Discussion in 'Buying Advice' started by tonymacx86, Sep 11, 2014.
I still have my GA X58a UD7 with ATI 6780. Runs Yosemite with no trouble at all.
Can I actually install El Capitan on my Sandy Bridge processor? I'm on 10.9.5, running very stable but really tempted to update my os. Are there any guides or trick?
Before you update your Mavericks drive try it on an empty SSD or HDD to see if it will work.
If it does, make a Carbon Copy Cloner image of your Mavs drive just to be safe.
El Capitan runs just fine on my Sandy Bridge, I can only recommend it!
Yeah I never was successful finding a solid How To guide... but I might try again... I have a Z77-UD5H with a Ivy Bridge Core i5 3570K, and a GTX 760
Any suggestions or people with this same setup running the newest utilities and OS??
Adrian B I have yet another query concerning the wifi, is the onboard wifi card now supported in Sierra? It has not been supported prior to my knowledge and a search in here turns up only old posts from 2012/13. Are there some kexts that allow it to work now?
If not, should a usb type wifi adapter work?
Depends on whether or not you need the latest video cards, the latest USB controllers, the greatest memory throughput, a better NIC, better audio, etc.
That is basically the limitation of the Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1 - PCIE2.0. Would it even make a difference if you were gaming under MS Windows? Probably not; you'd probably get greater performance by going with a faster CPU and max fast RAM.
Your assessment is valid for most hardware upgrades, though - provided one starts with the fastest CPU, with its faster cache, and max faster RAM. It's why upgrading to the latest Intel hardware doesn't really give a major performance boost, say, going with DDR4 2133 - it isn't any faster than DDR3 2400. The reason to go with DDR4 is because of RAM prices, with DDR4 being cheaper than DDR3, along with the 64GB versus 32GB limit.
To my mind, why bother going with the 'latest and greatest' if you can't start with max performance right out of the gate? Why go with the 'latest and greatest' and then cripple it with a slow CPU and less than max memory? Usually it's because of cost considerations, no?, that one intends to upgrade later on. But, life being what it is, one becomes complacent with what one already has and seldom upgrades as they should.
But those who don't start with the fastest CPU, with max RAM capacity, with SSDs, etc., are more likely to see a greater performance increase when they move over to the latest technology. Then those 3 to 5 year old PCs make sense replacing. [At work we are surplusing hundreds of PCs that, imo, only need a RAM and/or CPU update, and maybe changing over to SSD disk drives, to extend their life another 3 to 5 years. But, when you start with the lowest performance hardware, going with the latest lowest performance tech does increase performance. The 3 year old lowest hardware PC is slower than the newest low performance hardware.]
But I don't believe going with curtailed performance is the way to go, either, say, going to a two RAM slot ITX mobo, that can only take a CPU that is limited by the heat sink size, limited by the power supply size, the number of disk drives, etc. One is then choosing form over function. I doubt that a mini-ITX PC really needs NV disk drives, for example. One ends up with planned obsolescence, with an appliance that cannot be upgraded, nor repaired, for example, MS Surfaces, newest iMacs, iPads, iPods, Intel NUCs, etc. And MS isn't helping any with Windows 10 no longer supporting older chipsets and CPUs, just as Apple forced many to abandon older tech that was not deemed upgradeable. Apple's mindset seems to have shifted to an appliance mindset, where PCs are treated just like iPhones; they want yearly replacement, which, if you think about it, mirrors Intel coming out with new processors every year. But the tech savvy know how to extend the life of their investments...
Separate names with a comma.