PDA

View Full Version : Apple Petition to Switch back to Dedicated Graphics Chips


ilikeiBook
Jun 1, 2006, 06:45 PM
I have created a petition so that Apple will listen to the call of gamers everywhere to give their consumer macs decent graphics chips:

Link to Sign (http://www.petitiononline.com/nogma/petition.html)

iGary
Jun 1, 2006, 06:49 PM
I have created a petition so that Apple will listen to the call of gamers everywhere to give their consumer macs decent graphics chips:

Link to Sign (http://www.petitiononline.com/nogma/petition.html)

This will have about as much effect as my FireWire Petition... (http://www.petitiononline.com/firewire/petition.html)

And I have 5,000+ sigs. :D

I was so naive... (http://news.com.com/Apple+takes+a+step+away+from+FireWire/2100-1041_3-5587951.html)

Haoshiro
Jun 1, 2006, 06:53 PM
IGP is fine for a budget laptop.

FireWire lost, USB won. Dropping it is reasonable. Just like Sony should drop their Memory Stick Duo/Pro/etc.

Standardization, please.

cyberdogl2
Jun 1, 2006, 06:56 PM
just drop it, the GMA350 is awesome for that level of product. Go pro if you need pro specs.

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 1, 2006, 07:03 PM
True Integrated graphics suck but Apple listens to no one but Apple from what i have seen over the years. Best way you can show Apple is not by buying any machine with such a cheap graphics system. Its about Apple , not the consumer hence 2% marketshare they have. The gma950 is a joke in the Pc world but hey Apple gets them for almost nothing and if people are stupid enough to buy them....there is a sucker born everyday.:D Good luck

cyberdogl2
Jun 1, 2006, 07:05 PM
i get the feeling it's better than previous videocards on ibooks, older powerbooks, etc. shouldn't be that bad. what do you expect for 1100.

miniConvert
Jun 1, 2006, 07:10 PM
Done. It's worth a try. Integrated graphics may be capable, but given the price of Apple Mac's it's really unacceptable and does nothing for the future of Mac as a possible gaming platform. WoW demonstrates how excellent gaming on a Mac can be, but integrated graphics are just a huge step in the wrong direction.

36183
Jun 1, 2006, 07:28 PM
Its ironic in a way, i remember reading the mac mini product info page a while back when it was first released someone in the product description they made a comparison between apple low end machine and the competing machines saying that with the mac mini you get a real graphic card and no integrated nonsense.

i'm going to assume that intel are giving them a price break for ordering extra products off them. oh well maybe dip in apples market share my make them inclined to include better graphic cards.

Counterfit
Jun 1, 2006, 07:29 PM
The integrated GPU is actually an UPGRADE from the previous chips (except in memory). It actually supports the shaders necessary for Core Image and Core Video, unlike the Radeon Mobility 9200 that was in there before.

mkrishnan
Jun 1, 2006, 07:39 PM
The integrated GPU is actually an UPGRADE from the previous chips (except in memory). It actually supports the shaders necessary for Core Image and Core Video, unlike the Radeon Mobility 9200 that was in there before.

FWIW, the outgoing iBook had the 9550, as did, AFAIK, the Mac Minis per the "silent" upgrade (although it was never clear that 100% of Minis were shipping this way).

xPismo
Jun 1, 2006, 07:40 PM
IGP is fine for a budget laptop.

FireWire lost, USB won. Dropping it is reasonable. Just like Sony should drop their Memory Stick Duo/Pro/etc.

Standardization, please.

Hmm, I guess I'll just plug in my MiniDV camera into my USB port. :rolleyes: FW400 is alive and well and will be for the near future. FW800 OTOH, is a sad sad mess, I'd drop it for eSATA. USB sucks, but its cheap, and sadly cheap usually wins (VHS>BETA, Wii>PS3 :eek: ).

I agree with IGP in low end / superportable laptops. Really, how many people are gamers (especially in the older age groups?) who buy that level of laptop? I'll trade the power of a dedicated GP for 6+ hours of life or so. Thats wicked.

Heck, I'm thinking about swapping from one MBP level laptop to a MB and a desktop for my video work. . .

I guess I'm rambling. So, I think IGP can be, and probably will be a good thing as long as the power costs are reduced to ultra low levels.

andiwm2003
Jun 1, 2006, 07:45 PM
apples have dedicated graphics chips. just buy the macbook pro or the imac. it's that simple.

zap2
Jun 1, 2006, 07:57 PM
IGP is fine for a budget laptop.



Hardly, FireWire is just in a stuff spot.. if a while FW 800 is be the standard, and for low powered things like Mouse and Keyboard you have Bluetooth, i hardly see a need for USB stuff:p

Thats my plan!

mkaake
Jun 1, 2006, 08:00 PM
True Integrated graphics suck but Apple listens to no one but Apple from what i have seen over the years. Best way you can show Apple is not by buying any machine with such a cheap graphics system. Its about Apple , not the consumer hence 2% marketshare they have. The gma950 is a joke in the Pc world but hey Apple gets them for almost nothing and if people are stupid enough to buy them....there is a sucker born everyday.:D Good luck

are you capable of writing something new in your posts?

anyway, guess what other manufacturers are putting in laptops at the same price point? integrated graphics. I'm not a huge fan, but they seem to be doing well enough for people who aren't obsessed with 100 fps...

In any event, it's very simple - online petitions do jack. Vote with your wallet. If you don't like a machine they make, don't buy it. And if they don't change the configuration, it's because enough people think it's a good enough deal to buy it anyway.

Haoshiro
Jun 1, 2006, 08:05 PM
IGP certainly isn't great, but last I heard Apple wasn't touting their machines as game systems. The IGP in the MacBook is perfectly capable for media and does "fair" in gaming from what I've seen. Something more then IGP is unnecessary considering the target consumer of the MacBook vs MacBook Pro.

FireWire is staying alive thanks to Apple. Before switching to Mac this year you know how many people with PCs I knew that had FireWire? Just Me.

USB2 is a fine replacement when supported well, USB1 is fine for low bandwidth things (mic, mouse, keyboard, etc). It also has much more support.

If Apple drops FireWire then so will all the hardware manufacturers supporting it. Many offer USB2.0 in addition to FW lately anyway, and can't you get an adaptor cable? I don't see it surviving with Apple deprecating it... and I don't really see it is a loss personally. Even faster USB will come, and no sense in having USB+FW... and when was the last time you heard of a FW mouse?

mkaake
Jun 1, 2006, 08:06 PM
Done. It's worth a try. Integrated graphics may be capable, but given the price of Apple Mac's it's really unacceptable and does nothing for the future of Mac as a possible gaming platform. WoW demonstrates how excellent gaming on a Mac can be, but integrated graphics are just a huge step in the wrong direction.

no offense, but have you actually priced out wintel books with specs comparable to the macbook? they cost about the same amount and still have intel graphics (though many of them are only the 945 instead of the 950).

yeah, we all like dedicated graphics better, but from the benches that I've been seeing from users here in the forums, there's really nothing to be complaining about, unless you're FPS obsessed.

ilikeiBook
Jun 1, 2006, 11:45 PM
yeah, we all like dedicated graphics better, but from the benches that I've been seeing from users here in the forums, there's really nothing to be complaining about, unless you're FPS obsessed.

I wouldn't call complaining about 9 fps (Doom 3 on MacBook) being fps-obsessed. It's a pretty reasonable complaint to make.

evilgEEk
Jun 2, 2006, 01:56 AM
I wouldn't call complaining about 9 fps (Doom 3 on MacBook) being fps-obsessed. It's a pretty reasonable complaint to make.
But the MacBook isn't meant for gaming. That's like whining that a Mac Mini isn't running FCP worth crap and it's Apple's fault. If every machine is supposed to handle every application then why bother with so many models? It's all about giving the consumer an option.

The MacBook is a budget laptop, and an incredible deal in my opinion. If you want gaming, buy a MacBook Pro or a Windows based machine.

sam10685
Jun 2, 2006, 02:07 AM
do u really think this will work?

Nermal
Jun 2, 2006, 02:16 AM
do u really think this will work?

I don't, but I signed it anyway.

EricNau
Jun 2, 2006, 02:48 AM
I just signed it 5 times. The names I used were; Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, Benjamin Franklin, Bill Gates, and George Bush. ...I picked very impresive names that I thought would convince Apple. ;) :rolleyes:

My point; online petitions mean nothing. No company (especially Apple) is going to take it seriously. There is just no way of knowing who's really signed it, how many times a single person signed it, or if these people are even alive! :eek: Elvis is still alive! Long live the King!

greatdevourer
Jun 2, 2006, 03:34 AM
FireWire is staying alive thanks to Apple. Before switching to Mac this year you know how many people with PCs I knew that had FireWire? Just Me.

USB2 is a fine replacement when supported well, USB1 is fine for low bandwidth things (mic, mouse, keyboard, etc). It also has much more support.

If Apple drops FireWire then so will all the hardware manufacturers supporting it. Many offer USB2.0 in addition to FW lately anyway, and can't you get an adaptor cable? I don't see it surviving with Apple deprecating it... and I don't really see it is a loss personally. Even faster USB will come, and no sense in having USB+FW... and when was the last time you heard of a FW mouse? FW is really kept alive by it's stability compared to USB, which is neccessery for HD audio and DV. For some applications, USB sucks real bad. And you're never going to see an adapter cable. Maybe an adapter box, but never a cable. The model on which FW works is too different (hence why it can be used for networking)

shadowmoses
Jun 2, 2006, 04:02 AM
I love my Integrated graphics MB, although I would prefer a dedicated 64mb card, I'm not complaining also it runs everything smoothly including the games I play hence I wont be signing the petition,

SHadow

bigandy
Jun 2, 2006, 04:23 AM
FW is really kept alive by it's stability compared to USB, which is neccessery for HD audio and DV. For some applications, USB sucks real bad. And you're never going to see an adapter cable. Maybe an adapter box, but never a cable. The model on which FW works is too different (hence why it can be used for networking)

i don't see FireWire dissapearing anytime in the good few years at least. We've got a decent interface for video work, and until something better comes along, we'll keep using it. thing is, with FireWire, it's scalable. which means if any of these products do need to go quicker, they'll just use FW800, or FW1600, or something.

bigandy
Jun 2, 2006, 04:26 AM
True Integrated graphics suck but Apple listens to no one but Apple from what i have seen over the years. Best way you can show Apple is not by buying any machine with such a cheap graphics system. Its about Apple , not the consumer hence 2% marketshare they have. The gma950 is a joke in the Pc world but hey Apple gets them for almost nothing and if people are stupid enough to buy them....there is a sucker born everyday.:D Good luck

now i've got quite a few friends employed in "the pc world", and none of them believe the GMA950 is a joke.

you're missing something here - IIG used to be crap, but that was a few years ago. they're now decent for most jobs. only don't go complaining that your MacBook with IIG can't play doom 3 as you want it too, because it wasn't designed to do that in the first place. don't go telling people not to buy a MB/mini because of the IIG, because for all you know, they may not want to do anything other than watch a DVD, browse the internet, or edit their little home video on iMovie. and it's more than good enough to do that with.

idkfa
Jun 2, 2006, 04:50 AM
A petition?

You are joking right?

Like was said before, if you have a few thousand people signing a petition (an online one at that), but consumers are still buying the product (BECAUSE THE MB IS NOT A GAMING COMPUTER), Apple will never change it. They should not. This is not their gaming computer.

If you really want to play Doom 3, either turn down the graphics and detail, deal with the slow speed, or buy something else. If gaming is your first option, which it may or may not be, buy a PC...

The iBook in my sig is barely above entry level, and handles Doom 3 pretty damn good. There may be a small amount of lag from time to time, but that is expected. This is because it is a PORTABLE, CONSUMER, ENTRY LEVEL COMPUTER. Which is something that is blatantly obvious when you are buying it.

Chundles
Jun 2, 2006, 05:15 AM
FWIW, the outgoing iBook had the 9550, as did, AFAIK, the Mac Minis per the "silent" upgrade (although it was never clear that 100% of Minis were shipping this way).

Just to correct you there, the "silent" mini upgrade gave it a 64MB 9200, not a 9550.

JFreak
Jun 2, 2006, 05:52 AM
now i've got quite a few friends employed in "the pc world", and none of them believe the GMA950 is a joke.

Yep.

Talking about joke, I got a flashback from the early 90's when I tried to play games with my 80386@25MHz that had an early Trident VGA graphics adapter. Whopping 512KB memory and a 16bit ISA connection. Sometimes I managed to get 256 colors out of it, but usually support was for 16 colors.

Current cards are far from a joke.

EDIT: I think it might even have been 8bit ISA :o

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 2, 2006, 07:35 AM
I just have to laugh, even Apple was busting on Integrated graphics:eek: But now since they use them all the fanboys think they are the best thing since the opposite sex. Whats even more funny is the people who dont fathom that folks just want a option for a middle grade GPU. Its just like politics you either are a extreme liberal lefty or a right wing nut. What happened to the middle and moderation? There are a ton of gpu's out and integrated are at the very bottom, in fact if you go much lower you have to go backwards in time. Apple could have some kind of option. Its why a lot of folks ignore the MAC. Apple's history with GPU's is pretty sorry and has hurt Apple by not allowing the Consumer a choice. Consumer is King, not Apple. Sure Apple is doing fine with Pods but 2% new marketshare speaks for itself.

MacRumorUser
Jun 2, 2006, 08:12 AM
Theres a lot of people with heavy chips on their shoulders on this forum.

:rolleyes:

If you dont want a macbook with integrated graphics. Use your right to not buy one. Dont sit bitching over and over about what you should have.

Apple have given you a choice. Take it or leave it the decision is yours.

If you want to play more games, look at pc laptops.

Gaming has and never will be important to Apple, with a market share of the US at only 3% (recent figures) and of that 3% only a small minority game.

Dont moan that you should be given the option, because you are. Blunt as it is, buy a macbook, macbook pro with the system specs clearly laid out, or dont buy at all. Entirely your choice, your control. No one is forcing you.

If gaming is critical spend the extra and get a macbook pro or a pc, but for the love of god - shut up whining.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

MacBook is a nice laptop, and does the job it was intended to do perfectly. Just find a bridge over that river of hate and get over it, and give us all some peace.....

mkrishnan
Jun 2, 2006, 08:38 AM
Just to correct you there, the "silent" mini upgrade gave it a 64MB 9200, not a 9550.

Oh, okay, thanks. I wasn't sure about that one.

mkaake
Jun 2, 2006, 08:59 AM
I just have to laugh, even Apple was busting on Integrated graphics:eek: But now since they use them all the fanboys think they are the best thing since the opposite sex. Whats even more funny is the people who dont fathom that folks just want a option for a middle grade GPU. Its just like politics you either are a extreme liberal lefty or a right wing nut. What happened to the middle and moderation? There are a ton of gpu's out and integrated are at the very bottom, in fact if you go much lower you have to go backwards in time. Apple could have some kind of option. Its why a lot of folks ignore the MAC. Apple's history with GPU's is pretty sorry and has hurt Apple by not allowing the Consumer a choice. Consumer is King, not Apple. Sure Apple is doing fine with Pods but 2% new marketshare speaks for itself.

wow. after what is reading essentially the same post from you over and over again, I've seen the light and I've changed my point of view.

or, erm, not.

When they announced the macbook as having integrated graphics, I, like most here, was whining at apple - because we all know that integrated < dedicated. I kept whining. Until I saw benchmarks rolling in from people using it just the way I'd use it having no problems at all. It's NOT a gaming laptop. Think about that for a minute. it's NOT a gaming laptop. What is it meant for then? It's obviously not tailored to what you're looking for, but then, I don't think you'd buy one even if it was. And it's obvious you're not going to buy one anyway, so why spend all of your time complaining about it??

Anyway, as I was saying, it does what it's meant to do well. And that's work with the iLife suite, check email, etc. It's meant for the casual user. And it fills that roll perfectly.

But posts like yours really annoy me - about 2 years ago I needed to buy a new mac, and posts like this made me think that the only way I could possibly be happy with any new mac is if I had a top of the line G5 tower sitting under my desk. I mean, everything else was so under-powered, so non-upgradeable. I could dig up some of the doom and gloom posts you had back then, but the tone hasn't changed, so I won't bother. But basically, posts like yours had me afraid to buy any machine from apple - either they were too cheap and under-powered, or overpriced.

So I took the dive and bought an eMac to 'hold myself over', on the thought that I'd save money now, and buy a high end machine in a few years when the budget was not as tight.

The eMac got to my house, and I had mixed emotions... until I started using it. This machine has taught me one thing - never to listen to whiners on forums saying something won't work for me. It's been a great machine, chugging along, handling what I do just fine. A bit slow at times? Sure. I've only got 256 megs of ram, I'm on a 1ghz G4, and I don't have much space left on my HD. But sitting down and using it for the first week made me realize that I *don't* need a top of the line machine for what I do. And for games? Well, I play the games that come bundled with it... sometimes. I play frozen bubble quite a bit. You don't really need dedicated graphics for this sort of work. My Radeon 7500 seems to be getting me by just fine, so I'd imagine that the 950 will do even better.

People like myself are the target audience for this machine, NOT you. So quit your whining already.

<edit> and this slow, underpowered piece of plastic, that was supposed to just be a hold over for 2 years will be sticking around after we get our next machine, and has convinced many a people to switch to OS X - even with it's crappy graphics and slow processor.

deputy_doofy
Jun 2, 2006, 09:40 AM
I won't sign the petition, as I believe they are useless. I will, however, send feedback directly to Apple... probably still useless. Although I am waiting for the Merom chip before buying, I might have immediately bought the black MacBook if it had a dedicated graphics chip. Don't get me wrong. I don't do any 3D gaming, but I don't like the idea of the graphics chip stealing RAM. I'll take a low-end, dedicated graphics card over a shared graphics card. Just my 2 Doofy cents.

DougTheImpaler
Jun 2, 2006, 09:44 AM
no offense, but have you actually priced out wintel books with specs comparable to the macbook? they cost about the same amount and still have intel graphics (though many of them are only the 945 instead of the 950).

945 is the chipset. GMA950 is the name of the graphics portion of the 945GM or 945GV chipsets. It's the same chipset that's used in the MacBook (and MacBook Pro, actually, but MBP uses the regular 945M rather than the GM, eliminating the onboard graphics)

MacRumorUser
Jun 2, 2006, 09:58 AM
945 is the chipset. GMA950 is the name of the graphics portion of the 945GM or 945GV chipsets. It's the same chipset that's used in the MacBook (and MacBook Pro, actually, but MBP uses the regular 945M rather than the GM, eliminating the onboard graphics)

:) True, but doesnt make his point any less valid.

He's spot on about Dont Hurt Me too...

iHeartTheApple
Jun 2, 2006, 11:12 AM
The gma950 is a joke in the Pc world but hey Apple gets them for almost nothing and if people are stupid enough to buy them....there is a sucker born everyday.:D Good luck

...

Enough, man...enough. Really, it's getting old. Do not come on here and try to push you *opinions* on everyone...Do you know if the GMA950 is a joke from *your* real world experience? Have you tried playing some of the games that we've covered in the last few weeks on a GMA950 for yourself? You absolutely disgust me when you sit there and call people like MacRumorUser, myself, or any of the other members "stupid" and "suckers" because we purchased a MacBook. :mad:

The computer is a damn good piece of hardware and does everything that I (and many others) want it to, including gaming. The GMA950 is actually not a joke, nor was it meant to be one by Apple. Yes, Apple chose to use it to separate the pro/non-pro lines and set a price point, but they chose a perfectly capable bit of GPU that will do most everything that users would ask of it, save running Doom3 at 100fps. :rolleyes:

For future reference, rather than forcing your uninformed claims regarding the quality/ability of the GMA950 down peoples' throats, try posting something original or non-abusive, perhaps in another topic and let those of us who actually own one do the talking. At least we can be trusted to provide well thought-out, unbias, and informative reviews.

PS I apologize to the other readers for the rant...just getting a bit aggrevated with this one. /rant :)

To the OP: Good luck with your petition. It's definitely worth a try!

xPismo
Jun 2, 2006, 11:34 AM
...Gaming has and never will be important to Apple, with a market share of the US at only 3% (recent figures) and of that 3% only a small minority game....

Hey man, I was there when 'The Steve' brought up 'The Gaming' during 'The Macworld Stevenote'. HALO was the bomb man, and Steve set us up the bomb. It was _all_ about Mac gaming from then on man! Wooo, who knew we'd be knee deep in PC users goi-

What? Bungie was bought by WHO?!? HALO was released on WHAT!?

Oh dear got. :( Bummed my trip man. This reality thing sucks. ;) :D

Anyway, this may sound a bit odd coming from the guy who just wrote the above, but I think the computer market has matured past the point where showing how good your hardware is at gaming really shows the potential of the rig. Gaming is now two specialized to be a good benchmark.

I'm not sure how happy I am about that trend - heck I like a stonking fast computer too - but other than FCS/Photoshop use, I know I'd be more than happy with the MB today. Even when I get the urge to dream about what if and play that game from M$. :mad:

Capt Underpants
Jun 2, 2006, 11:44 AM
...

Enough, man...enough. Really, it's getting old. Do not come on here and try to push you *opinions* on everyone...Do you know if the GMA950 is a joke from *your* real world experience? Have you tried playing some of the games that we've covered in the last few weeks on a GMA950 for yourself? You absolutely disgust me when you sit there and call people like MacRumorUser, myself, or any of the other members "stupid" and "suckers" because we purchased a MacBook. :mad:

The computer is a damn good piece of hardware and does everything that I (and many others) want it to, including gaming. The GMA950 is actually not a joke, nor was it meant to be one by Apple. Yes, Apple chose to use it to separate the pro/non-pro lines and set a price point, but they chose a perfectly capable bit of GPU that will do most everything that users would ask of it, save running Doom3 at 100fps. :rolleyes:

For future reference, rather than forcing your uninformed claims regarding the quality/ability of the GMA950 down peoples' throats, try posting something original or non-abusive, perhaps in another topic and let those of us who actually own one do the talking. At least we can be trusted to provide well thought-out, unbias, and informative reviews.

PS I apologize to the other readers for the rant...just getting a bit aggrevated with this one. /rant :)

To the OP: Good luck with your petition. It's definitely worth a try!

We don't need experience with a laptop when there are benchmarks. That's the purpose of benchmarks... Like he has said a thousand times before, 9 FPS on Doom 3 is unacceptable. Why Apple doesn't slap in an go 7400 turbocache (or even better, an x1400), I don't know. We don't want 100 FPS with high settings on every game. We want a constant 30-40 FPS with decent settings. Is that too much to ask?

And I don't believe that the MBP is the answer here. First of all, it huge. Second of all, it's much more expensive. And you might say that this is because it's a "consumer" laptop. I'm a consumer, and I want to play games. A laptop doesn't have to be a gaming laptop to play games. It just needs a decent processor and a good GPU. Apple has everything in the Macbook but a GPU, and I don't believe that complaining about a core component like the GPU is so bad. Really, it's important.

And to all of you people complaining that Dont Hurt Me keeps posting the same thing, just realize that for every post he makes, there are 10 others rebuking him. He is not spreading FUD. The GMA 950 is **** for gaming, period. It may be great for everything else, but there is a section of the market where the GMA 950 is not up to par. Admit it.

jdechko
Jun 2, 2006, 03:40 PM
Unfortunately here, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want something that performs well, you're gonna have to pony up the cash for it, whether its a MacBook Pro, a Quad or build your own PC. There are certain segments for certain markets. Companies know that everyone has different needs. Sure there are product gaps in a lot of different markets, but each person has to have his/her own criteria for a purchase. If something doesn't suit your needs, MOVE ON. Don't complain about how product 'x' doesn't have what you need. Look for something that DOES suit those needs.

I think cars are a good analogy. There are basically 3 types of cars (ignoring SUV's, Vans, etc): economy, luxury and sports cars.

Economy car will perform as you'd expect. It won't be fast, and not necessarily very nice, but it will get you to your destination. (MacBook @ $1000)

Luxury car will have options that you "require" that aren't found on the economy car, such as bluetooth, navigation systems, leather heated seats, etc. You pay more for these exact features because that's what you want and/or need (your criteria).
(MacBook Pro)

Sports car will still get you there, but probably faster (Quad G5, and/or Quad Core MacPro).

The guy who buys the economy car doesn't b*tch and complain that he doesn't have a V10. He's happy with his efficient 4-cylinder. He doesn't EXPECT his car to have all the options that the luxury car does. But he's happy with his purchase of the economy car because it satisfies his needs.

There is some overlap in the products as they serve similar functions. All of the cars have wheels and doors and steering wheels and radios and all that stuff, but there's going to be some differentiation among products that fulfill the same (or similar) needs. It's why companies have different product lines. To fulfill the consumer's needs.

I say the same to you who complain. Buy what you need, according to your criteria.

Capt Underpants
Jun 2, 2006, 04:13 PM
We really should stop with the car analogies...

rdowns
Jun 2, 2006, 06:12 PM
I just have to laugh, even Apple was busting on Integrated graphics:eek: But now since they use them all the fanboys think they are the best thing since the opposite sex. Whats even more funny is the people who dont fathom that folks just want a option for a middle grade GPU. Its just like politics you either are a extreme liberal lefty or a right wing nut. What happened to the middle and moderation? There are a ton of gpu's out and integrated are at the very bottom, in fact if you go much lower you have to go backwards in time. Apple could have some kind of option. Its why a lot of folks ignore the MAC. Apple's history with GPU's is pretty sorry and has hurt Apple by not allowing the Consumer a choice. Consumer is King, not Apple. Sure Apple is doing fine with Pods but 2% new marketshare speaks for itself.

This is for you DHM.

DMPDX
Jun 2, 2006, 06:29 PM
If you dont want integrated graphics...DONT BUY A MACBOOK. Simple as that. Buy a MBP if you want a separate chip. I hate the constant moan about this. It shouldnt have a highend chip because its a consumer level product, not a pro machine that needs inense performance. Serriously people, don't hate, appreciate.
-dsm

sushi
Jun 2, 2006, 08:20 PM
just drop it, the GMA350 is awesome for that level of product. Go pro if you need pro specs.
Thank you for saying this!

This topic is getting so old. Low end consumer laptop machines are just that. If you really want great graphics, get a desktop PC and update it with a Pro level graphics card. Then every six months you can rip out the old one and put in the latest and greatest.

blitzkrieg79
Jun 2, 2006, 08:21 PM
just drop it, the GMA350 is awesome for that level of product. Go pro if you need pro specs.

GMA is not awesome, the lowly ATI IGP EXPRESS 200M is a better option at the same price (http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=2612, at least you can play Half-Life 2 at decent settings (and yes I have experienced both chipsets).

Anyway, ATI X1900 is hardly a PRO video card anyway, so even if I want to go PRO I can't because Apple is lacking in the video card arena as always (remember the G5 PowerMacs With FX5200 cards? You trying to tell me that FX5200 is a Pro card? Apple charges PRO prices for consumer level hardware.)

Anyway, all Apple needs to do is provide just ONE other video card option for MacBooks and problem for many (like myself) is resolved. Other PC vendors do it so Apple can figure this out too. I do not intend to pay $700 more just for a video card upgrade from MacBook to MacBook Pro.

Counterfit
Jun 2, 2006, 09:28 PM
FWIW, the outgoing iBook had the 9550
Indeed they did. I was going by the first and second revisions of the iBook G4. I kind of stopped paying much attention to it after that. :p

thegreatluke
Jun 2, 2006, 09:36 PM
I love how the integrated graphics beat out the dedicated Radeons the iBooks had... yet no one complained about those graphics cards. I guess the fact that it's integrated makes it bad? It's a fine chip, and it's a consumer product. Consumer products weren't made to be powerhouses in the graphics section.

:)

Thank you for saying this!

This topic is getting so old. Low end consumer laptop machines are just that. If you really want great graphics, get a desktop PC and update it with a Pro level graphics card. Then every six months you can rip out the old one and put in the latest and greatest.
Agreed. This is like saying Apple's not providing a free computer with the newest graphics card, Quad Xeon processors, 32 GB of RAM and a 1.2 TB HD. :rolleyes:

contoursvt
Jun 3, 2006, 12:44 AM
Yep.

Talking about joke, I got a flashback from the early 90's when I tried to play games with my 80386@25MHz that had an early Trident VGA graphics adapter. Whopping 512KB memory and a 16bit ISA connection. Sometimes I managed to get 256 colors out of it, but usually support was for 16 colors.

Current cards are far from a joke.

EDIT: I think it might even have been 8bit ISA :o


OMG that reminds me of my first PC. 386DX-25 with 1meg RAM. My friend stole a ULSI mathco processor and sold it to me cheap - although at the time I had no idea it was stolen. He lied and said his company was dumping them because it was not good with one program or some bs. Video card was the Trident 8900 series ISA card with 512K memory and my HD was a 40 meg WD. No voice coils here...just a stepper motor. Monitor was a TVM multisync. OMG that was so long ago.

contoursvt
Jun 3, 2006, 12:46 AM
Just out of curiosity, do a majority of people have just a laptop as a main computer or is it always their second machine? My laptop is my second computer and I couldnt care less about Integrated graphics. Works fine and even for games its ok as long as I dont try and play the latest and greatest on high details.

MacRumorUser
Jun 3, 2006, 03:45 AM
Just out of curiosity, do a majority of people have just a laptop as a main computer or is it always their second machine? My laptop is my second computer and I couldnt care less about Integrated graphics. Works fine and even for games its ok as long as I dont try and play the latest and greatest on high details.

Yeh my macbook is my third computer - I have a powermac G5 with an ATI X800XT and a 20" iMac Core Duo, so maybe that's why I couldn t give a rats ass about the macbooks integrated graphics.

BlizzardBomb
Jun 3, 2006, 05:05 AM
This is for you DHM.

Just want to point out that Apple made that article before the GMA950 even existed.

takao
Jun 3, 2006, 05:31 AM
i guess people would even defend Apple using Celerons after this discussion

sure intel and the other put better effects in those integrated chips but that is rather ridicoulus since games who use those effects need so much polygons etc. that you can't play it anyways

2ndPath
Jun 3, 2006, 05:35 AM
Anyway, all Apple needs to do is provide just ONE other video card option for MacBooks and problem for many (like myself) is resolved. Other PC vendors do it so Apple can figure this out too. I do not intend to pay $700 more just for a video card upgrade from MacBook to MacBook Pro.

A year ago I was looking for a PC laptop with dedicated graphics. It was really hard to find anything below a display size of 14". I only remember a sony with 13.3" or so and a dedicated graphics card. And this machine in the right configuration was over $2000.

Things might have changed slightly. I was told by someone who doing some research in need of a new (PC) laptop, that there are a few more option nowadays, but in general the MacBook price is extremely competitive. The PC laptops he found with a similar form factor and dedicated graphics all had generally worse features at a significantly higher price.

Jimong5
Jun 3, 2006, 05:44 AM
The guy who buys the economy car doesn't b*tch and complain that he doesn't have a V10. He's happy with his efficient 4-cylinder. He doesn't EXPECT his car to have all the options that the luxury car does. But he's happy with his purchase of the economy car because it satisfies his needs.

There is some overlap in the products as they serve similar functions. All of the cars have wheels and doors and steering wheels and radios and all that stuff, but there's going to be some differentiation among products that fulfill the same (or similar) needs. It's why companies have different product lines. To fulfill the consumer's needs.


I dont think anyone here is asking for a V10 here, a radeon 9700 ish class chip would be more than enough.

Besides, I feel your analogy is flawed. Here is something a bit more like the situation I feel:
You are in the market for a new car, however you can only afford an economy car. The problem is economy cars do not have power steering, air conditioning, or power windows. Do you NEED these on a car? Not necessarily, but they are comforts most people would want. So you ask for the option to have your car ordered with them.

Sadly, the dealer informs you that the economy car does not allow for these options and in order to get them you have to buy a luxury car, twice what you wanted to spend, and you ultimately end up keeping your old car because at least that has power windows and A/C.

(I would of bought a macbook the moment they came out if they packed a semi decent graphics chip, but intergrated graphics vs my dual 867 G4 tower with a 9700 means it would be a crappy upgrade at best and not worth the money)


...

Enough, man...enough. Really, it's getting old. Do not come on here and try to push you *opinions* on everyone...Do you know if the GMA950 is a joke from *your* real world experience? Have you tried playing some of the games that we've covered in the last few weeks on a GMA950 for yourself? You absolutely disgust me when you sit there and call people like MacRumorUser, myself, or any of the other members "stupid" and "suckers" because we purchased a MacBook. :mad:

http://www.barefeats.com/mincd.html

On the parts with the games a PPC mini beats an intel mini, despite the fact the intel mini should be a ton better. If you are fine with a Macbook, more power to you, but it doesn't change the fact a crappy GPU is under the hood.

http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd3.html

more tests, where having a real GPU with a similar CPU has 4x the performance, and an old G4 can beat the new intel macbook in most stuff by a decent margin. (2-3 times as good in some cases)

grabberslasher
Jun 3, 2006, 06:29 AM
Guys you do realise that Intel announced ages ago that they will cancel their integrated graphics cards as Vista requires good dedicated cards to work, and only the gma 950 can support it.

The next generation of Intel motherboards will probably not have the option to have IGP chips.

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 3, 2006, 08:07 AM
This is for you DHM.Thanks, kind of says it all, before & after. I think its really funny how this GPU can stir up so many folks when 99% of Mac users we are told dont need ,want or wish to have a real GPU. Something doesnt add up.

Earendil
Jun 3, 2006, 01:56 PM
I love how the integrated graphics beat out the dedicated Radeons the iBooks had... yet no one complained about those graphics cards. I guess the fact that it's integrated makes it bad? It's a fine chip, and it's a consumer product. Consumer products weren't made to be powerhouses in the graphics section.



The crux of this whole thing is this: Suddenly people think the Macbook is a gaming rig. Did ANYONE in their right mind buy an iBook to play Unreal Tournament 2? Did anyone ever ever think that was possible, even with a Dedicated chip? How about the clam shell iBooks, anyone gaming on those things? Was it a gaming rig?
Okay, awesome, now let's take the new iBook, the Macbook... who in their right mind thinks it's a gaming machine?!!! I could go on and on about how more than 50% of Windows running machines out there are "too slow for Doom 3 :( " but than that would be ridicules, wouldn't it?

The simple fact is that the Macbooks are faster than the older iBooks in ALL tasks, both CPU and GPU. It is a faster machine, and yet more muscle than 90% of consumers could possibly use or acknowledge, hell for that matter even understand.
To the OT, you are not the average consumer, so please stop pretending like you are, and that Apple should bend to the consumers will.

~Earendil

p.s.
Are you sh*ting me? you want to play doom 3 on a 13" laptop screen? wtf man, and you're complaining about the gpu...

Earendil
Jun 3, 2006, 02:08 PM
*snip*

(I would of bought a macbook the moment they came out if they packed a semi decent graphics chip, but intergrated graphics vs my dual 867 G4 tower with a 9700 means it would be a crappy upgrade at best and not worth the money)

Any laptop will be a downgrade from a top of the line desktop for quite a number of years, especially in specific areas. (Desktop HDs are still faster than my PB's 6 years later).


http://www.barefeats.com/mincd.html

On the parts with the games a PPC mini beats an intel mini, despite the fact the intel mini should be a ton better. If you are fine with a Macbook, more power to you, but it doesn't change the fact a crappy GPU is under the hood.


Now this gets funny. Read those graphs again bucko. The Intel Mac is only slower in Photoshop tests, and that isn't surprising because PS is pretty well optimized for the G4 and velocity engine.
The Intel is on par with the G4 in Doom 3 (your gaming whine of choice) Quake 3, and is only beaten in UT2004.
The author at Barefeets, like us, suggest you don't by the low end Mac for gaming, but invest in an iMac.
It's sad the slowest Mac can't play UT2004 as fast as the previous lowest Apple computer. However it is faster it most other areas, especially those areas that most consumers care about... if they knew what to care about.


http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd3.html

more tests, where having a real GPU with a similar CPU has 4x the performance, and an old G4 can beat the new intel macbook in most stuff by a decent margin. (2-3 times as good in some cases)

yeah man, but that "real" GPU is a 128mb GPU. Did you really think the old iBook (32mb GPU) was going to get bumped to a 128+?!! :eek: :eek:

Come on back down to reality with us, it really isn't as bad as it appears.

~Earendil

Edit: added name and changed for clarity.

contoursvt
Jun 3, 2006, 03:51 PM
Bet if apple stuck a dedicated and more powerful video card in there, then had to made it 0.2" thicker and 1/2 lb heavier to accomodate the additional cooling and battery required to make this all work, you'd whine and complain that its too heavy and that your arm hurts from carrying it and that its getting even hotter than now. To the people that are crying like a baby... grow up. Its a laptop. Its not a gaming machine. If you want to play cutting edge games, you buy a desktop or console.

zap2
Jun 3, 2006, 04:06 PM
i guess people would even defend Apple using Celerons after this discussion



Some would, i might is Apple made a 399 Mac with it, but it would be so weak they know it would make OS X run bad:rolleyes:

Jimong5
Jun 3, 2006, 05:00 PM
Now this gets funny. Read those graphs again bucko. The Intel Mac is only slower in Photoshop tests, and that isn't surprising because PS is pretty well optimized for the G4 and velocity engine.
The Intel is on par with the G4 in Doom 3 (your gaming whine of choice) Quake 3, and is only beaten in UT2004.
The author at Barefeets, like us, suggest you don't by the low end Mac for gaming, but invest in an iMac.
It's sad the slowest Mac can't play UT2004 as fast as the previous lowest Apple computer. However it is faster it most other areas, especially those areas that most consumers care about... if they knew what to care about.
I said, games portion, forget photoshop and cinebench. (bucko? :confused: what is this "hey arnold"?) UT2004, the G4 mini is 357% faster then the new mini, with integrated graphics, despite having a 580 MHZ and a 2GHZ core disadvantage. Doom 3, they are about even, but again the iMac shows what happens when you put in a dedicated GPU in, you get almost a 400% increase. Quake 3 is so dated I'm not surprised a modern IGP doesn't choke on it.

The problem with "get an iMac" is there is no iMac for the portable line. you have consumer and pro. The mac mini is a niche of economy that is under consumer (one that deserves integrated graphics), and the iMac is a very capable mac that has a decent price range, and fits "consumer" very well.


do I want a macbook to run doom 3 at 60 FPS? No, that would be absurd for the price - but I don't feel asking for 30 is too tall of a request.

yeah man, but that "real" GPU is a 128mb GPU. Did you really think the old iBook (32mb GPU) was going to get bumped to a 128+?!! :eek: :eek:

Come on back down to reality with us, it really isn't as bad as it appears.

~Earendil

Edit: added name and changed for clarity.

so put in a 64MB 9600, whatever its still fairly fast (with the pros being at 128-256 I don't see why this couldn't be 64-128 on the high end)

I love apple, been a mac user for over 5 years now, but I still don't get how most people are just "hey its apple they are the best company ever and never make a mistake lets lie down" when it comes to sub par apple products. the problem is the black macbook should have a GPU or they need to release a 12/13" macbook pro already.

netdog
Jun 3, 2006, 05:16 PM
The MacBook is not a subpar product. You want better graphics, you spend more. This is like saying that BMW should put their V12 in all their cars. The MacBook will run Vista with Aero Glass well (provided you have 1GB or RAM or more), it runs FCE great, and it does everything that 98% of us need very well. If it doesn't suit you, buy an MBP. For goodness sakes. It is not subpar. It is friggin great. If it doesn't meet your needs, don't buy it.

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 3, 2006, 06:30 PM
Integrated graphics are never Great, stop the spin , they are freebies to manufactors for buying Intel cpu's for christ sake. Integrated graphics are the cheapist GPU's you can get. That tells the story so stop the spin. Cheap is cheap even if it has an Apple Logo. Just look at the Mouse Apple makes. its garbage. We have a million threads on Apples new mouse most all complaining. Integrated graphics are more of the same. Stop the Spin, cheap is cheap.

Counterfit
Jun 3, 2006, 07:04 PM
Integrated graphics are never Great, stop the spin , they are freebies to manufactors for buying Intel cpu's for christ sake. Integrated graphics are the cheapist GPU's you can get. That tells the story so stop the spin. Cheap is cheap even if it has an Apple Logo. Just look at the Mouse Apple makes. its garbage. We have a million threads on Apples new mouse most all complaining. Integrated graphics are more of the same. Stop the Spin, cheap is cheap.
Here's a tip, a different opinion and the reasons backing it are not always, and in fact are rarely, spin. You sound like a broken recording of Bill O'Reilly.

mkaake
Jun 3, 2006, 08:11 PM
Integrated graphics are never Great, stop the spin , they are freebies to manufactors for buying Intel cpu's for christ sake. Integrated graphics are the cheapist GPU's you can get. That tells the story so stop the spin. Cheap is cheap even if it has an Apple Logo. Just look at the Mouse Apple makes. its garbage. We have a million threads on Apples new mouse most all complaining. Integrated graphics are more of the same. Stop the Spin, cheap is cheap.

how about you spend 2 minutes and read what people are posting here instead of your cut and paste ranting that you've been doing since the day you got here?

no-one is saying the integrated graphics are 'Great', they're saying they're completely acceptable for what the machine *was designed to do*. It's not built to play Doom 3 at 60 or even 30 fps, and if that's an issue with you, than the macbook is not your machine.

And since we're all so fond of the car analogies, let me explain what you're doing here: You're in the market for a 2 door convertible to cruise town in, and the company you're thinking about buying the convertible from also makes minivans. So you spend all of your time trying to explain to people why the mini van is the suxxors because it has a 4 speed transmission instead of a 5 or 6 speed transmission.

Not that it matters, because you're not in the market for a minivan, and the people who *are* in the market for a minivan don't give a CRAP if it has 5 gears instead of 4. But you'll complain about it, because it looses 2 seconds in the quarter mile over having the 5th gear. Because, you know, you see so many minivans running down the track trying to set records on the quarter mile...

I don't think anyone can have read any of the threads on MR and come away thinking - "Man, that macbook is the end-all be-all of gaming - I'm going to go pick one up right now because all I want to do is play games all day". From what I've been hearing, the general consensus is "integrated graphics suck for high end games, but have enough oomph that the casual gamer can still have fun with it". Where's the spin?

And if you're still upset, because you don't like the idea of paying extra money to step up to a product line with a dedicated GPU, *buy from a different manufacturer*. It's really simple. Same as if you were complaining about the minivan - if you eventually decided to trade in that two door, you'd go to the manufacturer who has what you want at the price you want. For you, it's obviously not Apple, with their current lineup. That's fine. But stop complaining because the Macbook isn't exactly what you wanted it to be.

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 3, 2006, 08:21 PM
All i can say is thank you for supporting inferior integrated graphics.:)

Sun Baked
Jun 3, 2006, 08:25 PM
Getting them to listen to this petition is going to be as hard as getting all Apple employees to switch the morning ritual from Krispy Kreme and Starbucks to Maxwell House and The Donut Hut.

mkaake
Jun 3, 2006, 08:33 PM
All i can say is thank you for supporting inferior integrated graphics.:)

I support what works for me in a computer.

<edit> but go ahead, sign the petition. And when tomorrow they announce that they completely misjudged their target market, and due to overwhelming response are re-introducing the macbook with dedicated graphics, I'll give you a pat on the back. Until then, I'll just enjoy doing what I do everyday on my computer, which, in a very similar vein to most of the current and future macbook users, does not include Doom 3.

<edit x2> hmm... your posts really upset me. I mean, they really do. You can't just be okay with the fact that some people don't need a dedicated graphics chip, and you harp and whine and complain about it all day long. You call us apple apologists, call us names, and assume that the *only* reason we don't share your opinion is because we're either:
a) just that stupid
b) love apple so much we can't admit they make mistakes.

there can't possibly be
c) some people really don't think or need the same things I think or need

I'm not stupid, and I've pissed at apple many a time for their mistakes. And guess what? I still don't need a dedicated graphics chip. Guess that leaves us with 'C' - I, and others like me, don't need or want the same thing from our machine that you do.

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 3, 2006, 08:34 PM
I support what works for me in a computer.You should have higher expectations.:)

mkaake
Jun 3, 2006, 08:53 PM
You should have higher expectations.:)

If I was paying more money for it, I certainly would.

sushi
Jun 3, 2006, 09:46 PM
All i can say is thank you for supporting inferior integrated graphics.:)
You're welcome! :D

On a serious note, GPUs with dedicated VRAM change all of the time.

Anyone who is a serious gamer is going to get a platform that allows them to change each time a new and better GPU is released. For many this would be considered a waste of money, but to the serious gamer it makes sense.

That's why most hardcore gamers I know build their own systems from the ground up so they can do this. They spend a ton of money. I've help build some of these for friends. It's fun to waste their money I might add. ;) Good for them!

The MP on the other hand is Apple's answer for a consumer laptop. It is not a top end machine! Apple has put together a decent package for those who need a small laptop with decent performance.

That is what it does, and does well.

If you really want more options/performance, Apple has taken that into account with the MBP line. So you have options.

sushi
Jun 3, 2006, 09:49 PM
You should have higher expectations.:)
Okay, I want a car that meets the following criteria:

- 2 doors
- 0 to 60 in 3.45 secs
- Top speed of 210 mph
- 24 speaker stereo system
- Gets decent mileage
- Had 5 point seat/shoulder harness
- Uses HUD technology
- Gets 15 mpg at 55 mph.

Pretty simple right? Can be done.

Now I only want to pay $20,000 for it. :eek:

Get cracking! :D

Jimong5
Jun 4, 2006, 11:01 AM
Okay, I want a car that meets the following criteria:


try your paying $15,000 for a chevy aveo instead of the honda civic you expect because you have brand loyalty to chevy and don't accept that the car is in fact inferior to the honda option because you wouldn't want that "japanese piece of crap". hypothetically of course :rolleyes:. The upgrade is minor, a 9550 or 5200 isnt asking a lot (if you can't upgrade the GPU, you want the best you can get, and sorry, for that price the 950 is not it) We aren't asking for a porche at 15,000. just the civic we're paying for.

DeathChill
Jun 4, 2006, 11:05 AM
FWIW, the outgoing iBook had the 9550, as did, AFAIK, the Mac Minis per the "silent" upgrade (although it was never clear that 100% of Minis were shipping this way).
The Mini's never shipped with anything but a 9200 as far as I know. The GMA950 REALLY is an upgrade. People think it's awful but it can keep pace with the lower end Radeon's.

Jimong5
Jun 4, 2006, 11:14 AM
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427&p=1

a few more benchmarks, where it shows just what a simple $50 more (oh noes put it in the black one) can do to doom 3 and UT2004 in case someone would actually want to play some games here and there (omg the heathens they should learn to pay $900 more idiots)

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 4, 2006, 11:15 AM
The Mini's never shipped with anything but a 9200 as far as I know. The GMA950 REALLY is an upgrade. People think it's awful but it can keep pace with the lower end Radeon's.
Not so, take a 9200 and mate it to that cpu and that 9200 will beat the gma950. The only reason the 950 is about the same as the 9200 is because is driven by a new cpu running much faster then the slow old G4 that was connected to the 9200.

netdog
Jun 4, 2006, 11:17 AM
I think we should petition them to make every computer they make with upgradeable everything, the best chips and GPUs available, etc, and that whatever Mac you choose should only be $99.

toughboy
Jun 4, 2006, 02:27 PM
It is 100% understandable that Apple chooses IIG to remain "budget" with MB, with 1100$$, this is all you can ask, and thats ok..

But why they dont put a Build-to-order option for dedicated graphics like ATIs x1400 or so? Who-ever wants to play games with 20-30fps and dont wanna spend that 2k$$ for MBP can put another 100$ and go for 128MB dedicated memory.. I dont understand why they didnt do it, because that would shut all the whinning up and make people satisfied..

jdechko
Jun 5, 2006, 03:48 PM
Also to be fair, my Vaio has an integrated graphics chip in it as well. It is my only computer, other than my work computer. I am still able to play games on it like CS and UT and get "good enough" (for me) frame rates. I didn't buy it as a gaming machine, I bought it as a computer that I could take to and from classes and work. In buying it, I sacrificed performance and upgradability for portability.

In my car analogy, I did leave out some segments, as was mentioned. There are also a lot of upgradable parts on cars (referred to as options). But not every car has every option that you want. My point was, you have to end up picking the car and/or computer that fulfills your needs (whether some or all) best.

Timepass
Jun 5, 2006, 06:14 PM
yeah integrated graphic is a joke. That much is true. But what I see as a problem is apple is pulling a different form of the mhz myth now and trying to say that is true.

A computer it only as fast as its slowest part and the bottle neck is the GPU. When you build a computer you dont want to select a CPU that massively out paces your GPU and that is what apple has been and still is doing. The CPU is great just it way to powerful for the GPU that in there and it crippling it. Heck I think it is a huge waste a money. A better choice would be to put a weaker CPU in there and take the saving and put them into putting a real GPU in there and bring the system up to a more balanced stated. Right now manufactors (apple being one of the if not THE WORSE) CPU is everything. They put these great CPU in there lower lv system that go to waste due to other things that are crippling them. A computer should be a balance bettween everything.

On top of all that Apple adverises games and many of you all would like more games to be made for OSX but the delevepors really have no reall incetive to spend the money to port over program for OSX on games. Apple crippling them with there crappy graphic card and lack of help. A desent gaming rig is going to cost you about 1500 so not only do you have a very small market share to work with to begin with but it made even smaller on what can really run games. Now lets look PC side you can build a really good gaming PC for about 1k. So lets see PC side has a cheaper and by far better system for gaming. M$ helps out the delevpors and puts money into helping them out. Apple doesnt spend any money. M$ shows very clearly that it wants to help make games for the PC. Not only to they make some but the supply tools to help out other companies. They poor money in to make DirectX to make it even easier. M$ saw earily on that gaming was going to be big and then they poor money into helping them out.

If apple wants games to start being made for OSX more natively and not some port then need to be willing to help out some.

But that all being said the MAC BOOK IS A LAPTOP. Laptop have always been weaker gaming computers. As for there desktop line it pretty weak for games as well. But dude the macbook is a laptop with an over power CPU for the rest of it parts and it unbalanced yes

robbieduncan
Jun 5, 2006, 06:19 PM
It is 100% understandable that Apple chooses IIG to remain "budget" with MB, with 1100$$, this is all you can ask, and thats ok..

But why they dont put a Build-to-order option for dedicated graphics like ATIs x1400 or so? Who-ever wants to play games with 20-30fps and dont wanna spend that 2k$$ for MBP can put another 100$ and go for 128MB dedicated memory.. I dont understand why they didnt do it, because that would shut all the whinning up and make people satisfied..

Because it wouldn't cost $100. To include, even dedicated RAM for the Intel GMA graphics would require a whole new, totally dedicated logic board design. This costs $$$$$$. In addition it requires a separate assembly line for these few BTO orders as they now have different parts so that's even more $$$$. Now assuming that the RAM itself has a cost price of a few $$ and that you really want a dedicated GPU not the Intel GMA stuff that even more $$$.

So realistically for a low end dedicated GPU with, say 128Mb of dedicated RAM you might well need to pay $250 more. Is it still worth it for you?

And what about Apple? Would Apple actually sell any more MacBooks? Enough that they would notice the difference. I'd say no. They might sell a few hundred more but that's nothing. So all that development time spent making the new logic boards gets them close to nothing, so why even bother.

Basically if you buy a low end machine you get a low end machine. If you want a high end laptop with a dedicated GPU you know what to do: pay for it.

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 5, 2006, 08:16 PM
What a bunch of BS, Apple is playing all the MacFanboys. Integrated is the cheapist you can get , you just cant buy or find cheaper. Excuses are excuses. Many others offer a real gpu for a modest cost increase, Apple plays the that will be another 1,000 bucks to get a modern GPU. There are three things that confuses the hell out of Apple. One is the TV. Two is gaming. Three is making a decent mouse. Apple is lost on all three. Thats how i see it after almost 20 yrs of Macs.

andiwm2003
Jun 5, 2006, 08:59 PM
.................................................A computer it only as fast as its slowest part and the bottle neck is the GPU. When you build a computer you dont want to select a CPU that massively out paces your GPU and that is what apple has been and still is doing. The CPU is great just it way to powerful for the GPU that in there and it crippling it. Heck I think it is a huge waste a money. A better choice would be to put a weaker CPU in there and take the saving and put them into putting a real GPU in there and bring the system up to a more balanced stated. ...............................

how exactly does the GPU slow down the macbook? given that i don't ever waste time on gaming. for every serious 2D application the gpu is easily fast enough and does not slow down the cpu.

............................There are three things that confuses the hell out of Apple. One is the TV. Two is gaming. Three is making a decent mouse. Apple is lost on all three.

that are true words. number four would be business/productivity applications.

apples gpu's have always been good enough for everthing but gaming. they should make a separate headless mac for gamers. trying to put a gaming gpu in the macbook even as a BTO makes the macbook more expensive (or less profitable for apple given that the gpu is "free"). so don't expect any change there. even when they go for the 965 next year. by then it will be too slow as well.

it seems you either buy a macbook pro or a xbox or you don't game.

Timepass
Jun 5, 2006, 10:22 PM
how exactly does the GPU slow down the macbook? given that i don't ever waste time on gaming. for every serious 2D application the gpu is easily fast enough and does not slow down the cpu.



that are true words. number four would be business/productivity applications.

apples gpu's have always been good enough for everthing but gaming. they should make a separate headless mac for gamers. trying to put a gaming gpu in the macbook even as a BTO makes the macbook more expensive (or less profitable for apple given that the gpu is "free"). so don't expect any change there. even when they go for the 965 next year. by then it will be too slow as well.

it seems you either buy a macbook pro or a xbox or you don't game.

Good enough.... Good enough is mean just enough to get by and you are right. Apple puts a GPU that just enough to make it by.

But my post is still correct on how apple is not pushing the CPU new myth out there call the CPU myth. They are acting like the CPU is everything by wasting money on a high end CPU that really can not be used to it full effect because of cheaper compent elsewere. The GPU is the one of the largest parts. Other areas is ram and so on (which is taking hits from the GPU again since memory for that is taken from there). The reality of is by putting a little CPU in the computer a better and faster computer would be made for the same price. A computer is a balance of its parts.

As the person above you stated integrated graphic is cheap and you get what you pay for cheap crappy parts that are bottom of the barrel in quallity. Integrated graphic cards are the lowest you can go for graphics it is that simple. But the entire graphic card issue is more than just in the integrated crap. Apple cripples all there computer by limiting the graphic card to low-mid cards on everything but there pro level computers that start at 2k with out a montior that you have to buy and still need about 500 bucks worth of upgrades to them to bring them in line with there CPU power to begin with. so now you have to pay an extra 1k plus montior to even get a mid-high graphic card in a a Apple computer. This is not even conisdering high end graphic card. Those are fine to keep pro lv but at least they ened to mid-high cards down to consumer lv and not cripple the consumer lv computers.

I love see apple taking heat on this issue because hopefully it mean they will shape on it and releize that as more people come over to apple they want the stuff

Earendil
Jun 6, 2006, 12:51 AM
If make a good post, and I do acknowledge the part at the end where you concede that no laptop is a gaming machine in the end. But here I go anyway :)

yeah integrated graphic is a joke. That much is true. But what I see as a problem is apple is pulling a different form of the mhz myth now and trying to say that is true.

The problem that isn't be acknowledge in these forms over and over again is that integrated graphics are the weakest kind of GPU out there, they are still good enough for 95% of the MacBook users, maybe even more. To say that IG is a joke from the point of view of a gamer is one thing, to say that apple is screwing up, even though they are providing an above adequate machine for the average user is just silly. And not to repeat others, but the MacBook is on par or a better deal than similarly priced Windows based machines. So again, to rag on Apple as a company seems ridicules. Say the MacBook sucks for gaming (derrrr...), but don't blame the company for making a good business decision that provides more than enough power for it's average user.

A computer it only as fast as its slowest part and the bottle neck is the GPU. When you build a computer you dont want to select a CPU that massively out paces your GPU and that is what apple has been and still is doing. The CPU is great just it way to powerful for the GPU that in there and it crippling it. Heck I think it is a huge waste a money. A better choice would be to put a weaker CPU in there and take the saving and put them into putting a real GPU in there and bring the system up to a more balanced stated. Right now manufactors (apple being one of the if not THE WORSE) CPU is everything. They put these great CPU in there lower lv system that go to waste due to other things that are crippling them. A computer should be a balance bettween everything.

wow, wow, wow. There are so many flaws in that argument I don't know where to start. You are making these sweeping statements about Apple and Apple users but you are taking it from the point of view of the 1% market of this machine.
I could give a MacBook to everyone in my family(6), and not a single one of them is going to ever hit that "crippling" bottleneck. I could give the MacBook to all of my friends and none of them would either. I take that back, the people that play WOW all day would probably whine to me, but they are the minority, and not the target audience anyway.

The second flaw I see in you argument is that you want a balanced machine. You want to sacrifice CPU for GPU. Great, if you're a gamer. Don't you think the rest of us want to crunch numbers and deal with our 2D apps a little more? Don't you think we want THOSE to be fast, not our 3D games? As a Computer Science major what I notice most is the CPU and RAM when I'm working. I want to compile programs fast. I don't need a GPU for anything. Do you need anything above a 16mb GPU for Word? Safari? iTunes? Mail?

Now, I do have a 64mb dedicated chip, why? Because I do a fair amount of photoshop work. Still, I'm betting upping the proc speed is going to give me better results than making it a 128mb card. I could be wrong, you are welcome to tell me so.

For the 0.001% of MacBook 3D latest games gamers, yes, you win and your argument stands. Past that, it seems pointless, and not worth ragging on the company for.

[/QUOTE]On top of all that Apple adverises games and many of you all would like more games to be made for OSX but the delevepors really have no reall incetive to spend the money to port over program for OSX on games. Apple crippling them with there crappy graphic card and lack of help. A desent gaming rig is going to cost you about 1500 so not only do you have a very small market share to work with to begin with but it made even smaller on what can really run games. Now lets look PC side you can build a really good gaming PC for about 1k. So lets see PC side has a cheaper and by far better system for gaming.[/QUOTE]

Blah blah blah. It would take so much to make Macintosh a decent gaming flatform, and personally I'd probably still be playing lan games with my form mates on my xBox (and yes, I started internet gaming when I was 11, go Myth!). You will always be able to home build a windows based machine for cheaper because of the available parts and the many different venders that make this possible (not Microsoft, except for the mice). Build me a low CPU high GPU machine and, personally, I'm going to buy the CPU heavy machine, and advise 99% of the people I know to do the same.


M$ helps out the delevpors and puts money into helping them out. Apple doesnt spend any money. M$ shows very clearly that it wants to help make games for the PC. Not only to they make some but the supply tools to help out other companies. They poor money in to make DirectX to make it even easier. M$ saw earily on that gaming was going to be big and then they poor money into helping them out.

Yay Microsoft! Want to know what else they do? :rolleyes:
and let's get one thing straight, Microsoft doesn't make games, they buy out companies and have them make games for them and slap their name on them :mad:
Let's not forget it was Microsoft that kept Halo from being released 2 years earlier on the Apple platform in it's complete state. Not 2 years out of date and rushed to make a Microsoft deadline.
And, knock knock, Microsoft has a ton of money. I'm sure Microsoft + Bill Gates could come close to buying Apple (if it were for sale).

As a minor gamer I wish Apple had a gaming platform too. However I'm realistic about the fact that at the moment Apple has bigger fish to fry, and the gaming market isn't where Apple is going to gain money and stay alive. They may capture the game market in time, but until they capture many other things. For anyone to say that Apple is making poor business decisions and neglecting its users is just being rash and not thinking about the situation with all the information. That, or a large gaming is everything ego :rolleyes:


But that all being said the MAC BOOK IS A LAPTOP. Laptop have always been weaker gaming computers. As for there desktop line it pretty weak for games as well. But dude the macbook is a laptop with an over power CPU for the rest of it parts and it unbalanced yes

Amen brotha Timepass! :D

~Earendil

Timepass
Jun 6, 2006, 07:31 AM
you want a low cost gaming rig. Ok I just go to this link http://www.sharkyextreme.com/guides/MVGSBG/article.php/3607756

1k gaming rig monitor and all.


As time moves on the ingrated graphic is goign to kill Apple with the GPU more and more things are being shove off to the GPU that are being used by everyday users. A good example is OS are starting to use 3d parts of a GPU. Vista wants 128 megs of video ram to use Areo. OSX is starting to use more and more of it Vram. Tiger extra effects dont work on the old g4 iBooks that are a year old. There inlies a the problem of building unbalanced computers. As more and more things get shoved off to the GPU that means they need to be beefed up because other wise you are cutting deeper and deeper in to the service life of the computer.

The mac book GPU is going to more than likely cut 1-2 years off it useful life. Compared to putting a little weaker CPU in there to put a better graphic card which would give it another year. The graphic card is what going to cause that computer to go outdated and require replacement. Not the CPU. The computer design should be set that most of it parts go out dated at about the same time in usefulness. CPU, GPU and everything.

Some just wrong when you use a higher end CPU and then a bottom of the barrel parts elsewhere. It is a waste of money and poor designing.

But as we come to the conclusion earily the mac book is an laptop. This thread has gone off the orginal part and moved over to people Definding the integrated graphic. Face the facts integreated graphic is crap and is the cheapest thing out there. You get what you pay for.

andiwm2003
Jun 6, 2006, 08:05 AM
..............................
Some just wrong when you use a higher end CPU and then a bottom of the barrel parts elsewhere. It is a waste of money and poor designing.
...........................


you just repeat yourself.

so i'll do the same:
there is almost no impact of the gpu on using photshop elements, iphoto, imovie (for the most part), keynote, powerpoint, excel, adobe pdf-reader, iweb, safari, garageband, aperture, MS word, Pages and all other useful programs.

your argumrnt holds only for 3d applications and i don't know a single 3d application that's worth using on a 13" screen (talking about molecular modelling). mac's are not useful for gaming. gaming is a waste of time. if you want to game go and buy a windows machine with all its flexibility and gpu's. seriuosly, you get a lot more gaming capability on a windows machine for your money.

but stating that apple's computers are bad for all aplications because of the gpu is wrong. your statemant is only true for 3d gaming and maybe a few 3d applications (that you won't run on a MacBook anyway).

all other applications benefit more from a fast cpu than from a fast gpu.

btw: your $1000 link is to a desktop PC. hardly a comparison for a notebook.

jaxstate
Jun 6, 2006, 08:34 AM
If gaming is a waste of time, why to developers make games for Macs? Why do Apple have a gaming page on their site?
you just repeat yourself.
so i'll do the same:
there is almost no impact of the gpu on using photshop elements, iphoto, imovie (for the most part), keynote, powerpoint, excel, adobe pdf-reader, iweb, safari, garageband, aperture, MS word, Pages and all other useful programs.

your argumrnt holds only for 3d applications and i don't know a single 3d application that's worth using on a 13" screen (talking about molecular modelling). mac's are not useful for gaming. gaming is a waste of time. if you want to game go and buy a windows machine with all its flexibility and gpu's. seriuosly, you get a lot more gaming capability on a windows machine for your money.

but stating that apple's computers are bad for all aplications because of the gpu is wrong. your statemant is only true for 3d gaming and maybe a few 3d applications (that you won't run on a MacBook anyway).

all other applications benefit more from a fast cpu than from a fast gpu.

btw: your $1000 link is to a desktop PC. hardly a comparison for a notebook.

MacRumorUser
Jun 6, 2006, 08:49 AM
If gaming is a waste of time, why to developers make games for Macs? Why do Apple have a gaming page on their site?

And why is there only about 5 new releases each year ;) :D :D

simonthewolf
Jun 6, 2006, 08:50 AM
Ah, remember the good old days of consumer Mac launches? The endless complaints about iMacs/iBooks/Mac Minis being released with "lousy ATi graphics" and "last years cards"?

"No 30-inch Cinema HD Display support in the Mac Mini?! You mean the new iBook has a crappier graphics card than last year's G5?! No sale!"

Today's consumer Macs are hugely less expensive and vastly more powerful than the professional Macs of yesteryear. Integrated Graphics is a justifiable trade-off.

andiwm2003
Jun 6, 2006, 09:03 AM
If gaming is a waste of time, why to developers make games for Macs? Why do Apple have a gaming page on their site?

waste of time is a bit harsh. sorry for that.

what i wanted to say is that gaming is not a necessary thing that every machine has to be able to do. microsoft office is necessary for 90% of all computers. iphoto or photoshop is necessary for 90% of all computers. of course not exactly these programs but the performance needs that these programs represent.

the performance needs of 3d games are only necessary for 10% of users or even less.

that's why there are only few games sold for macs, that's why gaming is not really supported by apple.

Timepass
Jun 6, 2006, 10:31 AM
waste of time is a bit harsh. sorry for that.

what i wanted to say is that gaming is not a necessary thing that every machine has to be able to do. microsoft office is necessary for 90% of all computers. iphoto or photoshop is necessary for 90% of all computers. of course not exactly these programs but the performance needs that these programs represent.

the performance needs of 3d games are only necessary for 10% of users or even less.

that's why there are only few games sold for macs, that's why gaming is not really supported by apple.


you failed to put down the fact that OS are starting to use the 3d accerlator in GPUs. Both M$ OS's and apple OS are moving in the direction to start using the GPU to do more of the OS stuff and us the 3d accerlator. Vista Aero is using it for OS rendering. OSX tiger already is using it in Dashboard. Are they required for it no. But the fact stands that OS's are starting to use them. That means the average EVERYDAY user is going to start needed a real graphic card. It clear where the direction is heading. Putting lowend jokes of a card in a computer just shorten it life span.

As for games not being made for mac. Apple is a huge part of the problem. Apple does little to really help them out heck apple puts up more road blocks than anything else.

Earendil
Jun 6, 2006, 10:54 AM
you failed to put down the fact that OS are starting to use the 3d accerlator in GPUs. Both M$ OS's and apple OS are moving in the direction to start using the GPU to do more of the OS stuff and us the 3d accerlator. Vista Aero is using it for OS rendering. OSX tiger already is using it in Dashboard. Are they required for it no. But the fact stands that OS's are starting to use them. That means the average EVERYDAY user is going to start needed a real graphic card. It clear where the direction is heading. Putting lowend jokes of a card in a computer just shorten it life span.

As for games not being made for mac. Apple is a huge part of the problem. Apple does little to really help them out heck apple puts up more road blocks than anything else.

My other post too big for you too tackle? or did I pick you apart too bad? :rolleyes:
In any case, you are now taking this as a MacBook GPU vs the needs of the operating system.
Two questions...
Does the MacBook run the current OS?
Does the MacBook, from what we know and what apple has said, run the next gen OS?

I think that is more than can be said for some of the laptops being sold TODAY when it comes to Vista.

and omg did you refference Vista's requirements for 128mb of vRam has an argument for the MacBook to have more ram?
Microsoft's "standard" of poor optimization is nothing that I want imatated by Apple :rolleyes:

~Earendil

Timepass
Jun 6, 2006, 11:11 AM
My other post too big for you too tackle? or did I pick you apart too bad? :rolleyes:
In any case, you are now taking this as a MacBook GPU vs the needs of the operating system.
Two questions...
Does the MacBook run the current OS?
Does the MacBook, from what we know and what apple has said, run the next gen OS?

I think that is more than can be said for some of the laptops being sold TODAY when it comes to Vista.

and omg did you refference Vista's requirements for 128mb of vRam has an argument for the MacBook to have more ram?
Microsoft's "standard" of poor optimization is nothing that I want imatated by Apple :rolleyes:

~Earendil


What did I say. I said it clear OS are heading that direction. Both Vista and tiger use the Graphic card more than OS of the past there no argueing that. Yes it can run todays OS. But what it does is thati to going to cut into the lifespan of the computer. Chance are really good Lion is going to relay on the GPU even more than tiger and the OS after Lion is going to use it even more. Each one is going to tax the system more and more. Also with OS heading that way it a pretty good bet more basic programs are going to head that direction as well. Weather it is for better looks, or just increasing the power of the program by typing an unused resourse.

Dont quite me the BS of it in minuim system specs. Those specs mean it will work just not well.

As for in the Macbooks case and apple history of putting out a new OS every 1.5 year and a life span of a computer at 4-5 years. That means in Macbook sold today is going to be looking at going though at least 3 if not 4 OS from apple. And since it looking like it not going to stay in the recomend specs for more than 2-3more years that pretty harsh in just the OS lv not counting the everyday apps people are going to use that are going to want to tap the GPU as well.


You are failing to point out why a crappy GPU is covering thing and work when even OS are starting to tap them this is on top of games which the Mac books can not even really run some games made over a year ago which is kind of sad if you ask me. More and more apps are going to start taping the GPU that much is clear. Feel free to be blinded by apple BS. They have proven history of exagrating the truth of how fast things are or how good they are. They are one of the worse of it.

ManchesterTrix
Jun 6, 2006, 11:15 AM
What did I say. I said it clear OS are heading that direction. Both Vista and tiger use the Graphic card more than OS of the past there no argueing that. Yes it can run todays OS. But what it does is thati to going to cut into the lifespan of the computer. Chance are really good Lion is going to relay on the GPU even more than tiger and the OS after Lion is going to use it even more. Each one is going to tax the system more and more. Also with OS heading that way it a pretty good bet more basic programs are going to head that direction as well. Weather it is for better looks, or just increasing the power of the program by typing an unused resourse.

Dont quite me the BS of it in minuim system specs. Those specs mean it will work just not well.

As for in the Macbooks case and apple history of putting out a new OS every 1.5 year and a life span of a computer at 4-5 years. That means in Macbook sold today is going to be looking at going though at least 3 if not 4 OS from apple. And since it looking like it not going to stay in the recomend specs for more than 2-3more years that pretty harsh in just the OS lv not counting the everyday apps people are going to use that are going to want to tap the GPU as well.


You are failing to point out why a crappy GPU is covering thing and work when even OS are starting to tap them this is on top of games which the Mac books can not even really run some games made over a year ago which is kind of sad if you ask me. More and more apps are going to start taping the GPU that much is clear. Feel free to be blinded by apple BS. They have proven history of exagrating the truth of how fast things are or how good they are. They are one of the worse of it.

You have a poor understanding of how the Operating System is making use of the Video Chipset and how it will likely use it in the future. I suggest you get a stronger grasp of Core Image and Direct X. The issue isn't so much Dedicated vs. Shared Video RAM, but rather the instructions that the GPU can support.

andiwm2003
Jun 6, 2006, 11:28 AM
................................ I said it clear OS are heading that direction. Both Vista and tiger use the Graphic card more than OS of the past there no argueing that. Yes it can run todays OS. But what it does is thati to going to cut into the lifespan of the computer. .................................................................................................... ..................... Feel free to be blinded by apple BS. They have proven history of exagrating the truth of how fast things are or how good they are. They are one of the worse of it.


i think your post points out why we see they gpu issue so different. you are right from your point of view. you want it to be almost cutting edge for two or more OS versions and you want to be able to use all the eye candy and the newest software.

but i buy a notebook for what i need it to do now and for the next year. after that it doesn't need to run all the newest eye candy as long as it runs the basic stuff i bought it for and the usual software updates. after that i buy a new one as sson as i need it. the 877MHz ibook would be still fine for me right now even with no support of core image. so i get my 4-5 years easily. thats why i don't care about the gpu stuff. especially for $1200 i get a great value.
from my point of view it is not a general flaw of mac's that the gpu is 2d only. other considerations like robustness, weight, battery life are more important.

regarding the "exagrating the truth of how fast things are" you're right. but that's just the usual marketing BS. you get it everywhere and you should ignore it. apple is no better than anybody else there.

mkaake
Jun 6, 2006, 12:16 PM
You are failing to point out why a crappy GPU is covering thing and work when even OS are starting to tap them this is on top of games which the Mac books can not even really run some games made over a year ago which is kind of sad if you ask me. More and more apps are going to start taping the GPU that much is clear. Feel free to be blinded by apple BS. They have proven history of exagrating the truth of how fast things are or how good they are. They are one of the worse of it.

And you've just fallen prey to the DHM trap: that if someone doesn't agree with you, it's not because they could possibly be right, it's because they're either stupid, or apple fanboys.

You think it's sad that you can't play games from last year. I don't. Right there, it separates us into two distinct markets. My market is what the Macbook is aimed at. It's not because I'm stupid, it's not because I'm a fanboy, it's because pretty much *everything* I do on a daily basis is 2D. So for me, "cheap, no cost" graphics are perfect - because I'm not paying for a 3d card that I'm not going to use. So what in the world do I use my computer for?? I mean, surely I'm just an idiot for not needing a 3d card, or not lamenting the fact that it's been lost.

What I do is simple: Mail, Safari, iDVD, iMovie, iTunes, Gimpshop, Skype, iPhoto. Address book. Calculator. Those are by far my most frequently used programs. Throw in Quicktime (which is still 2D, btw), and you've accounted for 95% of my computer time.

I don't need a dedicated graphics card. I really don't. That doesn't make me a fanboy, it doesn't make me stupid. It makes me the average consumer.

Which, by the way, is what the Macbook is made for. The gamers are just ticked off because they don't have a gaming laptop for under $2000. Sorry about that, but the macbook *still* isn't going to be a gaming laptop, and likely will never be.

I don't see why this argument has gone on for 4 pages already - it's really simple. There are integrated graphics, which suck compared to a dedicated card, except in 2D, where they can still hold their own. The macbook is designed for mostly 2D use, with the occasional foray into 3d, which, judging by comments from others here on MR, seems to work well, as long as you aren't expecting top of the line performance.

And that's really all there is to the argument. Of course, that's not an argument at all, and people like to argue, so instead we'll call each other names and insult each other. It's a lot more fun anyway, right?