Macs are A) the 32-bit application thing; and B) the ongoing deterioration in the quality and forethought of the current-era UI/UX… I’m not impressed.

The two things holding me back from running Catalina, Big Sur, Monterey, on my 2013-2015 Macs are:
a) the dropped offline dictation after Mojave. It's something Apple did really well and I enjoy it a lot.
Maybe the only thing keeping me using macOS.
b) the Photos / Music apps which pushes progressively with each new version more onto Apple subscriptions.

 

[theMarble]

It never ceases to amaze me whenever a new report of a “modern” build of macOS installs and works really well on a vintage Mac, such as 2008–09-era MacBook/Pros/Airs. It really re-directs the mirror back onto Apple’s decision making process for allowing installations even in circumstances where they, outright, say they won’t support it.

Absolutely! Always love to see them still getting used in a modern capacity, even if it isn't your main machine. I really need to get my A1342 back running OCLP-magic, it has probably been a good year or two since I last tried it, and since then it has been upgraded from 4GB of RAM to 10GB, so should run a bit better.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe OCLP does spoof the Model I.D. and maybe more in the boot process including the motherboard I.D. to allow the installer to get past the prohibitory sign.

In the Snow Leopard days, all that would be checked to see if the Mac was "supported" or not (and therefore controlling whether the prohibitory sign displays or not) was the Model I.D. against a file in the ESD package called "SupportedMachines.plist".

All that file contained was the list of identifiers that were classified as "supported machines" and "unsupported machines". Surprisingly, even on Snow Leopard and possibly Lion, most New-World PPC machines were still on that list in the unsupported section, including some early G3's like the G3 B/W IIRC.

Obviously even if the file was edited to add a certain PPC Mac to the supported list, it still wouldn't boot, however one way it was used was to allow recovery discs from one Intel Mac to be used on another Intel Mac.

I don't know if that list still exists in macOS these days.

 

[headlessmike]

Absolutely! Always love to see them still getting used in a modern capacity, even if it isn't your main machine. I really need to get my A1342 back running OCLP-magic, it has probably been a good year or two since I last tried it, and since then it has been upgraded from 4GB of RAM to 10GB, so should run a bit better.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe OCLP does spoof the Model I.D. and maybe more in the boot process including the motherboard I.D. to allow the installer to get past the prohibitory sign.

In the Snow Leopard days, all that would be checked to see if the Mac was "supported" or not (and therefore controlling whether the prohibitory sign displays or not) was the Model I.D. against a file in the ESD package called "SupportedMachines.plist".

All that file contained was the list of identifiers that were classified as "supported machines" and "unsupported machines". Surprisingly, even on Snow Leopard and possibly Lion, most New-World PPC machines were still on that list in the unsupported section, including some early G3's like the G3 B/W IIRC.

Obviously even if the file was edited to add a certain PPC Mac to the supported list, it still wouldn't boot, however one way it was used was to allow recovery discs from one Intel Mac to be used on another Intel Mac.

I don't know if that list still exists in macOS these days.

There are different ways to use OCLP to install an unsupported OS. Spoofing with the ID from a supported Mac is one way, but I believe in more recent versions it essentially tricks the OS into thinking that it's being run in a virtual machine as the default method.

I have an A1342 with 16 GB of RAM and an SSD. It runs Sonoma remarkably well. It just needs a few minutes after boot up to catch its breath, but once that's done it'll run most things I throw at it with decent performance.

 

[B S Magnet]

Absolutely! Always love to see them still getting used in a modern capacity, even if it isn't your main machine. I really need to get my A1342 back running OCLP-magic, it has probably been a good year or two since I last tried it, and since then it has been upgraded from 4GB of RAM to 10GB, so should run a bit better.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe OCLP does spoof the Model I.D. and maybe more in the boot process including the motherboard I.D. to allow the installer to get past the prohibitory sign.

In the Snow Leopard days, all that would be checked to see if the Mac was "supported" or not (and therefore controlling whether the prohibitory sign displays or not) was the Model I.D. against a file in the ESD package called "SupportedMachines.plist".

Someone should correct me on this, but I believe ESD packages didn’t come about until at least Lion. ESDs and recovery partitions and the like all came about with the jettisoning of optical media installations.

 

[Amethyst1]

Someone should correct me on this, but I believe ESD packages didn’t come about until at least Lion. ESDs and recovery partitions and the like all came about with the jettisoning of optical media installations.

Correct, but in a way, the Snow Leopard thumb drive that came with 2010 MBAs was the nail in the coffin for install DVDs.

 

[theMarble]

Someone should correct me on this, but I believe ESD packages didn’t come about until at least Lion. ESDs and recovery partitions and the like all came about with the jettisoning of optical media installations.

Yes, you are correct. Lion was the first retail release to come with ESD packages. Got my words mixed up.

What I actually meant was the old OSInstall package on the DVD installers. That's where the Supported Machines list lived.

the Snow Leopard thumb drive that came with 2010 MBAs was the nail in the coffin for install DVDs.

Never knew that! Did the first-gen Airs come with thumb drives as well or did you have to use a DVD + the USB SuperDrive?

 

[Amethyst1]

Did the first-gen Airs come with thumb drives as well

Nope.

or did you have to use a DVD + the USB SuperDrive?

That… or another computer’s.

 

[headlessmike]

Never knew that! Did the first-gen Airs come with thumb drives as well or did you have to use a DVD + the USB SuperDrive?

They came with Leopard on DVDs. In addition to using a USB SuperDrive you could use Remote Disk to access the DVD drive on another Mac on the same network. The MacBook Air was after all not intended to be your only machine, but a lightweight companion to your main Mac.

The Remote Disk feature worked (works?) with other Macs too, and not just with OS installs. I recall a coworker whose MacBook Pro had a dead optical drive used the one on my laptop to read a disk in around 2012.

 

[Amethyst1]

The Remote Disk feature worked (works?) with other Mac too.

It works with Windows systems as well after installing a piece of software. The MBA at least can (necessarily) also boot OS X from a remote DVD, implying EFI-level support.