Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 12837]

Really? On both my Mac's Chrome uses far more memory. I can't comment on the dev tools stuff, but I know recently I was tinkering with some Jquery and FanxyBox code for a portfolio gallery, and it was Chrome that couldn't properly render the animation differences when I was tinkering with different animation loop and blend options. Though overall, it's quite possible Chrome is much better with dev tools. I guess it does make sense, and I would expect google to be better on that front over Apple.

Yeah that's why I pointed out a lot of it is subjective or anecdotal. It's going to depend a lot on how each person's computer is set up, and how the browsers are set up (extensions installed, # of tabs open, types of websites frequented, computer hardware, etc)

When I switched to a rMBP with 256GB SSD, I had to remove Chrome because it was so bulky. Apparently if you keep updating Chrome over many years with lots of new versions the program gets very large because it never deletes the old versions. My copy of Chrome was over 15GB in my applications folder when I deleted it!!!

By comparison Safari is 29.4 MB in my applications folder...

I meant memory footprint.

No idea what was going on with your install that would make it 15 GB, though. Sounds like something else was wrong.

 

[Aroo]

I like Firefox on OSX. Last time I checked it didn't use as much memory as Chrome or Safari.


Anyways, Mac Pro owners rejoice (for a brief moment.) EVGA announced a 680 GTX Mac edition card. You still need to use hack to get it to work under CS6 in OSX but it should get official support eventually just like the 650 TI.

http://www.evga.com/articles/00730/#3682

 

[Deku Tree]

No idea what was going on with your install that would make it 15 GB, though. Sounds like something else was wrong.

http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=20120426095831578

"Google Chrome keeps older versions of its web browser causing it to balloon in size."

 

[Deleted member 12837]

http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=20120426095831578

"Google Chrome keeps older versions of its web browser causing it to balloon in size."

I wonder what makes Chrome keep older versions on some machines and not on others? Judging by the comments in that thread, it's completely random.

Also, how old is your machine to have 15 GB worth of Chrome versions? Mine has 2 (latest and previous) and each is ~135 MB. That means you have 110+ versions of Chrome on your machine. I didn't even realize there were that many releases.

 

[Deku Tree]

I wonder what makes Chrome keep older versions on some machines and not on others? Judging by the comments in that thread, it's completely random.

Also, how old is your machine to have 15 GB worth of Chrome versions? Mine has 2 (latest and previous) and each is ~135 MB. That means you have 110+ versions of Chrome on your machine. I didn't even realize there were that many releases.

I downloaded chrome from the beginning, and every update since then. When I get a new main machine, I simply reinstall my most recent time machine backup onto my new machine so it has everything installed exactly as I like it with all preferences and everything else the same. So I had every version of mac chrome on my machine when I finally deleted chrome. Otherwise I don't know exactly how it got so big. (Maybe because of plugins? I don't know, I never investigated it. I just deleted the whole thing.)

 

[Deleted member 12837]

I downloaded chrome from the beginning, and every update since then. When I get a new main machine, I simply reinstall my most recent time machine backup onto my new machine so it has everything installed exactly as I like it with all preferences and everything else the same. So I had every version of mac chrome on my machine when I finally deleted chrome. Otherwise I don't know exactly how it got so big. (Maybe because of plugins? I don't know, I never investigated it. I just deleted the whole thing.)

Ah that explains it. I'm really neurotic about doing clean installs when I get a new machine, for exactly this reason (gets rid of any lingering, hiding files or apps that I don't actually need or want anymore).

It takes an extra hour or so to get my environment set up the way I like it, which is the obvious downside, but I copy over my dotfiles and a text file list of steps, apps, settings, etc to make it easier.

 

[Sanic]

I've been trying to switch over to Firefox from chrome due to java support, but I just can't seem to get used to the interface. Unfortunate, because chrome seems a bit janky as of the most recent version.

 

[travisbickle]

My wife picked up a 1tb hard drive recently, with the idea we would share it.

I didn't want to use Time Machine because I assumed Time Machine takes up the whole HD? Is there an alternative that will only back up certain folders when it's connected? That way we can both keep sub folders on there.

 

[Deku Tree]

My wife picked up a 1tb hard drive recently, with the idea we would share it.

I didn't want to use Time Machine because I assumed Time Machine takes up the whole HD? Is there an alternative that will only back up certain folders when it's connected? That way we can both keep sub folders on there.

No Time Machine need not take up the whole HDD. You can put other stuff on it. I do.

 

[anonymous_abc]

My wife picked up a 1tb hard drive recently, with the idea we would share it.

I didn't want to use Time Machine because I assumed Time Machine takes up the whole HD? Is there an alternative that will only back up certain folders when it's connected? That way we can both keep sub folders on there.

and yes you can only back up certain folders, no problem.

 

[The Real Abed]

http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=20120426095831578

"Google Chrome keeps older versions of its web browser causing it to balloon in size."

Yeah. It's weird. It really should delete the older one after restarting but it doesn't. I just delete the lower number folder myself and be done with it. Weird.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

I'm trying to use my external monitor with my Air (mid 2012) with a thunderbolt to hdmi adaptor. The external monitor is 1080p, but when I set the settings on the mac it keeps randomly flickering the external screen and not displaying anything. setting to 720p keeps it on screen but 1080p does not.

Anyone know of a fix? It's driving me crazy.

 

[TheDrowningMan]

To listen to some, it's an abortion of a device for this purpose but I'm very happy with the (15") rMBP for the odd bit of gaming. I seldom PC game so it's not by any means its primary use, but I'm playing Alan Wake at 1200x800 with everything other than AA maxed (I've gone for 4x for a slightly smoother frame rate) and it just blitzes the 360 version. Much better looking, much smoother. Fully maxed & plugged into a TV at 720p, I'm sure it's even more awesome, and that's likely something I'll do to maximise its potential as increasingly advanced games come along.

1080p plus is easily achievable, but I'd rather have the gorgeous effects dialled up; I don't sit with my nose to the screen, so the downsampling isn't an issue.

If I can get a couple of years of medium-ish gaming from this point, I'll easily hold out on buying PS4 to sit beside my Wii U until the price has dropped. Or maybe I'll find that my next MBP purchase (circa 2014-15) allows me to carry on at mid level PC but console beating level for longer still.

 

[Blackhead]

To listen to some, it's an abortion of a device for this purpose but I'm very happy with the (15") rMBP for the odd bit of gaming. I seldom PC game so it's not by any means its primary use, but I'm playing Alan Wake at 1200x800 with everything other than AA maxed (I've gone for 4x for a slightly smoother frame rate) and it just blitzes the 360 version. Much better looking, much smoother. Fully maxed & plugged into a TV at 720p, I'm sure it's even more awesome, and that's likely something I'll do to maximise its potential as increasingly advanced games come along.

1080p plus is easily achievable, but I'd rather have the gorgeous effects dialled up; I don't sit with my nose to the screen, so the downsampling isn't an issue.

If I can get a couple of years of medium-ish gaming from this point, I'll easily hold out on buying PS4 to sit beside my Wii U until the price has dropped. Or maybe I'll find that my next MBP purchase (circa 2014-15) allows me to carry on at mid level PC but console beating level for longer still.

I don't quite understand: you're saying you can't run Alan Wake (2010) at max settings but you'll be able to do so for more advanced games in the future?

 

[TheDrowningMan]

I don't quite understand: you're saying you can't run Alan Wake (2010) at max settings but you'll be able to do so for more advanced games in the future?

No, for starters Alan Wake PC was 2012 and gave plenty of decent machines a hefty workload - that lighting isn't cheap - and by "maximise it's potential" I mean running games at an acceptable (medium or low, if necessary) level by console standards by plugging it into a TV, where, say, 720p will have far fewer down sampling scars than on the retina display. Alan Wake runs great at 720p with 8xAA & is much smoother than the 360 version at 1200x800, I just found the trade off worthwhile.

I'm obviously not expecting PS4-exclusive performance, but I don't think too many multi-format games will be making the most of that hardware for a couple of years yet. More the sort of "comfortably above 360/PS3" performance a decent PC will achieve.

 

[Blackhead]

No, for starters Alan Wake PC was 2012 and gave plenty of decent machines a hefty workload - that lighting isn't cheap - and by "maximise it's potential" I mean running games at an acceptable (medium or low, if necessary) level by console standards by plugging it into a TV, where, say, 720p will have far fewer down sampling scars than on the retina display. Alan Wake runs great at 720p with 8xAA & is much smoother than the 360 version at 1200x800, I just found the trade off worthwhile.

I'm obviously not expecting PS4-exclusive performance, but I don't think too many multi-format games will be making the most of that hardware for a couple of years yet. More the sort of "comfortably above 360/PS3" performance a decent PC will achieve.

ok. Alan Wake for 360 came out in 2010 by the way. *shrug* if you're happy with the rMBP performance, good for you.

 

[Guess Who]

Instead of running at 720p with 8xAA, why not... just run at a higher resolution with less AA? You know higher resolutions reduce jaggies too, right?

 

[TheDrowningMan]

ok. Alan Wake for 360 came out in 2010 by the way. *shrug* if you're happy with the rMBP performance, good for you.

I know, I had it in all its 960x540 glory. The PC version annihilates it, as you'd expect. Given that it wasn't bought with the slightest consideration for gaming, am I happy that it easily bests the current consoles & will it buy me some time before getting a PS4? Absolutely!

 

[TheDrowningMan]

Instead of running at 720p with 8xAA, why not... just run at a higher resolution with less AA? You know higher resolutions reduce jaggies too, right?

Sure, I've tinkered with the options a lot and found that the ideal trade-off. I'm a chronic fiddler with PC settings, which is one of the reasons I stick to consoles...the amount of time I've spent in menus and GPU tools through the years.

Having said that, switching SSAO from high to low and ramping the res to 1600x900 is possibly even better. So I'm giving that a shot right now. Again, I'm coming at this strictly from the position of a console gamer; I wouldn't expect one for whom PC gaming is the standard to be as happy as I am just to decimate the current-gen equivalents.

 

[Spawnling]

Is the thunderbolt display port the same as minidisplay port?

I'm connecting my macbook pro to my external monitor. Just wanted to double check before I make any purchases.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Is the thunderbolt display port the same as minidisplay port?

I'm connecting my macbook pro to my external monitor. Just wanted to double check before I make any purchases.

yep.

 

[RBH]

Apple has informed its official retail stores, AppleCare employees, and authorized resellers that a small number of third-generation Apple TV units have WiFi issues. These issues surround not being able to locate a WiFi network, unable to join a network, and dropped or intermittent connections.

"Apple has determined that a very small number of Apple TV (3rd generation) products might experience one of these Wi-Fi related connectivity issues: Cannot locate network, Unable to join network, Dropped or intermittent connection."

If an Apple technician determines that an applicable Apple TV has these issues, the unit can be replaced as part of a replacement program that Apple has begun because of these WiFi issues. Apple says that replacements can be offered free of charge up to two years after the device’s purchase date.

http://9to5mac.com/2013/04/15/apple...s-have-wifi-issues-opens-replacement-program/

 

[The Real Abed]

Don't know if this was posted but it's an interesting blast into the past to a time when Apple was just getting back on its feet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-hD7xT_SbU

Computer Chronicles was a great show. They dedicated this episode to Apple being back in the black, the brand new iMac, the new G3 processors and PowerMac, OS 8.1 and 8.5 features (Sherlock! Faster than Windows NT!), the new Apple Studio Display and a cameo from a pre-Aqua OS X. (Look, Ma! No crashes!)

 

[Crazymoogle]

Anybody tried "upgrading" their 1st gen AppleTV before? I see FireCore as an option but they're not super clear on the features unlocked. I guess it's just to enable avi/mkv support?

 

[kennah]

So torn. I need a MacBook Pro for work (my 2006 black just isn't cutting it anymore). There is no point in buying right now before the new ones come out but by the time they do my really busy time at work will be done.

 

[Technosteve]

Anybody tried "upgrading" their 1st gen AppleTV before? I see FireCore as an option but they're not super clear on the features unlocked. I guess it's just to enable avi/mkv support?

Hockey Puck one or the big silver one? You can run XBMC the big silver one might not be able to handle HD decodes.

 

[oatmeal]

All of my parts for my first "Hack Pro" build is showing up at my house right now and I'm out of town

 

[Futureman]

are there rumored specs for the upcoming 15" Retina Pro? Is the main issue the graphics card powering the display?

I use a lot of After Effects with some complex stuff going on. I wonder how the 2013 Retina Pro will compare to my 2011 27" iMac (AMD Radeon HD 6770M w/ 512MB of GDDR5 memory powering the 27" display's 2560x1440 pixels resolution, 2.7GHz i5 w/ 6MB L3 cache, 16 GB RAM).

How does the Retina's NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M w/ 1GB (powering 2880x1800) compare to my iMac's AMD HD 6770M w/ 512 MB (powering 2560x1440)? and is their an obvious upgrade they will go w/ next for the graphics card?


EDIT:

Just looked up some performance checks, and the Retina's current graphics card is slightly better than my iMac's, but it has to push slightly more pixels. Wash. The Retina's processor is slower clocked, but it's an i7... wash? Either way, the 2013 Retina should out perform my current setup. Only thing I'm worried about is the machine getting hot and small HDD size (I'm hoping the base 15" Retina either gets bumped to 512 GB SDD or $200 price drop).

 

[Crazymoogle]

Hockey Puck one or the big silver one? You can run XBMC the big silver one might not be able to handle HD decodes.

Yeah, the big one. No Netflix on it either. Somebody gave it to me so just trying to figure out how useful it could be compared to just streaming via PS3MC.

 

[ngower]

Anyone have experience with external Blu-ray drives and the newer desktops? I have an iMac and I've accrued a few blu-ray/DVD combos and would love to check out the Blu rays but don't want to buy a drive if functionality or compatibility is a problem. More so than recommendations, I'm mostly looking for first-hand accounts of people's experience with Blu ray and Apple computers.

 

[Autumn Wind]

EDIT:

Just looked up some performance checks, and the Retina's current graphics card is slightly better than my iMac's, but it has to push slightly more pixels. Wash. The Retina's processor is slower clocked, but it's an i7... wash? Either way, the 2013 Retina should out perform my current setup. Only thing I'm worried about is the machine getting hot and small HDD size (I'm hoping the base 15" Retina either gets bumped to 512 GB SDD or $200 price drop).

The 650M should have at least had a 2 GB option to help drive the retina display just as the base 2011 27" iMac should have had 1 GB of memory with the AMD Radeon 6770M. Apple is very cheap on video memory.

 

[Lord Error]

The 650M should have at least had a 2 GB option to help drive the retina display just as the base 2011 27" iMac should have had 1 GB of memory with the AMD Radeon 6770M. Apple is very cheap on video memory.

It would be a waste as the rMPB GPU is not powerful enough to drive complex games at full screen resolution anyway. It's good enough to driving them at 1920x1200 through, and for that 1GB is perfectly fine. Less demanding games do however work fine even at full screen resolution, so I don't think memory is a limiting factor either way. If it had 680M, then sure, I'd agree 2GB would be worth it. But 680M would not be possible to pack into a computer of this size.

 

[Autumn Wind]

It would be a waste as the rMBP GPU is not powerful enough to drive complex games at full screen resolution anyway. It's good enough to driving them at 1920x1200 through, and for that 1GB is perfectly fine. Less demanding games do however work fine even at full screen resolution, so I don't think memory is a limiting factor either way. If it had 680M, then sure, I'd agree 2GB would be worth it. But 680M would not be possible to pack into a computer of this size.

Well what about the two 21.5" iMacs and 27" base model iMac, don't you feel the minimum there should be 1 GB of memory vs. 512 MB? At least on the high-end 21.5" and base 27", have an option for 1 GB?

 

[Lord Error]

Well what about the two 21.5" iMacs and 27" base model iMac, don't you feel the minimum there should be 1 GB of memory vs. 512 MB? At least on the high-end 21.5" and base 27", have an option for 1 GB?

Yes, I agree that 27" should have had 1GB, the resolution on it is more than high enough for that to make sense.

 

[Autumn Wind]

Yes, I agree that 27" should have had 1GB, the resolution on it is more than high enough for that to make sense.

Okay so the 21.5" stay at 512 MB, the base 27" has 1 GB, and the top 27" has 1 GB with an option for 2 GB.

Now what about for 2013?

I have heard someone mention on AppleInsider that the base 21.5" might eventually be able to be run off of integrated graphics which I think would be terrible. The fact that at one time, the base 20" iMac had just the nVidia GeForce 9400M with 256 MB of shared memory was awful for $1,199.

I don't think Intel's graphics will be off the charts until the manufacturing process hits 10nm or less. Haswell is too early and I think even Rockwell is too early.

I also wonder about the future of the mini and when or if the base model will have a quad-core processor.

 

[rc213]

Question, I got Windows 8 installed on my iMac. One issue is when I connect my external usb hdd on Mac I can't copy stuff on to it. I want to be able to use it on both Windows and Mac so what can I do?

 

[TUSR]

Question, I got Windows 8 installed on my iMac. One issue is when I connect my external usb hdd on Mac I can't copy stuff on to it. I want to be able to use it on both Windows and Mac so what can I do?

Change the format of the drive, or get a program like Paragon NTFS.

Google around and find one.

 

[hiro4]

Question, I got Windows 8 installed on my iMac. One issue is when I connect my external usb hdd on Mac I can't copy stuff on to it. I want to be able to use it on both Windows and Mac so what can I do?

Your HDD is probably formatted ntfs. If you want to use the HDD on both windows and osx you will have to format it Fat32.

Another option is to get something like ntfs for Mac or macdrive on your windows side.

 

[rc213]

Change the format of the drive, or get a program like Paragon NTFS.

Google around and find one.

Your HDD is probably formatted ntfs. If you want to use the HDD on both windows and osx you will have to format it Fat32.

Another option is to get something like ntfs for Mac or macdrive on your windows side.

Thanks guys. Last question would be I'm guessing fat32 would be the safer bet? Since ntfs isn't natively supported the chances are higher that I would run into issues?


Also picked up a Samsung external dvd writer and it works great on Mac just no software. imgburn would be killer on Mac.

 

[TUSR]

Thanks guys. Last question would be I'm guessing fat32 would be the safer bet? Since ntfs isn't natively supported the chances are higher that I would run into issues?


Also picked up a Samsung external dvd writer and it works great on Mac just no software. imgburn would be killer on Mac.

Fat32 would be the best bet, but I never really ran into any issues. Seagate drives used to come with a program that worked flawlessly for NTFS.

 

[kennah]

Don't forget that Fat32 has the 4.6 gig file size limit. You might want to use exFat (works in both windows and os x, doesn't have the file size limit)

 

[giga]

Don't use fat32. Use exfat.

 

[CrudeDiatribe]

Another vote for exfat.

 

[Windam]

Just ordered my first Mac anything. It's an 11" MBA with an i7 and 8GB of RAM and a 128GB (meh) SSD. I guess it'll suck being confined to only 128GB, but would it be worth the cancelling the order and paying an extra $200 for 256GB? (I'm not paying, my dad is as it's a birthday gift, and I don't want to kill his wallet :x)

 

[theytookourjobz]

Just ordered my first Mac anything. It's an 11" MBA with an i7 and 8GB of RAM and a 128GB (meh) SSD. I guess it'll suck being confined to only 128GB, but would it be worth the cancelling the order and paying an extra $200 for 256GB? (I'm not paying, my dad is as it's a birthday gift, and I don't want to kill his wallet :x)

I'm fine with my 128 and an external HD.

 

[Windam]

I'm fine with my 128 and an external HD.

I think I'll go with a 13" model and 256 GB SSD. I'd rather not have to lug an external HDD around, but that's just me. Plus my eyes are shit, so I may benefit from the larger screen.

 

[oatmeal]

Expensive week...

I built my own "Hack Pro" and just bought the wife the stock 27" iMac. No Fusion Drive, but I doubt she would notice it anyways.

 

[theytookourjobz]

I think I'll go with a 13" model and 256 GB SSD. I'd rather not have to lug an external HDD around, but that's just me. Plus my eyes are shit, so I may benefit from the larger screen.

I guess it all depends on what you're using it for and if you have another computer that houses most of your stuff. I've got a desktop that has all my stuff on it and I just use my MBA for school and Internet stuff. And yea, 13" is definitely the way to go.

 

[CrudeDiatribe]

I think I'll go with a 13" model and 256 GB SSD. I'd rather not have to lug an external HDD around, but that's just me. Plus my eyes are shit, so I may benefit from the larger screen.

Is it your only computer? If not, 128GB is absolutely fine.

Edit: beaten.

I love my 11" Air.

 

[Windam]

Is it your only computer? If not, 128GB is absolutely fine.

Edit: beaten.

I love my 11" Air.

It won't be my only computer, but I do plan on copying a lot of files over, in addition to school stuff, so 128GB probably won't be enough. *sigh* Now to explain this to my dad. (I'll pay him back, I swear, guys! I'm not that much of a dick. :x)