Oh... I actually have no idea. Worth a try though? The drivers have been around since the Snow Leopard days, and worst case scenario nothing happens, right?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What have you done with an early Intel recently?
- Thread starter Project Alice
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yep. Hehe - I remember that at one point, with my GTX 660 eGPU experiments, the drivers actually made matters worse (disabled all outputs)
Last edited:
Sure enough, without hardware acceleration Mountain Lion sucks
. I have to keep exploring linux distros. Ironically, the best behavior for now I get from Windoze. I am looking for a friendly, small, safe and manageable environment with the few available resources. I will keep exploring Gave my 2007 MBP + Radeon HD 6870 eGPU setup a try running the UltraFine. More weirdness
- 10.6.8: screen is black (OS X recognises it and says it's driving it at 3840×2160 30 Hz)
- 10.8.5: screen is black (OS X recognises it and says it's driving it at 3840×2160 30 Hz)
- 10.9.5: screen is black but occasionally flickers on for a fraction of a second (OS X recognises it and says it's driving it at 3840×2160 30 Hz)
- 10.10.5: driven at 640×480 60 Hz; selecting 1920×1440 (the only other option) results in heavy distortion
- 10.11.6: driven at 3840×2160 30 Hz; comes up in 1920×1080 HiDPI
- 10.6.8: screen is black (OS X recognises it and says it's driving it at 3840×2160 30 Hz)
- 10.8.5: screen is black (OS X recognises it and says it's driving it at 3840×2160 30 Hz)
- 10.9.5: screen is black but occasionally flickers on for a fraction of a second (OS X recognises it and says it's driving it at 3840×2160 30 Hz)
- 10.10.5: driven at 640×480 60 Hz; selecting 1920×1440 (the only other option) results in heavy distortion
- 10.11.6: driven at 3840×2160 30 Hz; comes up in 1920×1080 HiDPI
Last edited:
All tests are using Wacom Link Plus connected to 22 inch LG UltraFine 4K display (4096x2304)?Gave my 2007 MBP + Radeon HD 6870 eGPU setup a try running the UltraFine. More weirdness
- 10.6.8: screen is black (OS X recognises it and says it's driving it at 3840×2160 30 Hz)
- 10.8.5: screen is black (OS X recognises it and says it's driving it at 3840×2160 30 Hz)
- 10.9.5: screen is black but occasionally flickers on for a fraction of a second (OS X recognises it and says it's driving it at 3840×2160 30 Hz)
- 10.10.5: driven at 640×480 60 Hz; selecting 1920×1440 (the only other option) results in heavy distortion
- 10.11.6: driven at 3840×2160 30 Hz; comes up in 1920×1080 HiDPI
All tests are using the Mini DisplayPort 1.2 input and USB 2.0 input of the Wacom Link Plus with separate USB-C power input?
Might be interesting to get an EDID from each test plus an ioreg dump of the GPU tree.
I don't think you can trust the Wacom Link Plus to work correctly without the USB-C power input in all cases but I think I've seen videos where it can work without the USB-C power input in some cases. On the side is the video input (Mini DisplayPort 1.2 or HDMI 1.4) and USB 2.0 input. At one end is the USB-C power input and the other end is the USB-C DisplayPort Alt Mode output (four lanes of DisplayPort + USB 2.0 mode only).
Thanks. That's good to know. All my tests so far have been without USB-C power input. I'll redo them.
Just to be sure - it is not possible to damage the UltraFine by supplying the Wacom with USB-C power is it?
Unlikely. The USB-C power input will be normal USB power. The Wacom Link Plus will use it or not use it. Nothing will melt unless there's something already very damaged.
I have a 5V 1.55A USB-A charger (that would need an USB-A to USB-C cable), and a 29W Apple USB-C charger. Is the first one worth trying or shall I go with the second right away?
The Link Plus is designed to power a Cintiq via its USB-C power input. That's why I'm slightly reluctant to use that in conjunction with a monitor designed to also supply power via USB-C (sorry if that's paranoid)...
I tried the patched Mountain Lion again on my 2006 MBP and the two actually perform more similarly than I remember. I think both Lion and Mountain Lion are good options for this Mac. I would suggest Lion to those who don't want to use patched installers/drivers and Mountain Lion to those who are okay with patched stuff.
What you're looking for is improved or changed behavior from previous tests. I guess I would try both.
USB-C Power Delivery does a lot of negotiation so that things don't blow up. You can do things like connect two computers via USB-C and they won't melt. Don't try that with USB-A (but USB-A to USB-C should be ok).
Today, when the new Win10Pro-FileServer arrived in the office, I had to decomission all my white early-intel Macs, who did a great job serving as "thin-clients" (with OSX+MS-RemoteDesktopClient) to access my WinServer2008-TerminalClientServer. 😢
Now a bunch of newer early-intels (four 24" c2duo early-2009 iMacs together with a 15" c2duo 2009 MBP) took over as fat Win10Pro workstations, but are noticably slower compared to the thin-client/RPD-approach. And I'm really gonna miss the appearance of the white iMacs ...
The 15"MBP is fixed onto an mStand using Velcro-tape to prevent it from slipping off the stand. That combination makes it a perfect standing-desk with a firm stand and also too clunky to "disappear".
Overall costs are far far below the alternative choice of 5 new-Win10Pro-Workstations plus an upgrade to a new WinServer2019-TerminalClientServer plus all the licensing. Managing the network (now FileServer/Workgroup vs. the old TerminalClientServer/domain) is a snap now - even for close-to-dummie guys like me 😀!
So that's the happy ending of this story ... 🙃
Now a bunch of newer early-intels (four 24" c2duo early-2009 iMacs together with a 15" c2duo 2009 MBP) took over as fat Win10Pro workstations, but are noticably slower compared to the thin-client/RPD-approach. And I'm really gonna miss the appearance of the white iMacs ...
The 15"MBP is fixed onto an mStand using Velcro-tape to prevent it from slipping off the stand. That combination makes it a perfect standing-desk with a firm stand and also too clunky to "disappear".
Overall costs are far far below the alternative choice of 5 new-Win10Pro-Workstations plus an upgrade to a new WinServer2019-TerminalClientServer plus all the licensing. Managing the network (now FileServer/Workgroup vs. the old TerminalClientServer/domain) is a snap now - even for close-to-dummie guys like me 😀!
So that's the happy ending of this story ... 🙃
Last edited:
Completed my install of mavericks on unsupported 17 inch iMac 5,1..and the issues Id had have all disappeared.
Currently running Firefox 78.9.0esr (64-bit).
Feels like a new computer being so up to date..and all good so far.
Currently running Firefox 78.9.0esr (64-bit).
Feels like a new computer being so up to date..and all good so far.
Retested the UltraFine on the 2010 MBA, while supplying the Wacom Link Plus with USB-C power (via a 29W Apple USB-C charger). No difference to the previous tests without extra power.
Last edited:
I have to say, I'm frankly a little disappointed this doesn't just work. It's not like 4K screens didn't exist ten years ago—they were rare, sure, but professionals had them. And I suspect Windows 7 wouldn't have any trouble.
Tried the patched version of Mavericks again on my 2006 MBP. Last time I tried it, Chromium Legacy didn’t work on Mavericks and I had graphical issues with Discord on Firefox 78 ESR. Chromium Legacy works now on Mavericks and runs pretty good on the MBP. Discord works fine on Chromium Legacy, just like it does when running Chromium Legacy on Lion or Mountain Lion on this Mac. Mavericks is a bit slower than ML on this Mac, but there’s no show stopping issues. Debating whether or not to keep Mavericks on this MBP or go back to ML.
My Dell P2415Q (3840×2160) or IBM T221 (3840×2400) "just work". It's the UltraFine's even higher/wider 4096×2304 resolution that's causing the trouble.
I find it interesting and ironic that the little 2010 MBA's GeForce 320M can drive the full resolution, even if only at 30 Hz (and display a usable picture on Yosemite and up) but newer Intel Sandy Bridge or Haswell iGPUs cannot and only do 3840×2160 on the UltraFine, at least on OS X. Perhaps I should do some tests on Windows. 4096×2304 at 48 Hz works fine on Broadwell GPUs though.
Last edited:
Ah, I missed that this was higher than 4K. Still, seems to me it really "should" work out of the box.
If it was a bandwidth/hardware limitation that would be one thing, but that doesn't appear to be the case, particularly given that you're seeing different results on different OS's.
The 5K iMac came out in 2014. So, again, while 5K displays weren't common at all, they certainly existed, and Apple knew about them.
Last edited:
Here's a picture ...I sure would love to see that
Spent hours in the office and at home (through VPN/RDP) to get all things straight with the network- and other settings on all machines.
Cumbersome job on an awkward operating system.
The keyboard is protected with a TPU-cover - same for the small USB-keyboards (w/o Num-block) on the iMacs. Both keyboards have the same size and layout.
Perfect for keeping things clean.
Attachments
Last edited:
Yeah, this is puzzling. Maybe early versions of OS X cannot read the monitor's EDID correctly or something, given I'm stuck at 640x480 in some tests.
The thing is - most of these require two discrete DisplayPort connections, each driving one half of the display at 2560×2880. So, they're not running into a potential wider-than-3840-pixels issue.
Last edited:
SwitchResX will have the EDID. Compare it with the EDID from ioreg.