Anyone still using the 2008 aluminum unibody MacBook?

[EugW]

How often do you need the optical drive? I find I rarely need one now.

So I just keep an external drive around for the rare times I might need one. Having external power support is necessary though, even for a laptop type slim external drive. Bus power is a problem, unless you have an Apple SuperDrive with a compatible Mac laptop* that will supply the extra required power.

*The 2008 MacBook is not one of them.

 

[retta283]

How often do you need the optical drive? I find I rarely need one now.

So I just keep an external drive around for the rare times I might need one. Having external power support is necessary though, even for a laptop type slim external drive. Bus power is a problem, unless you have an Apple SuperDrive with a compatible Mac laptop* that will supply the extra required power.

*The 2008 MacBook is not one of them.

I don't use it that often on this machine, but it would've been nice to have. Surprised the SuperDrive is not compatible with this model, not even the MBA one from 2008.

 

[retta283]

Another problem has arisen... My battery is totally shot now, and I need it replaced.

Considering the price of all the components I want to put into this thing, I'm considering leaving it how it is and moving up to a 2010 MacBook.

Does anyone here know how the screen and performance of the 2010 MB compare to the 2008? (Note that I have the early run of the 2008 MB, so I have one of the worst screens on an Intel Mac)

 

[brdeveloper]

Does anyone here know how the screen and performance of the 2010 MB compare to the 2008? (Note that I have the early run of the 2008 MB, so I have one of the worst screens on an Intel Mac)

I guess the screen is showing its aging. My white unibody Macbook has white rounded corners, that is, it's not like it was at the time of purchase. Performance-wise, Geekbench presents a 20% improvement.

It's a good computer for running Snow Leopard for light music production. Or perhaps a laptop for writing notes at the school (in this case, running High Sierra).

 

[avz]

Another problem has arisen... My battery is totally shot now, and I need it replaced.

Considering the price of all the components I want to put into this thing, I'm considering leaving it how it is and moving up to a 2010 MacBook.

Does anyone here know how the screen and performance of the 2010 MB compare to the 2008? (Note that I have the early run of the 2008 MB, so I have one of the worst screens on an Intel Mac)

I believe it all comes down to the same old "it depends". The reason we are still talking about the late 2008 MB is because there was no significant progress until 2011-2012. The screen of the 2010 MB, I believe, is identical to the late 2008 MB. Looking at the Geekbench 4 scores is not encouraging to say the least as my 2GHz late 2008 MB seems to crush quite a few 2.4 and 2.53Ghz models. The higher GHz models probably require better maintenance in order to maintain performance over long period of time.

 

[retta283]

I believe it all comes down to the same old "it depends". The reason we are still talking about the late 2008 MB is because there was no significant progress until 2011-2012. The screen of the 2010 MB, I believe, is identical to the late 2008 MB. Looking at the Geekbench 4 scores is not encouraging to say the least as my 2GHz late 2008 MB seems to crush quite a few 2.4 and 2.53Ghz models. The higher GHz models probably require better maintenance in order to maintain performance over long period of time.

I don't think the screen is the same. There were also three different screens shipped with the aluminum MB at different times during its life. I've seen a lot of pictures and reviews of the 2010 that say the screen is better.
[doublepost=1550184910][/doublepost]

I guess the screen is showing its aging. My white unibody Macbook has white rounded corners, that is, it's not like it was at the time of purchase. Performance-wise, Geekbench presents a 20% improvement.

It's a good computer for running Snow Leopard for light music production. Or perhaps a laptop for writing notes at the school (in this case, running High Sierra).

It's not anything to do with age. It uses a LED panel, they don't degrade like LCD screens do. Also, just look it up on this forum, you'll see a ton of people from 2008-09 talking about how bad it is.

 

[brdeveloper]

I don't think the screen is the same. There were also three different screens shipped with the aluminum MB at different times during its life. I've seen a lot of pictures and reviews of the 2010 that say the screen is better.
[doublepost=1550184910][/doublepost]
It's not anything to do with age. It uses a LED panel, they don't degrade like LCD screens do. Also, just look it up on this forum, you'll see a ton of people from 2008-09 talking about how bad it is.

My Unibody 2009 Macbook has a LED backlit panel. Perhaps the LED lights don't degrade, but the LCD section AND flat cables can show signs of aging, which is the case on my Macbook, as there is an evident white glow at borders.

 

[retta283]

My Unibody 2009 Macbook has a LED backlit panel. Perhaps the LED lights don't degrade, but the LCD section AND flat cables can show signs of aging, which is the case on my Macbook, as there is an evident white glow at borders.

I didn't know... The main reason for it being so bad is the viewing angles, which is a well-documented problem with this model from 10 years ago. However starting at some point in spring of 2009 the aluminum MBs got better screens to my knowledge.

 

[jorgk]

Reading through the this thread, I can't get a clear opinion on Mojave or High Sierra for the MB5,1. Anyone having tried both?

I have a MB5,1 (late 2008 Unibody MB) as well as a MBP9,1 (mid-2012 15" MBP) here and since the latter should work with Mojave just fine, it looks attractive to have both on the same OS.
But if the MB5,1 'suffers' too much, I would spare it from Mojave and just do the last possible update to High Sierra.

[Right now, both run El Capitan, doing pretty well].

Thanks,

 

[satinsilverem2]

I just retired a 2008 unibody last month (Jan 2019). It was pulled from daily use in 2012 and used as a server for Plex and infuse for almost seven years. It’s still going as far as i know. I gave it to my cousin to use for typing practice. It started out as a base model 2.0/2GB/250GB. I upgraded it to 8GB a few years back and put in a 120GB SSD and a 2TB HDD in the optical bay when it was a server. I remember checking the battery health a year ago and it was at 1700 cycles and still had 78 percent health haha. Solid machine for sure.

 

[EugW]

Reading through the this thread, I can't get a clear opinion on Mojave or High Sierra for the MB5,1. Anyone having tried both?

I have a MB5,1 (late 2008 Unibody MB) as well as a MBP9,1 (mid-2012 15" MBP) here and since the latter should work with Mojave just fine, it looks attractive to have both on the same OS.
But if the MB5,1 'suffers' too much, I would spare it from Mojave and just do the last possible update to High Sierra.

[Right now, both run El Capitan, doing pretty well].

Thanks,

Mojave on that machine is a bad experience IMO. It works, but I think one should stick to High Sierra or less.

Ultimately, you can try Mojave if you want though. Maybe the glitches will be fine for you, but for me, it makes Mojave a non-starter.

BTW, I run Mojave on supported machines, so I know what a proper Mojave experience should be like, and the MacBook5,1 definitely does not provide that.

Furthermore, Mojave isn't really necessary. It's a nice incremental upgrade, but the much bigger upgrades are in High Sierra, those being stuff like HEIF, HEVC, APFS, and Photos 3.0.

 

[jorgk]

I run Mojave on supported machines, so I know what a proper Mojave experience should be like, and the MacBook5,1 definitely does not provide that.

OK, thanks. Seems I then just go for High Sierra on the MB5,1.

 

[avz]

Reading through the this thread, I can't get a clear opinion on Mojave or High Sierra for the MB5,1. Anyone having tried both?

I have a MB5,1 (late 2008 Unibody MB) as well as a MBP9,1 (mid-2012 15" MBP) here and since the latter should work with Mojave just fine, it looks attractive to have both on the same OS.
But if the MB5,1 'suffers' too much, I would spare it from Mojave and just do the last possible update to High Sierra.

[Right now, both run El Capitan, doing pretty well].

Thanks,

It depends.
I currently dual boot MacBook5,1 with Mojave and High Sierra. The only things that bugs me about Mojave: is when you use it in a clamshell, the internal monitor stays on(you can only dim the brightness), quickview(pressing spacebar on the file in a finder) does not like 1080p files. At the same time Mojave feels faster and is getting a slightly higher score on the Geekbench.
You don't have these issues in High Sierra because Geforce 9400M is natively supported.
I have to add that both of these systems work surprisingly well with only 2GB of RAM with light usage. My installs are fresh and not cluttered which probably makes a difference.

 

[EugW]

It depends.
I currently dual boot MacBook5,1 with Mojave and High Sierra. The only things that bugs me about Mojave: is when you use it in a clamshell, the internal monitor stays on(you can only dim the brightness), quickview(pressing spacebar on the file in a finder) does not like 1080p files. At the same time Mojave feels faster and is getting a slightly higher score on the Geekbench.
You don't have these issues in High Sierra because Geforce 9400M is natively supported.
I have to add that both of these systems work surprisingly well with only 2GB of RAM with light usage. My installs are fresh and not cluttered which probably makes a difference.

Mojave is not faster overall IMO.

2 GB is really irritating IMO too, even with light usage. Too many beachballs. 4 GB is the minimum for a truly pleasant experience and 8 GB is preferred for pleasant moderate multitasking. However, I may have a different threshold due to a different frame of reference since my main MacBook is a 16 GB 2017, and my MacBookPro5,5 is 8 GB. I was comparing the 4 GB MB5,1 to the 8 GB MBP5,5. (I also have 24 GB in my iMac, BTW.) After upgrading from 2 GB in my MacBook5,1, I had 4 GB in the MacBook5,1 for a while and noticed occasional beachballs even with relatively light multitasking, but it was much more tolerable than 2 GB. Then I found name brand 8 GB RAM for sale cheap on Amazon in a flash clearance sale so I jumped on the deal. The remaining beachballs disappeared almost completely.

Anyhow, you’ve just described why I think Mojave isn’t a very good macOS version for MacBook5,1. Those glitches you describe are like a bad Hackintosh experience. And those aren’t the only issues.

 

[avz]

Mojave is not faster overall IMO.

2 GB is really irritating IMO too, even with light usage. Too many beachballs. 4 GB is the minimum for a truly pleasant experience and 8 GB is preferred for pleasant moderate multitasking. However, I may have a different threshold due to a different frame of reference since my main MacBook is a 16 GB 2017, and my MacBookPro5,5 is 8 GB. I was comparing the 4 GB MB5,1 to the 8 GB MBP5,5. (I also have 24 GB in my iMac, BTW.) After upgrading from 2 GB in my MacBook5,1, I had 4 GB in the MacBook5,1 for a while and noticed occasional beachballs even with relatively light multitasking, but it was much more tolerable than 2 GB. Then I found name brand 8 GB RAM for sale cheap on Amazon in a flash clearance sale so I jumped on the deal. The remaining beachballs disappeared almost completely.

Anyhow, you’ve just described why I think Mojave isn’t a very good macOS version for MacBook5,1. Those glitches you describe are like a bad Hackintosh experience. And those aren’t the only issues.

Obviously the mileage will differ from machine to machine. I personally did not notice any more beachballs going down to 2GB of RAM with light usage.
Would you be able to post Geekbench 4 results for your machine(it is free and takes only 4 min)? I got a feeling that your machine probably has not been thermally re-pasted in a while? If you are still on HFS+ that would be even more interesting since I am on APFS.

 

[mar58]

I have the 2008 black MacBook with 4GB of RAM, a 128 SSD for the operating system (Snow Leopard), and a 500GB HDD that I installed when the optical drive went bad. However I seldom (but certainly can) use it as a MacBook with Mac OS. Instead I loaded a free copy of Chrome OS on a 16GB thumb drive. There are many YouTube videos on how to do it and it's quite simple but anyway, I boot to that and use it as a really nice Chrome Book. It's VERY fast and there is absolutely no difference in my copy and what one experiences on an actual store bought Chrome Book. Most of the time, due to the short battery life, I have the macbook connected to a 24 inch 1080p monitor but can certainly use it as a laptop when I want or need to. Just wanted to toss out another option for bringing new life to your old macbooks in case anyone might be interested in that possibility.

 

[retta283]

I have the 2008 black MacBook with 4GB of RAM, a 128 SSD for the operating system (Snow Leopard), and a 500GB HDD that I installed when the optical drive went bad. However I seldom (but certainly can) use it as a MacBook with Mac OS. Instead I loaded a free copy of Chrome OS on a 16GB thumb drive. There are many YouTube videos on how to do it and it's quite simple but anyway, I boot to that and use it as a really nice Chrome Book. It's VERY fast and there is absolutely no difference in my copy and what one experiences on an actual store bought Chrome Book. Most of the time, due to the short battery life, I have the macbook connected to a 24 inch 1080p monitor but can certainly use it as a laptop when I want or need to. Just wanted to toss out another option for bringing new life to your old macbooks in case anyone might be interested in that possibility.

I got a black MacBook for cheap that was totally ruined by tape residue, the casing is extremely chipped from attempts to remove the stickiness, and it still has a lot of residue. The battery lock is missing too.

 

[EugW]

Obviously the mileage will differ from machine to machine. I personally did not notice any more beachballs going down to 2GB of RAM with light usage.
Would you be able to post Geekbench 4 results for your machine(it is free and takes only 4 min)? I got a feeling that your machine probably has not been thermally re-pasted in a while? If you are still on HFS+ that would be even more interesting since I am on APFS.

No point in posting Geekbench 4 results, because they can vary by as much as 5-10%, partially because they are dependent upon what background processes are running.

No need for replacement of thermal paste on my machine as it runs silently with regular usage.

In contrast, my MacBook4,1 would ramp up to full fan just surfing so I disassembled it to put in new thermal paste. It is retired though, after I bought the MacBook5,1. I put Chrome on the MacBook4,1 just for fun.

I have the 2008 black MacBook with 4GB of RAM, a 128 SSD for the operating system (Snow Leopard), and a 500GB HDD that I installed when the optical drive went bad. However I seldom (but certainly can) use it as a MacBook with Mac OS. Instead I loaded a free copy of Chrome OS on a 16GB thumb drive. There are many YouTube videos on how to do it and it's quite simple but anyway, I boot to that and use it as a really nice Chrome Book. It's VERY fast and there is absolutely no difference in my copy and what one experiences on an actual store bought Chrome Book. Most of the time, due to the short battery life, I have the macbook connected to a 24 inch 1080p monitor but can certainly use it as a laptop when I want or need to. Just wanted to toss out another option for bringing new life to your old macbooks in case anyone might be interested in that possibility.

The 2008 black MacBook, like my 2008 white MacBook, is almost unusable with macOS IMO. That is MacBook4,1. However, the MacBook that works well is MacBook5,1, which is aluminum and also from 2008. I have Chrome on my MacBook4,1 as well, but don't use it. I find Chrome too limiting as an OS.

 

[avz]

I just got rid of the High Sierra partition on my MacBook5,1. The glitch where you can't watch some videos(YouTube streaming or files) just killed it for me. Mojave does not have this issue.

 

[EugW]

I just got rid of the High Sierra partition on my MacBook5,1. The glitch where you can't watch some videos(YouTube streaming or files) just killed it for me. Mojave does not have this issue.

Yeah but Mojave has a bunch of other problems. The perfect one is Sierra. High Sierra’s only significant issue is those occasional videos.

 

[retta283]

Must agree that Sierra is the sweet spot for this machine. I love everything about this laptop except for the junk screen. That kills it for me.

 

[avz]

Yeah but Mojave has a bunch of other problems. The perfect one is Sierra. High Sierra’s only significant issue is those occasional videos.

Sierra is a perfect fit, no doubt. Sierra's wallpaper looked exceptionally well and sharp on my external 1080p monitor.
That said I personally don't see any significant difference in running Mojave on a supported machine and on a MacBook5,1. Maybe that's just me. I don't even see a big difference between USB2.0 and USB3.0, maybe because I don't move large amounts of data on a regular basis. APFS alone seems to make things much faster.

 

[retta283]

Sierra is a perfect fit, no doubt. Sierra's wallpaper looked exceptionally well and sharp on my external 1080p monitor.
That said I personally don't see any significant difference in running Mojave on a supported machine and on a MacBook5,1. Maybe that's just me. I don't even see a big difference between USB2.0 and USB3.0, maybe because I don't move large amounts of data on a regular basis. APFS alone seems to make things much faster.

Graphic issues, some lag and crashing, amongst other things. Also, at least on my machine the boot times got longer every time on Mojave, it took 3 minutes after a week...

 

[avz]

Graphic issues, some lag and crashing, amongst other things. Also, at least on my machine the boot times got longer every time on Mojave, it took 3 minutes after a week...

Are you on APFS or HFS+? After I patched the ROM my boot time is well under 40 sec(to login screen anyway). Nothing ever crashed for me on Mojave. The grey menu bar and some right-click menu's don't look that bad on an external monitor for me at all(I actually prefer them to be grey).

 

[retta283]

Are you on APFS or HFS+? After I patched the ROM my boot time is well under 40 sec(to login screen anyway). Nothing ever crashed for me on Mojave. The grey menu bar and some right-click menu's don't look that bad on an external monitor for me at all(I actually prefer them to be grey).

Honestly don't remember, uninstalled Mojave after 2 weeks in December. I may try it again in the future, though.