PDA

View Full Version : SICK of people moaning about the MacBook graphics


MacRumorUser
Jun 2, 2006, 08:21 AM
I don't know about you guys, but frankly its getting a chore.

sreedy
Jun 2, 2006, 08:24 AM
yep get over it!

Haoshiro
Jun 2, 2006, 08:47 AM
Indeedy.

PlaceofDis
Jun 2, 2006, 08:57 AM
its certainly not the end of the world.

Boggle
Jun 2, 2006, 09:08 AM
If you don't like a product just don't buy it. And if you did buy it w/o considering the graphics, there's nobody to blame but yourself. Nobody had a gun to your head.

calebjohnston
Jun 2, 2006, 09:14 AM
Don't buy laptops and expect l337 graphics. If the game runs without awful clipping and it going very slowly, then shut dee fook up.

7on
Jun 2, 2006, 09:45 AM
I got a Macbook and was worried, but it's faster than my old Raedon 9000 so I'm at least happy. Faster running Halo in Rosette too.

yellow
Jun 2, 2006, 09:46 AM
I don't pay much attention to these things, but the MacBook has integrated graphics, correct? And people are complaining about graphics not being good (or being slow) on a computer that really doesn't have graphics card?

DougTheImpaler
Jun 2, 2006, 09:47 AM
It's not like this is the first time Apple's used onboard "vampire" video solutions. Of course, you have to go all the way back to the PowerMac 5500 to find the last time they did it (2MB was reserved for onboard video, though it still played a fantastic game of Diablo)

source (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac/stats/powermac_5500_250.html)

Dagless
Jun 2, 2006, 10:25 AM
"To get this good takes AGES"
to DougTheImpaler's sig


on topic. Shut up.

bousozoku
Jun 2, 2006, 10:59 AM
Considering that we'd already seen the Mac mini's integrated graphics, it could not have been a surprise to anyone who'd been watching. Also, the fact that the integrated graphics hardware generally performed better than the 5 year old graphics hardware already in place tells me that we're better off.

Would someone have been happier if it had been ATI Radeon x200 integrated graphics, though, as I've seen with a few Windows machines simply because it has a name other than Intel on it?

Raid
Jun 2, 2006, 11:03 AM
<sarcasm>Wow what a fair and unbiased poll....</sarcasm> :rolleyes:

While I'm not complaining all that much of the current performance of the card, my issue is the fact that once you by the machine, you can't upgrade it!

Years down the line the 'passible' performance of these cards are going to look pretty pathetic, then what do you do? Buy another with integrated graphics just to repeat the process? Or shell out extra cash up front to get that Pro Machine?

If Apple is serious about attracting all computer users why not provide a silightly higher priced, but more upgradable computers. Instead of pushing users up into the Pro line that can be a little expensive.

P.S. Please spare me the "Don't complain, buy a Pro machine." statments. It's unoriginal and doesn't address the issue.

JDOG_
Jun 2, 2006, 11:04 AM
I love how there's two "yes" answers on this :D

I'm a "get a life" man myself...

There should also be a "Yes, but I'm too broke to pony up for a MBP" option.

milo
Jun 2, 2006, 11:09 AM
The thing that annoys me the most is that virtually all the complaining comes from people who not only don't own a MB or mini, in most cases they've never sat down at one and tried it out. Most of the whining is assumptions of how they imagine it should work, instead of how it really does work.


<sarcasm>Wow what a fair and unbiased poll....</sarcasm> :rolleyes:

While I'm not complaining all that much of the current performance of the card, my issue is the fact that once you by the machine, you can't upgrade it!

Years down the line the 'passible' performance of these cards are going to look pretty pathetic, then what do you do? Buy another with integrated graphics just to repeat the process? Or shell out extra cash up front to get that Pro Machine?

If Apple is serious about attracting all computer users why not provide a silightly higher priced, but more upgradable computers. Instead of pushing users up into the Pro line that can be a little expensive.

P.S. Please spare me the "Don't complain, buy a Pro machine." statments. It's unoriginal and doesn't address the issue.

With most apps, even years down the road the video card isn't going to hinder performance. By the time the graphics performance becomes unacceptable for the GUI and general computing apps, the CPU and other system specs will be out of date as well.

Don't complain, buy a pro machine.

And shut up already.

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 2, 2006, 11:12 AM
Hearing and seeing all the defenders of cheapo graphics im convinced Apple could take a bag of Cow Poo Poo, slap the Apple label on it and people would screaming at the top of their lungs how it taste as good as steak and you dont need steak.:rolleyes: Integrated graphics are what they are.

decksnap
Jun 2, 2006, 11:12 AM
If Apple is serious about attracting all computer users why not provide a silightly higher priced, but more upgradable computers. Instead of pushing users up into the Pro line that can be a little expensive.


????
Asked and aswered.
:rolleyes:

Seriously though, why can't Apple sell us a core duo laptop with a 13" screen without making us buy this 'Macbook'? :rolleyes:

Integrated graphics are what they are.

Exactly. Great for 99% of computing tasks. Gamers are a vocal minority.

BlizzardBomb
Jun 2, 2006, 11:20 AM
P.S. Please spare me the "Don't complain, buy a Pro machine." statments. It's unoriginal and doesn't address the issue.

Ok then. Buy a console! :D You could pick up a console for the price of two games today.

Well anyway, the iMac plays games nicely and that definitely isn't a "Pro Machine". The MacBook and Mini were born to be:

1) Small
2) Quiet
3) Light on power consumption
4) Cheap

A dedicated graphics card that is noticeably faster than the GMA950 or the upcoming G965 would impact all four of them. Making the computer expandable would impact No. 1 and possibly No. 4.

Capt Underpants
Jun 2, 2006, 11:22 AM
It's not our fault Apple put ****** graphics in their macbooks.

Blame Apple for our complaining.

Raid
Jun 2, 2006, 11:25 AM
The thing that annoys me the most is that virtually all the complaining comes from people who not only don't own a MB or mini, in most cases they've never sat down at one and tried it out. Most of the whining is assumptions of how they imagine it should work, instead of how it really does work.

With most apps, even years down the road the video card isn't going to hinder performance. By the time the graphics performance becomes unacceptable for the GUI and general computing apps, the CPU and other system specs will be out of date as well.

Don't complain, buy a pro machine.

And shut up already.

Well the reason why I haven't got a Mac mini is because of the integrated graphics card! :p Do you own one? Would you own one (or feel better about your purchase) if you could upgrade the graphics? I have a feeling that most of you who want the complainers to "shut up" know that integrated graphics suck, but can't come up with anything better to say!

With the computers I buy I do upgrade the graphics and do notice better performance out of the machine. Now I to buy Pro machines, but that's because I can keep them running for ages with the occasional upgrades as performance demands increase.

So what I'm saying is I'll shut up when Apple makes me a fully upgradeable computer for around $1,200, or somebody ponies up the cash for me to by another Pro machine. :p :D

BlizzardBomb
Jun 2, 2006, 11:30 AM
So what I'm saying is I'll shut up when Apple makes me a fully upgradeable computer for around $1,200, or somebody ponies up the cash for me to by another Pro machine. :p :D

Might be a while before either of those happens :p

I think people who need "power" are better off saving up for a "Pro". Not only will they have more power, but they would have future-proofed themselves meaning they can wait that little bit longer before they have to make another purchase.

xyian
Jun 2, 2006, 11:40 AM
We are the consumers. If we don't approve of something then we can affect the marketplace. If there are enough people that don't enjoy the integrated graphics then we can either voice our opinions to the company or refuse to purchase it. If the company sees that people aren't buying the product, then they will change it. It's as simple as that.:cool:

MacRumorUser
Jun 2, 2006, 11:42 AM
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.

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.

MacRumorUser
Jun 2, 2006, 11:45 AM
I love how there's two "yes" answers on this :D

I'm a "get a life" man myself...

There should also be a "Yes, but I'm too broke to pony up for a MBP" option.

LOL! Damn why didn't I think of that :D

I also should have added,

'NO - If I make a lot of noise it will distract people from noticing my obvious short-comings'

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 2, 2006, 11:45 AM
We are the consumers. If we don't approve of something then we can affect the marketplace. If there are enough people that don't enjoy the integrated graphics then we can either voice our opinions to the company or refuse to purchase it. If the company sees that people aren't buying the product, then they will change it. It's as simple as that.:cool:
They did finally cave in and give iMac a decent GPU.:)but it took Apple years to figure it out. This is the gaming generation and yes Consumer is King! Yeah Baby Yeah!:D

Capt Underpants
Jun 2, 2006, 11:46 AM
LOL! Damn why didn't I think of that :D

I also should have added,

'NO - If I make a lot of noise it will detract people from my obvious shortcomings'

Yeah... let's make fun of people who want better products from their favorite compant.

Makes sense to me.

xPismo
Jun 2, 2006, 11:48 AM
I think people who need "power" are better off saving up for a "Pro". Not only will they have more power, but they would have future-proofed themselves meaning they can wait that little bit longer before they have to make another purchase.

I couldn't have said it better. Funny how "pro" is associated with "power" - as if Apple planned it this way?! Nahhh. Now that would be silly. ;)

MacRumorUser
Jun 2, 2006, 11:49 AM
Yeah... let's make fun of people who want better products from their favorite compant.

Makes sense to me.

Why not, it's a damn site more entertaining than listening to their bloody whining...

NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO BUY A MACBOOK.
APPLE HAS GIVEN YOU A CHOICE IF YOU WANT NON-INTEGRATED GRAPHICS.
DONT LIKE IT - THEN WALK AWAY........ Just Walk Away............

greatdevourer
Jun 2, 2006, 11:50 AM
<sarcasm>Wow what a fair and unbiased poll....</sarcasm> :rolleyes:

While I'm not complaining all that much of the current performance of the card, my issue is the fact that once you by the machine, you can't upgrade it!

Years down the line the 'passible' performance of these cards are going to look pretty pathetic, then what do you do? Buy another with integrated graphics just to repeat the process? Or shell out extra cash up front to get that Pro Machine?

If Apple is serious about attracting all computer users why not provide a silightly higher priced, but more upgradable computers. Instead of pushing users up into the Pro line that can be a little expensive.

P.S. Please spare me the "Don't complain, buy a Pro machine." statments. It's unoriginal and doesn't address the issue. When have we ever been able to upgrade any laptop graphics card? Or the Mini graphics card? :confused:

MacRumorUser
Jun 2, 2006, 11:57 AM
When have we ever been able to upgrade any laptop graphics card? Or the Mini graphics card? :confused:

agreed & since when has a computer EVER been 'future proof' ? :rolleyes:

Capt Underpants
Jun 2, 2006, 12:03 PM
Why not, it's a damn site more entertaining than listening to their bloody whining...

NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO BUY A MACBOOK.
APPLE HAS GIVEN YOU A CHOICE IF YOU WANT NON-INTEGRATED GRAPHICS.
DONT LIKE IT - THEN WALK AWAY........ Just Walk Away............

I walked away from the Macbook. I'm not stupid enough to buy a product that won't fit my needs.

You need to take a chill pill.

MacRumorUser
Jun 2, 2006, 12:05 PM
I walked away from the Macbook. I'm not stupid enough to buy a product that won't fit my needs.

Then shut up whining about it :rolleyes:

You excercised your freedom of choice. Now let us who did buy a macbook, and are gaming on it get on with it. Just because you wouldnt be happy with it, doesnt mean that we should have to listen to your nonsense when you havent even had first hand experience on one.

Capt Underpants
Jun 2, 2006, 12:12 PM
Then shut up whining about it :rolleyes:

You excercised your freedom of choice. Now let us who did buy a macbook, and are gaming on it get on with it. Just because you wouldnt be happy with it, doesnt mean that we should have to listen to your nonsense when you havent even had first hand experience on one.

I dont need first hand experience. Once again, the benchmarks say it all.

You're getting way too worked up over this. Its a graphics card issue, and if it isn't up to par, I will complain. And I certainly won't allow someone to purchase a sub-par computer without knowing that he won't be able to play games on it.

And I'm happy that you can deal with those low frames, but some people can't.

bousozoku
Jun 2, 2006, 12:12 PM
...
While I'm not complaining all that much of the current performance of the card, my issue is the fact that once you by the machine, you can't upgrade it!
...


There are two or three laptop computers which have graphics hardware capable of being upgraded and there are no upgrade solutions. Is that a better solution?

When you buy an inexpensive product, you generally live with the deficiencies or you get rid of it/never buy it. If mobile phones were all great, who would buy the more expensive models? Apple knows the MacBook's place. It's to provide a good starting point and it provides a clear path for people who won't settle to find their way to a MacBook Pro.

Abulia
Jun 2, 2006, 12:13 PM
Yes, I'm tired of MRU bringing it up all the time.

What, that's not what I was voting on? :confused:

MacRumorUser
Jun 2, 2006, 12:17 PM
There are two or three laptop computers which have graphics hardware capable of being upgraded and there are no upgrade solutions. Is that a better solution?

When you buy an inexpensive product, you generally live with the deficiencies or you get rid of it/never buy it. If mobile phones were all great, who would buy the more expensive models? Apple knows the MacBook's place. It's to provide a good starting point and it provides a clear path for people who won't settle to find their way to a MacBook Pro.

Exactly! Agreed 100%

The option is there in front of people with clear specifcations. If the macbook doesnt meet your requirements, look at the macbook pro.

If tha doesnt meet your requirement look elsewhere. Apple havent got your arm twisted behind your back forcing you into purchase decisions.

It is funny how the people without the macbooks are making most of the noise though.

Raid
Jun 2, 2006, 12:18 PM
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.
Ok, let me restate this for the record, I have never nor will ever purchase a machine that will not allow me to upgrade certian internal componets. As a consumer I have voted with my pocketbook, but since I do hold Apple computers in high regard I have let them (and the readers here) know why I haven't purchased one; which is a rare opportunity for improvement given to any company. It is my right to complain about gaps in the market that can be easily accomodated just as it's your right to drink all the Apple flavoured Kool-Aid you'd like.

If you really think that I don't have a point then why don't you answer one simple question: Would you like your computer more if you were given the option to upgrade your video card?

If you're just going to tell those of us who complain to "shut up" and stop "bitching" then why create a thread at all if you're not open to debate or to defending your position? This sounds a lot like trolling to me.

MacRumorUser
Jun 2, 2006, 12:19 PM
Yes, I'm tired of MRU bringing it up all the time.

What, that's not what I was voting on? :confused:

LOL! ;) Thanks Don :D

Capt Underpants
Jun 2, 2006, 12:27 PM
Exactly! Agreed 100%

The option is there in front of people with clear specifcations. If the macbook doesnt meet your requirements, look at the macbook pro.

If tha doesnt meet your requirement look elsewhere. Apple havent got your arm twisted behind your back forcing you into purchase decisions.

It is funny how the people without the macbooks are making most of the noise though.

That's because the people without Macbooks want to buy one, but the macbooks don't quite meet their needs. And neither do the Macbook Pro's.

I want a small laptop with a graphics card, like my 12" PB. That isn't too much to ask.

Raid
Jun 2, 2006, 12:28 PM
There are two or three laptop computers which have graphics hardware capable of being upgraded and there are no upgrade solutions. Is that a better solution?

When you buy an inexpensive product, you generally live with the deficiencies or you get rid of it/never buy it. If mobile phones were all great, who would buy the more expensive models? Apple knows the MacBook's place. It's to provide a good starting point and it provides a clear path for people who won't settle to find their way to a MacBook Pro.Acutally I think that it's better to have the option of an upgrade with no solutions than no option at all. If there is a demand for it companys will try to produce the goods to fill that demand.

As to your second paragraph I don't find the non-Pro line all that inexpensive (well it's good for Apple I guess, but not the market as a whole). Since Apple as moved into the Intel market they have opened themselves up to the possiblity that OS X will eventually be hacked to function on other non-Apple PC platforms. If Apple doesn't fill market gaps or compete very closely with the other options availible then they could be hard pressed to find buyers of their computers. ... and I'm sure we'd all like to avoid that.

MacRumorUser
Jun 2, 2006, 12:29 PM
If you're just going to tell those of us who complain to "shut up" and stop "bitching" then why create a thread at all if you're not open to debate or to defending your position? This sounds a lot like trolling to me.

I take your point, but a cheap (it's lowest priced laptop range) consumer laptop from apple was NEVER going to have upgradeable components. Ever....

What was my purpose starting this thread?

If you read a lot of the threads started by people who have actually purchased a macbook asking what games run and what doesn't, and posting results of games they are playing and enjoying - within a matter of a few replies the usual people turn up telling everyone they are wasting their time and should forget about it, and that integrated graphics cant play games period. Regardless of the evidence of these posters actually playing games right now on their macbooks. A few posts later, the same people pop up again and again recurrently repeating the same thing..... It made every helpful thread a real chore to slog through.....

While it's fine for them to say integrated graphics and such are not for them, and they would never buy a machine with them, that's fair enough and a personal choice, but could they give it a rest when someone who actually has a macbook is sharing and asking others about their experiences.

Ironically it was their trolling I was trying to put a stop too. They know who they are ;)

decksnap
Jun 2, 2006, 12:40 PM
Voting with your pocketbooks is fine. I think you'll find that's what's led us to what Apple offers right now. Does anybody honestly think Apple doesn't know the market breakdown of user's needs? Or whether the trade-off between a price hike for this card and using intel's integrated is worth it to maximize sales of Macbooks?

Apple knows the VAST MAJORITY of prospective Macbook purchasers do not need more graphics card than what is in there, and shouldn't have to pay more than the price it's at for something unnecessary to them.

Raid
Jun 2, 2006, 12:48 PM
Ironically it was their trolling I was trying to put a stop too. They know who they are ;)Ah well now I see, but you got to admit if you look at this thread outside of that context and it comes off as quite harsh. :)

I now feel I can leave this thread in peace. ;)

OutThere
Jun 2, 2006, 12:48 PM
There are two or three laptop computers which have graphics hardware capable of being upgraded and there are no upgrade solutions. Is that a better solution?

Those computers, however, come with very good graphics cards to start with...so that doesn't technically address the issue.

-

As to the complaints: If you don't like the people complaining about the Integrated Graphics cards, then don't read it. Honestly, you don't have to! What a novel idea...

Apple replaced all of the smaller laptops, the iBooks and the 12" Powerbook with the MacBook...the G4 models all had dedicated, brand-name graphics cards, the MacBook has 100% pure s*it.

Apple has essentially told me that if I want a computer that fits in my backpack easily, I have to deal without graphically-intense games.

The iBooks and 12" Powerbooks never had such a claim to be great gaming computers, but now there is such a gradient between the MacBook Pros and the MacBooks, it makes the difference so much more apparent.

I don't appreciate being told to sit down and shut up because I'm not satisfied with the product offerings of a computer company. I will calmly vocalize my opinion until something changes or doesn't change, and if it doesn't change, fine, I can run a hacked version of OS X on my Dell.

MacRumorUser
Jun 2, 2006, 12:57 PM
I will calmly vocalize my opinion until something changes or doesn't change, and if it doesn't change, fine, I can run a hacked version of OS X on my Dell.

Some how I dont think apple are going suddenly cater for someone willing to use illegal hacked version of it's operating system on a dell :)


But regardless, it's not as if anyone serious about gaming ever did that on an ibook.

There has always been a big difference between its consumer laptops and it's designated pro machines, such as the dual screen spanning being disabled on ibooks.

You can play UT2004 and a good amount of games on the macbook. I can play rollercoaster tycoon 3 (via bootcamp) with far higher settings than I could on my powerbook 12" or ibook 12".

plinkoman
Jun 2, 2006, 01:02 PM
actually, i'm almost sick of people standing up for the graphics in the macbook. dedicated graphics is always something apple did to set itself above other pc manufacturers; just like a firewire iPod, fw800 etc...

i'm never going to buy the macbook (i'll always go pro), but i'm getting sick of apple getting rid of all the things that made them unique just to make a quick dollar, and everyone here turning their heads the other way.

in any case, nothing any of us say or do will change it, so we ALL might as well shut up about it. :cool:

Haoshiro
Jun 2, 2006, 01:23 PM
I dont need first hand experience. Once again, the benchmarks say it all.

You're getting way too worked up over this. Its a graphics card issue, and if it isn't up to par, I will complain. And I certainly won't allow someone to purchase a sub-par computer without knowing that he won't be able to play games on it.

And I'm happy that you can deal with those low frames, but some people can't.


For the target audience of the MacBook the graphics are definitely up to par. I'd say an Eagle or Birdie *easy*

As has been said, this isn't a gaming laptop... MacBook Pro has a dedicated graphics card. MacBook doesn't because it is pointless for its target market.

blitzkrieg79
Jun 2, 2006, 01:25 PM
I couldn't have said it better. Funny how "pro" is associated with "power" - as if Apple planned it this way?! Nahhh. Now that would be silly. ;)

Funny, as I always thought of a power user as someone like an artist, musician, programmer, video editor, but NOT an every day user/gamer. Gaming these days is an everyday chore on a PC, it's nothing unordinary (please don't tell me to go buy an XBOX if I want to play games as some games such as RTS or FPS simply play better on a PC period).

So what you are saying is that in order to get an ATI X1900 in my laptop computer instead of buying a $1099 Macbook I need to buy a $1999 MacBook Pro???? Thats one hell of an upgrade cost considering that the video card alone is worth maybe $80-$100. I don't need any fancy aluminum casing or extra USB or firewire ports, all I want is a better video card and I have my perfect computer for a perfect price.

Apple needs to get this right. What they need to do is offer video card upgrade options in time of a purchase, if someone doesn't need it thats fine, but if someone wants it, I don't think that spending $800 more just to get a better video card is cost efficient.

Toshiba in it's $799 & up line offers video card options and I don't see why Apple can't do the same with MacBooks.

DougTheImpaler
Jun 2, 2006, 01:29 PM
"To get this good takes AGES"
to DougTheImpaler's sig

Amen, bro. ;)

bousozoku
Jun 2, 2006, 01:30 PM
...
The iBooks and 12" Powerbooks never had such a claim to be great gaming computers, but now there is such a gradient between the MacBook Pros and the MacBooks, it makes the difference so much more apparent.
...

Considering that the smallest PowerBook had arguably better graphics hardware with the GeForce FX 5200, it didn't really seem to make a difference over the ATI Radeon 9200.

Apple did need to provide something power and heat-concious and they chose the easiest route.

I would say that Apple will respond with something better in the near future, but I think it's highly unlikely. The iBook hardware didn't change much in its lifetime.

I don't like the integrated graphics hardware any more than anyone else but it serves its purpose. I considered a Compaq 14 inch widescreen machine but couldn't get past the fact that the integrated Intel graphics hardware defeated any serious 3D work I would do with the machine. I ended up with a 15.2 inch PowerBook.

In any case, it's Apple's design, they'll do what they want. No one forces anyone else to buy it.

Acutally I think that it's better to have the option of an upgrade with no solutions than no option at all. If there is a demand for it companys will try to produce the goods to fill that demand.

As to your second paragraph I don't find the non-Pro line all that inexpensive (well it's good for Apple I guess, but not the market as a whole). Since Apple as moved into the Intel market they have opened themselves up to the possiblity that OS X will eventually be hacked to function on other non-Apple PC platforms. If Apple doesn't fill market gaps or compete very closely with the other options availible then they could be hard pressed to find buyers of their computers. ... and I'm sure we'd all like to avoid that.

Considering the price point, I don't think you'd be happy with the upgrade option. It's not available in a budget-priced computer.

arghhhhhhhhhh
Jun 2, 2006, 01:30 PM
i'm not complaining i'm just protesting and hoping to rally apple to get better games and graphics

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 2, 2006, 01:32 PM
Voting with your pocketbooks is fine. I think you'll find that's what's led us to what Apple offers right now. Does anybody honestly think Apple doesn't know the market breakdown of user's needs? Or whether the trade-off between a price hike for this card and using intel's integrated is worth it to maximize sales of Macbooks?

Apple knows the VAST MAJORITY of prospective Macbook purchasers do not need more graphics card than what is in there, and shouldn't have to pay more than the price it's at for something unnecessary to them.Its not to hard to have another option, you could easily have say a $50 or even $100 option and many would love it. I know on my last machine i wanted options and went elsewhere after almost 20 yrs of Macs. I bought my first Pc.

MacRumorUser
Jun 2, 2006, 01:33 PM
Toshiba in it's $799 & up line offers video card options and I don't see why Apple can't do the same with MacBooks.

Because in its current small form factor it simply couldnt accomodate it.

AvSRoCkCO1067
Jun 2, 2006, 01:33 PM
I understand those who want a small laptop with dedicated graphics and are willing to pay an extra 500 dollars to do so - hopefully, Apple will come out with some other laptop down the line that offers you guys dedicated graphics in a smaller footprint...

But for now, Apple is clearly focusing on gaining market share (Jobs has said it, its switch to Intel makes it clear, and its new advertising campaign/Bootcamp makes it pretty obvious....Apple is targeting switchers.)

Now let's, just for a second, eye the competition. The MacBook is designed to compete with Dell's most popular laptops - the Inspirons!

Inspirons come in a number of flavors - the B130, E1405, E1505, E1705, and 710M.

Let's see: 3 of these 5 models come with either Pentium M or Core Solo processors (including one that begins at 1266 dollars). They all start at 512 MB of memory, except for the B130, which starts at 256 MB and is only upgradeable to 1 GB. Two of them begin with Dual Cores, but they start at 1.66 GHz. Hard drives are all of comparable sizes (except the B130, which starts at 40 GB). The optical drives are all 'Combo Drives', except for the machine that begins at 1249, which has a 'Super Drive'. And finally, 4 of them have integrated graphics - two of which aren't even the 950 chip - and one of them allows for the addition of a video card, but also begins with Intel Integrated Graphics. Note that the model that allows for a dedicated graphics card is a 17" model, and upgrading costs 250 dollars - ultimately, once all parts are upgraded to match the 17" Apple MacBook Pro Model, the price is near 2000

Note that I did not use sale prices for the comparison, although the specs remain the same regardless of the price.

Stop the whining - observe this from an economical standpoint.

Capt Underpants
Jun 2, 2006, 01:34 PM
For the target audience of the MacBook the graphics are definitely up to par. I'd say an Eagle or Birdie *easy*

As has been said, this isn't a gaming laptop... MacBook Pro has a dedicated graphics card. MacBook doesn't because it is pointless for its target market.

Like I've said before, the graphics in the Macbook are good for everything but gaming. That means it is not up to par. What would you say the target audience for a macbook is? High school and college students? Because I'm a high school student, and I want to game.

You're right, the macbook isn't a gaming laptop. But if it had an x1400 or something, it could game. And that would make it all the more useful, even if it was a $100 upgrade.

MacRumorUser
Jun 2, 2006, 01:36 PM
I understand those who want a small laptop with dedicated graphics and are willing to pay an extra 500 dollars to do so - hopefully,

Problem is I dont think they are willing to pay that extra $500. They can already do that to buy a macbook pro.

Other than that I agree with you completely.

blitzkrieg79
Jun 2, 2006, 01:37 PM
Because in its current small form factor it simply couldnt accomodate it.

I don't buy it. MacBook Pro is 1 inch thick and somehow they managed to fit a good graphics card in it. MacBook is 1.08 inches thick. And is it me or is there too much of a price gap between the most expensive MacBook and least expensive MacBook Pro?

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 2, 2006, 01:38 PM
Because in its current small form factor it simply couldnt accomodate it.Stop the spin, you know what you said is just excuse making.

blitzkrieg79
Jun 2, 2006, 01:41 PM
I understand those who want a small laptop with dedicated graphics and are willing to pay an extra 500 dollars to do so - hopefully, Apple will come out with some other laptop down the line that offers you guys dedicated graphics in a smaller footprint...

But for now, Apple is clearly focusing on gaining market share (Jobs has said it, its switch to Intel makes it clear, and its new advertising campaign/Bootcamp makes it pretty obvious....Apple is targeting switchers.)

Now let's, just for a second, eye the competition. The MacBook is designed to compete with Dell's most popular laptops - the Inspirons!

Inspirons come in a number of flavors - the B130, E1405, E1505, E1705, and 710M.

Let's see: 3 of these 5 models come with either Pentium M or Core Solo processors (including one that begins at 1266 dollars). They all start at 512 MB of memory, except for the B130, which starts at 256 MB and is only upgradeable to 1 GB. Two of them begin with Dual Cores, but they start at 1.66 GHz. Hard drives are all of comparable sizes (except the B130, which starts at 40 GB). The optical drives are all 'Combo Drives', except for the machine that begins at 1249, which has a 'Super Drive'. And finally, 4 of them have integrated graphics - two of which aren't even the 950 chip - and one of them allows for the addition of a video card, but also begins with Intel Integrated Graphics. Note that the model that allows for a dedicated graphics card is a 17" model, and upgrading costs 250 dollars - ultimately, once all parts are upgraded to match the 17" Apple MacBook Pro Model, the price is near 2000

Note that I did not use sale prices for the comparison, although the specs remain the same regardless of the price.

Stop the whining - observe this from an economical standpoint.


Well you have to use sale/rebate prices in PC world as it is part of a given deal. I bought a Toshiba laptop early this year with a $300 mail-in rebate. You can't ignore that, it's just too much money.

MacRumorUser
Jun 2, 2006, 01:43 PM
I don't buy it. MacBook Pro is 1 inch thick and somehow they managed to fit a good graphics card in it. MacBook is 1.08 inches thick. And is it me or is there too much of a price gap between the most expensive MacBook and least expensive MacBook Pro?

What I meant is that in order to do so they would need to manufacture a logicboard with not only a integrated solution, but also an extra slot for an upgrade, that would be fiddly to fit inside it.

The only way they could do it it to offer a completely alternative logic board and that would put the price up for everyone - not only those with integrated, but those wanting the dedicated as manafacturing costs just increased largely.

So everyone ends up paying more.

xPismo
Jun 2, 2006, 01:43 PM
Funny, as I always thought of a power user as someone like an artist, musician, programmer, video editor, but NOT an every day user/gamer. Gaming these days is an everyday chore on a PC...

Good points, but really I think the gaming population of laptop users is at most around the same percentage as the above user examples. Everyday user/gamer's seem to be more than happy with the advantages the IGP: size, power costs, unit cost.

And while I won't tell you to get an xbox, I think the gaming industry is heading that way & away from PC gaming in general. Heck, even a ps3 is half the costs of a MB - and its IGP kicks the MB's arse. ;)

blitzkrieg79
Jun 2, 2006, 01:44 PM
What I meant is that in order to do so they would need to manufacture a logicboard with not only a integrated solution, but also an extra slot for an upgrade, that would be fiddly to fit inside it.

The only way they could do it it to offer a completely alternative logic board and that would put the price up for everyone - not only those with integrated, but those wanting the dedicated as manafacturing costs just increased largely.

Jeeeezzzzzzz, Toshiba, Acer, Sony, Asus, Dell, Gateway are able to offer video card options in laptops $799-$899 and up and Apple can't???? And again, let me repeat my point/question, is spending $900 more just to get a better graphics card an actual option ($1099 Macbook vs $1999 MacBook Pro)?

milo
Jun 2, 2006, 01:45 PM
Hearing and seeing all the defenders of cheapo graphics im convinced Apple could take a bag of Cow Poo Poo, slap the Apple label on it and people would screaming at the top of their lungs how it taste as good as steak and you dont need steak.:rolleyes: Integrated graphics are what they are.

Sounds like you're full of Cow Poo Poo. For many users (particularly if you're not playing games), the graphics are more than enough, in fact they're probably indistinguishable from a high end graphics card.

I bought a mini because I wanted a good deal. I don't want to pay for something I don't want to use, for me "steak" is overkill and a waste of money.

Well the reason why I haven't got a Mac mini is because of the integrated graphics card! :p Do you own one? Would you own one (or feel better about your purchase) if you could upgrade the graphics? I have a feeling that most of you who want the complainers to "shut up" know that integrated graphics suck, but can't come up with anything better to say!

Yes, as a matter of fact I do own a mini. And I love it. Given the option of paying more for a graphics card, I'd likely pass on it, I have zero complaints about the graphics card. In apps other than games, the graphics are completely fine, I can't see a difference between the mini and my quad G5 in that respect. I have run a few games, and they've all been fine at low settings (by my admittedly low standards).

For anyone who doubts the usability of the macbook and mini, check out the benchmarks running Final Cut Studio on the MB. It beats a dual G5 more often than not.

Have you even used a MB or mini?

As I said before, shut up already.

Dagless
Jun 2, 2006, 01:45 PM
Simple solution. Get a MacBookPro or wait for the MacPro.

If you can't afford one. then buy a gaming PC or save up a little more.

It isn't that difficult really.

blitzkrieg79
Jun 2, 2006, 01:51 PM
Simple solution. Get a MacBookPro or wait for the MacPro.

If you can't afford one. then buy a gaming PC or save up a little more.

It isn't that difficult really.

LOL, $900 more for a MacBook Pro for a $100 better video card??? You must have an MBA in Finances.

BlizzardBomb
Jun 2, 2006, 01:52 PM
Stop the spin, you know what you said is just excuse making.

Do you want the answer to be given to you? Apple is obsessed with design. For this they charge a premium. Apple also loves to plant big profit margins on all Macs. They couldn't have Front Row, all those magnets, the iSight and the Core Duo (which cost a LOT more than G4s) dig into their profit margins so they used Integrated Graphics and raised the price. That's pretty much the whole story.

Apple are not forcing you to buy a Mac with Integrated Graphics. It's here to stay, so buy it or don't buy it. Simple. :)

MacRumorUser
Jun 2, 2006, 01:55 PM
Jeeeezzzzzzz, Toshiba, Acer, Sony, Asus, Dell, Gateway are able to offer video card options in laptops $799-$899 and up and Apple can't???? And again, let me repeat my point/question, is spending $900 more just to get a better graphics card an actual option ($1099 Macbook vs $1999 MacBook Pro)?


They make a lot more variety/models of machines and $799-899 wouldnt get you both Dual Core processor and Fancy graphics card would it??


Yes the price difference between bottom of range macbook and macbook pro is considerable, I cant argue with that. But; if you go for a mnacbook pro you dont just get a graphics card. You get almuninum case, faster processor options, faster 7200rpm drives, backlight keyboard, bigger screen with higher resolution etc.

But the amount of macbooks selling like hotcakes surley speaks volumes about most peoples opinions of integrated graphics and the importance to the majority of people the macbook is aimed at; of gaming to them.

Dagless
Jun 2, 2006, 02:01 PM
LOL, $900 more for a MacBook Pro for a $100 better video card??? You must have an MBA in Finances.

I have twelve.

That and you get much more in a MBP. but thats the way it is. You want a dedicated, faster GPU get a different machine.

Tch. I'm going to go buy a Morris Miner and complain that it doesn't have a Ferrari engine. sob sob boo hoo the engine probably cost £40 in steel and machines making it, but I'm going to complain anyways. I WANT A £FORTY ENGINE.

Capt Underpants
Jun 2, 2006, 02:02 PM
But the amount of macbooks selling like hotcakes surley speaks volumes about most peoples opinions of integrated graphics and the importance to the majority of people the macbook is aimed at; of gaming to them.

For the people that just want a graphics card, it's essentially a $800 upgrade for a graphics card. Sure you get all of that other crap, but you're forced into it because you need a laptop with a graphics card.

Not fair.

blitzkrieg79
Jun 2, 2006, 02:03 PM
They make a lot more variety/models of machines and $799-899 wouldnt get you both Dual Core processor and Fancy graphics card would it??


Yes the price difference between bottom of range macbook and macbook pro is considerable, I cant argue with that. But; if you go for a mnacbook pro you dont just get a graphics card. You get almuninum case, faster processor options, faster 7200rpm drives, backlight keyboard, bigger screen with higher resolution etc.

But the amount of macbooks selling like hotcakes surley speaks volumes about most peoples opinions of integrated graphics and the importance to the majority of people the macbook is aimed at; of gaming to them.

I didn't say that $799-$899 (althought $1300 minus a $150 mail in rebate can do that) can get me a dual core processor with a decent video card. I just wanted to make a point that PC manufacturers in those prices were able to design motherboards to accomodate graphics cards upgrades.

greatdevourer
Jun 2, 2006, 02:05 PM
Jeeeezzzzzzz, Toshiba, Acer, Sony, Asus, Dell, Gateway are able to offer video card options in laptops $799-$899 and up and Apple can't???? And again, let me repeat my point/question, is spending $900 more just to get a better graphics card an actual option ($1099 Macbook vs $1999 MacBook Pro)? My mother's new £700 HP has integrated, as did everything else I looked at within that price range. Near identical to the MB, except that the screen is 2" smaller (same resolution, however)

blitzkrieg79
Jun 2, 2006, 02:11 PM
I have twelve.

That and you get much more in a MBP. but thats the way it is. You want a dedicated, faster GPU get a different machine.

Tch. I'm going to go buy a Morris Miner and complain that it doesn't have a Ferrari engine. sob sob boo hoo the engine probably cost £40 in steel and machines making it, but I'm going to complain anyways. I WANT A £FORTY ENGINE.


Yeah but I don't think talking about $100K exotic cars is the same as about $1000 PC's. Besides, you can mod vehicles but it's kind of difficult (or rather impossible) to upgrade an integrated video card in a laptop.

And I don't want "that much more" of the MacBook Pro, just the video card, nothing else intrests me in the MacBook Pro. And because of "thats the way it is" Apple won't gain a whole lot of market share in the near future.

I see some people here are in blind love with Apple but I guess it is a Mac forum afterall. It's not like I want to bash Apple, their products are top notch but for gods sake, they could provide MacBooks with at least one other video card option such as Nvidia 7600 Go or ATI X1800. I don't think it's asking too much.

And I think it's kind of arrogant of people to tell me to spend $900 for a laptop just in order to get a better video card.

blitzkrieg79
Jun 2, 2006, 02:15 PM
My mother's new £700 HP has integrated, as did everything else I looked at within that price range. Near identical to the MB, except that the screen is 2" smaller (same resolution, however)

Yeah but here in USA I can get a 1.83Ghz Intel Core Duo, with 512MB RAM, with 128MB nVidia 7600 GO, with 17 inch XBrite screen for around $1250. Yes I know Mac has OS X and Windows has the pitiful XP but from hardware point of view I don't know what is stoping Apple from being truly great.

netdog
Jun 2, 2006, 02:17 PM
How many of them own one? How come they care so much when they can just get an MBP? Maybe they have MB envy?

greatdevourer
Jun 2, 2006, 02:21 PM
Yeah but here in USA I can get a 1.83Ghz Intel Core Duo, with 512MB RAM, with 128MB nVidia 7600 GO, with 17 inch XBrite screen for around $1250. Yes I know Mac has OS X and Windows has the pitiful XP but from hardware point of view I don't know what is stoping Apple from being truly great. Where the hell are you getting that from? The dodgy guy on the street corner? :rolleyes: £1250 won't get you that much

blitzkrieg79
Jun 2, 2006, 02:27 PM
Where the hell are you getting that from? The dodgy guy on the street corner? :rolleyes: £1250 won't get you that much

Ummmmmmmm, 1250 American Dollars in USA can get you that much, just go to toshibadirect.com and choose P100 Customizable notebook (and to top it all off Toshiba from time to time offers $150-$300 rebates off regular prices) http://www.toshibadirect.com/td/b2c/cmod.to?seg=HHO&coid=-30605

It may not look as sexy as a MacBook but then again it is quite portable and has better hardware. I know Mac OS X is a better OS than XP (but most people don't know that Mac OS X even exists) but strictly talking about costs and pricing of computers a copy of Mac OS X off Apples website costs $129, copy of Win XP Pro costs $135 off newegg.com. Not much of a difference. Apple designs pretty hardware but it's definately not flawless, it has it's share of problems (especially with overheating issues).

OutThere
Jun 2, 2006, 02:33 PM
Some how I dont think apple are going suddenly cater for someone willing to use illegal hacked version of it's operating system on a dell :)

That's not really my point...I was saying more that I can don't need an Apple computer to do what I need to do (and run OS X). I'm not about to threaten Apple with running a hacked OS X until they change their graphics cards...:p



Tch. I'm going to go buy a Morris Miner and complain that it doesn't have a Ferrari engine. sob sob boo hoo the engine probably cost £40 in steel and machines making it, but I'm going to complain anyways. I WANT A £FORTY ENGINE.

I think a better comparison would be:


I bought a Porsche and it came with a Honda Civic engine. Everyone is telling me I should just upgrade to a Ferrari!

greatdevourer
Jun 2, 2006, 02:38 PM
Ummmmmmmm, 1250 American Dollars in USA can get you that much, just go to toshibadirect.com and choose P100 Customizable notebook (and to top it all off Toshiba from time to time offers $150-$300 rebates off regular prices) http://www.toshibadirect.com/td/b2c/cmod.to?seg=HHO&coid=-30605

It may not look as sexy as a MacBook but then again it is quite portable and has better hardware. I know mac OS X is a better OS than XP but strictly talking about costs and pricing of computers a copy of Mac OS X off Apples website costs $129, copy of Win XP Pro costs $135 off newegg.com. I can't get those specs at that price while keeping all the extra functions of the MB. I've got the 1.83, XP Home, no Office, 512MB RAM, 60GB HDD, standard screen, GMA950, combo drive, bluetooth, standard battery and a wireless card, and it comes out as $1,295.40. Adding that 7600 Go takes it up to $1,397.40. I still don't entirely know where you're getting your prices from

blitzkrieg79
Jun 2, 2006, 02:45 PM
I can't get those specs at that price while keeping all the extra functions of the MB. I've got the 1.83, XP Home, no Office, 512MB RAM, 60GB HDD, standard screen, GMA950, combo drive, bluetooth, standard battery and a wireless card, and it comes out as $1,295.40. Adding that 7600 Go takes it up to $1,397.40. I still don't entirely know where you're getting your prices from

http://www.toshibadirect.com/td/b2c/cdetupdate.to?seg=HHO&poid=327377&cartAction=Add&coid=-30605&selcmpcodpipcrt=&qtycrt=0&lincrt=0&selxslpoidtab2pip=&COMP_CPU=CPU-0176&COMP_Operating+System=OS-0074&COMP_Color+Variation=COLOR-0003&COMP_Office+Software=APP-0010&COMP_Memory=MEM-0014&COMP_LCD=LCD-0038&COMP_Graphics+Controller=GFX-0038&COMP_HDD=HDD-0036&COMP_Optical+Media=SBAY-0021&COMP_Mini-PCI%2FWiFi=COM1-0026&COMP_Bluetooth=COM2-0015&COMP_Battery=BAT-0001

For $1370 (which is almost $600 less than a MacBook Pro for which some people suggested to get if I want a better video card) I pretty much get what the MacBook offers plus a bigger and better screen, better video card, and a better warranty. And again you have to remember that with PCs it is wise to watch the prices (the same configuration as specified above was $1250 about 7 days ago) as Toshiba and other PC vendors on Memorial Day recently offered big rebates (something Apple doesn't do unless a new model is coming out). Another big sale will probably be on 4th of July. I don't know how it is in UK but here in USA you can get very good deals on PCs when you pay attention and shop around (sometimes even in a $300-$400 range on $1200-$1300 computers).

MacRumorUser
Jun 2, 2006, 03:04 PM
http://www.toshibadirect.com/td/b2c/cdetupdate.to?seg=HHO&poid=327377&cartAction=Add&coid=-30605&selcmpcodpipcrt=&qtycrt=0&lincrt=0&selxslpoidtab2pip=&COMP_CPU=CPU-0176&COMP_Operating+System=OS-0074&COMP_Color+Variation=COLOR-0003&COMP_Office+Software=APP-0010&COMP_Memory=MEM-0014&COMP_LCD=LCD-0038&COMP_Graphics+Controller=GFX-0038&COMP_HDD=HDD-0036&COMP_Optical+Media=SBAY-0021&COMP_Mini-PCI%2FWiFi=COM1-0026&COMP_Bluetooth=COM2-0015&COMP_Battery=BAT-0001

For $1370 (which is almost $600 less than a MacBook Pro for which some people suggested to get if I want a better video card) I pretty much get what the MacBook offers plus a bigger and better screen, better video card, and a better warranty. And again you have to remember that with PCs it is wise to watch the prices (the same configuration as specified above was $1250 about 7 days ago) as Toshiba and other PC vendors on Memorial Day recently offered big rebates (something Apple doesn't do unless a new model is coming out). Another big sale will probably be on 4th of July. I don't know how it is in UK but here in USA you can get very good deals on PCs when you pay attention and shop around (sometimes even in a $300-$400 range on $1200-$1300 computers).

No big rebates like that in the UK or Ireland. Plus we have 17.5 & 21% VAT ontop of any prices. That machine would cost a lot more over here. It's the same for everything, including memory prices etc....

MacBook over here is very competative with similar specced hardware from the other manufacturers. In fact if you went for a VAIO similar spec and size, you'd pay a lot more.

milo
Jun 2, 2006, 03:20 PM
I bought a Porsche and it came with a Honda Civic engine. Everyone is telling me I should just upgrade to a Ferrari!

In what fantasy land does a macbook equate to a porsche? The MB is the honda of the lineup, and it comes with a honda engine. (which I guess would make the cheap dells a Kia or Hyundai?)

BlizzardBomb
Jun 2, 2006, 03:21 PM
No big rebates like that in the UK or Ireland. Plus we have 17.5 & 21% VAT ontop of any prices. That machine would cost a lot more over here. It's the same for everything, including memory prices etc....

MacBook over here is very competative with similar specced hardware from the other manufacturers. In fact if you went for a VAIO similar spec and size, you'd pay a lot more.

You can't start bringing regions into it. Apple doesn't make anywhere near as much in the UK as they do in the US.

AvSRoCkCO1067
Jun 2, 2006, 03:22 PM
No big rebates like that in the UK or Ireland. Plus we have 17.5 & 21% VAT ontop of any prices. That machine would cost a lot more over here. It's the same for everything, including memory prices etc....

MacBook over here is very competative with similar specced hardware from the other manufacturers. In fact if you went for a VAIO similar spec and size, you'd pay a lot more.

Hey it's competitive over here too :)

You read my comparison on the previous page - Apple's MacBook outdoes Dell's competition in pretty much every respect, from RAM to Graphics, Processor to Hard Drive. And that's without taking into account Front Row, the integrated iSight, iLife, or Mac OS X. Or the sheer design of the system.

bousozoku
Jun 2, 2006, 03:23 PM
In what fantasy land does a macbook equate to a porsche? The MB is the honda of the lineup, and it comes with a honda engine. (which I guess would make the cheap dells a Kia or Hyundai?)

It's more like a Honda with an Acura engine and poor tires. The engine itself produces plenty of power but the tires can't handle that power. The dual core processor can deliver the pixels but the graphics hardware just can't handle them quickly enough to be exhilarating.

benpatient
Jun 2, 2006, 03:25 PM
wow. I have a dual processor G5 with 4gb of RAM and a RAID 0 hard drive array. I'm typing on it right now.

I can't convince my boss to buy me a new graphics card so that I can run Aperture and so that my screen doesn't drag and slow down when I use the Dashboard or Exposé.

The 5200 "ultra" graphics card in my less-than-2 year old dual G5 is slower than the integrated graphics in last year's cheap PC laptops.

Apple has ALWAYS had a graphics deficiency. I can't even think about playing any decent-looking games on this machine. Luckily I don't use it for that. i have a PC for gaming.

milo
Jun 2, 2006, 03:26 PM
It's more like a Honda with an Acura engine and poor tires. The engine itself produces plenty of power but the tires can't handle that power. The dual core processor can deliver the pixels but the graphics hardware just can't handle them quickly enough to be exhilarating.

A better analogy would be a honda with an acura engine and tires that perform well on the road, but do poorly offroad.

For virtually every app but games, the "tires" are plenty good enough and keep up with the engine no problem. They just can't handle the power on apps like games.

benpatient
Jun 2, 2006, 03:42 PM
Where the hell are you getting that from? The dodgy guy on the street corner? :rolleyes: £1250 won't get you that much

He's exaggerating, some, but it WILL get you:

core duo 1.66
15.4" WXGA
1GB DDR2 RAM
100GB HDD
DVD±RW
128mb ATI X1400

(actually, that is under 1100 dollars right now at Newegg.com)

I'm actually tempted by that, I wish it ran OS X...

:)

blitzkrieg79
Jun 2, 2006, 03:57 PM
He's exaggerating, some, but it WILL get you:

core duo 1.66
15.4" WXGA
1GB DDR2 RAM
100GB HDD
DVD±RW
128mb ATI X1400

(actually, that is under 1100 dollars right now at Newegg.com)

I'm actually tempted by that, I wish it ran OS X...

:)

Not exaggerating, if you would read all of my posts you would see I provided links. Besides, go to Best Buy or CompUSA during major holidays (such as 4th of July that is coming up soon) and you could be pleasantly surprised at what PC manufacturers have to offer (plus the big rebates). I know so because I bought one Toshiba laptop with a $300 rebate, Apple really couldn't match the price, as much I wanted an Apple laptop the hardware was just too much of a difference to ignore.

Bern
Jun 2, 2006, 04:38 PM
Gee those MacBooks are nice..... but I'm getting a MBP because I want dedicated graphics card. :D

Haoshiro
Jun 2, 2006, 05:05 PM
Like I've said before, the graphics in the Macbook are good for everything but gaming. That means it is not up to par. What would you say the target audience for a macbook is? High school and college students? Because I'm a high school student, and I want to game.

You're right, the macbook isn't a gaming laptop. But if it had an x1400 or something, it could game. And that would make it all the more useful, even if it was a $100 upgrade.

You are saying its "not up to par" because you are comparing it on a scale that does not apply to it. Gaming is not what this is for, you said this yourself. So why judge it based on such measures? Because you want to game, that's the reason it sounds like you are giving. And for some reason you want to game on a laptop that is not designed for gaming performance. Then you complain about its gaming performance.

Gaming is a leisure activity that people have paid a premium for since it began. Computer gaming is especially expensive and you can blame developers for this if it bothers you. These games could have been developed for current hardware, they could have not required all the special features they chose to utilize. But developers do and they do it because most gamers want them to. They try to make the game "bleeding edge" which equates to cutting out mainstream consumers and affordable devices for at least 1-3 years.

Computer games used to be developed for hardware that was already mainstream, but not they are requiring special hardware that only benefits games. There is not a single reason to include this hardware if your device is not aimed at the gaming population that wants to play such games.

If the device ends up being able to play some games anyway, well... then that is a nice perk. An unintended result that a few people will benefit.

Consider this article on BusinessWeek about Apple Gaming (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2006/tc20060531_384873.htm):

..."Aspyr's Director of Development Glenda Adams told me, a successful Mac game might sell 50,000 units"...

That pretty much sums it up, the state of Mac Gaming as we currently know it.

----------

Enough said, this thread can now be safely closed! ;)

Capt Underpants
Jun 2, 2006, 05:17 PM
You are saying its "not up to par" because you are comparing it on a scale that does not apply to it. Gaming is not what this is for, you said this yourself. So why judge it based on such measures? Because you want to game, that's the reason it sounds like you are giving. And for some reason you want to game on a laptop that is not designed for gaming performance. Then you complain about its gaming performance.

Gaming is a leisure activity that people have paid a premium for since it began. Computer gaming is especially expensive and you can blame developers for this if it bothers you. These games could have been developed for current hardware, they could have not required all the special features they chose to utilize. But developers do and they do it because most gamers want them to. They try to make the game "bleeding edge" which equates to cutting out mainstream consumers and affordable devices for at least 1-3 years.

Computer games used to be developed for hardware that was already mainstream, but not they are requiring special hardware that only benefits games. There is not a single reason to include this hardware if your device is not aimed at the gaming population that wants to play such games.

If the device ends up being able to play some games anyway, well... then that is a nice perk. An unintended result that a few people will benefit.

Consider this article on BusinessWeek about Apple Gaming (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2006/tc20060531_384873.htm):



That pretty much sums it up, the state of Mac Gaming as we currently know it.

----------

Enough said, this thread can now be safely closed! ;)

I shouldn't have to buy a gaming laptop just to game! I should be able to buy a consumer computer (with decent size and weight restrictions) and game some on it. Just because the macbook isn't specifically a gaming notebook, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be able to game. There are plenty of non-gaming computers that can game.

And Half-Life 2 is an incredibly scalable game (and one that I would like to play on my future Macbook). It can implement rudimentary DX7 features or scale up to DX9. The Macbook should be able to play it, plain and simple. It sucks that Apple can't provide a $100 upgrade for people like me...

But anyways guys, I'm headed for a 7 day cruise *toots own horn*

Peace

Haoshiro
Jun 3, 2006, 06:16 AM
I shouldn't have to buy a gaming laptop just to game! I should be able to buy a consumer computer (with decent size and weight restrictions) and game some on it. Just because the macbook isn't specifically a gaming notebook, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be able to game. There are plenty of non-gaming computers that can game.

And Half-Life 2 is an incredibly scalable game (and one that I would like to play on my future Macbook). It can implement rudimentary DX7 features or scale up to DX9. The Macbook should be able to play it, plain and simple. It sucks that Apple can't provide a $100 upgrade for people like me...

But anyways guys, I'm headed for a 7 day cruise *toots own horn*

Peace

It can game. It can play Half-Life 2. An upgrade would unfeasible for a laptop sporting an IGP, which helps not only reduce cost, but size and space requirements as well.

Laptops are not ideal gaming machines anyway. It has only been within the last 1-2 years that laptop gaming has even become any good at all. About a year ago I purchased my PC laptop with one requirement: have a GPU that can do good at gaming. I paid $1600 for this laptop and it was the cheapest laptop on the market that had decent video, the ATI Radeon Mobility 9700 (64MB).

My much cheaper desktop PC (at the time, before switching to Mac) outperformed this things in games by a large margin. Laptops are just not the place for people to be shouting that they are a gamer and need cheaper options. The MacBook will play games, just because Doom 3 has ridiculous requirements is no reason to yell at Apple. It'll play HL2 fine. If anyone is Frames Per Second obsessed then they should stay away from anything but a dedicated PC - and not a laptop.

The best of both worlds (great gaming performance and affordable) does not exist in the laptop space. At least not compared to desktop PCs. It is not a matter of a simple GPU upgrade. Swappable GPU modules are still barely here, and we don't even have a single form factor standard for this last I checked.

Come again some year in the future. ;)

takao
Jun 3, 2006, 06:16 AM
"go take the 1k more expensive pro model"

awfully remembers me from the pre-mac mini days where i was told that a lot ... simply because i wanted to re-use my screen or upgrade later ("that's a pro feature ... buy the 2k computer ... you have your choice")

;)

seriously you can get plenty of non-integrated GPUs in the mac mini price range (1200-1500) ... that's why for students who like to game it's hardly a choice
don't fool yourself you will always get better graphical performance on the PC side (a friend bought himself a new PC just a month ago so we checked out a lot of models)...

(even more so on the desktop side... for 1100 bucks we found a model with dual core, 2 geforce6600 GT in SLI, 1,5 or 2 GB ram,400 to 500 GB harddisk, W-Lan, dual gigabit ethernet...)

and yeah i _own_ a mac mini... but would i use it as my only PC: no way... i use my nearly 4 year old middle class (perhaps 750 all parts together) PC daily ...
and about gaming being a niche: this is 2006 .. the gaming industry is making more money than the movie industry

Haoshiro
Jun 3, 2006, 06:24 AM
and about gaming being a niche: this is 2006 .. the gaming industry is making more money than the movie industry

I'm not sure who said it was "niche", I sure didn't. But if you are referring to my post, we are talking Mac Gaming here. People complaining about gaming on the MacBook!

Your point is basically mine: If gaming is important to you beyond what the MacBook is capable of, get a PC.

You are not going to find an equally priced laptop that is great for gaming, compared to full sized PCs you aren't even going to find a PC laptop that is great for gaming. A PC that murders nearly every laptop out there for gaming can be built for about $750.

If someone must have a mac laptop and the fact that they can't get 60fps in Half-Life 2 or even play Doom 3 is a big enough issue to them then they have two options, MacBook Pro or no mac at all.

Just the fact that HL2 is even mentioned is telling enough... last I checked that wasn't available on Mac. Complaining about gaming options that they intend to utilize while running Boot Camp/XP... come on! Get a PC already! gee... :P

takao
Jun 3, 2006, 07:11 AM
I'm not sure who said it was "niche", I sure didn't. But if you are referring to my post, we are talking Mac Gaming here. People complaining about gaming on the MacBook!

Your point is basically mine: If gaming is important to you beyond what the MacBook is capable of, get a PC.

well i guess thanks to that attitude mac gaming is now at his current level ;)

You are not going to find an equally priced laptop that is great for gaming, compared to full sized PCs you aren't even going to find a PC laptop that is great for gaming. A PC that murders nearly every laptop out there for gaming can be built for about $750.

TOSHIBA
SATELLITE A100-188
Intel Core Duo T2300 1,66 GHz, 1024 MB DDR-2-RAM, 80 GB, 15,4" 1280 x 800, ATI Radeon X1600 128 mb (and the usual connectors dvd burner etc.)
=1299€ macbook middle model= 1319€
FUJITSU-SIEMENS
AMILO PI 1536G
Intel Centrino Duo 1,66 GHz,120 GB harddisk,1024 MB DDR-2-RAM, 15,4" 1280x800,ATI Mobility Radeon 1400 256 mb (and the usual)
=1249€

that aside i wasn't able to find a laptop costing more than 699 without dvd drive except the macbook at 1,119€

(yeah the cpu is slower on both models but twice the RAM make up for it easily)

edit: and yeah i didn't even bother searching... local retailer online site -> laptops an there under the first 6 models already 2


If someone must have a mac laptop and the fact that they can't get 60fps in Half-Life 2 or even play Doom 3 is a big enough issue to them then they have two options, MacBook Pro or no mac at all.

Just the fact that HL2 is even mentioned is telling enough... last I checked that wasn't available on Mac. Complaining about gaming options that they intend to utilize while running Boot Camp/XP... come on! Get a PC already! gee... :P

well that's why most people caring about gaming do that already .. just like my friend was considering a mac mini but ended up buying a cheaper PC (who is as silent as the mac mini btw.) with more powerful graphics card,bigger HD,more RAM and then installing windows skins/themes to mimic mac os x (and i have to admit it's pretty close in looks)

FragTek
Jun 3, 2006, 07:16 AM
It's not our fault Apple put ****** graphics in their macbooks.

Blame Apple for our complaining.
Yeah and nobody put a gun to your head and made you buy a MacBook either :rolleyes:

Haoshiro
Jun 3, 2006, 09:54 AM
well i guess thanks to that attitude mac gaming is now at his current level ;)

No, I'd honestly say that is Apple's fault. They didn't care and they didn't invest in it. There is nothing like "DirectX" for Mac OS, there is just not help for game developers in this area. DirectX, for all its faults, really helped Windows game developers and drew them in. Apple hasn't even tried to do something like this last I knew.


TOSHIBA
SATELLITE A100-188
Intel Core Duo T2300 1,66 GHz, 1024 MB DDR-2-RAM, 80 GB, 15,4" 1280 x 800, ATI Radeon X1600 128 mb (and the usual connectors dvd burner etc.)
=1299€ macbook middle model= 1319€
FUJITSU-SIEMENS
AMILO PI 1536G
Intel Centrino Duo 1,66 GHz,120 GB harddisk,1024 MB DDR-2-RAM, 15,4" 1280x800,ATI Mobility Radeon 1400 256 mb (and the usual)
=1249€

that aside i wasn't able to find a laptop costing more than 699 without dvd drive except the macbook at 1,119€

(yeah the cpu is slower on both models but twice the RAM make up for it easily)

edit: and yeah i didn't even bother searching... local retailer online site -> laptops an there under the first 6 models already 2

Yeah, Macs have always had their premium. In my opinion the software value included is worth the extra cost (and more) alone.

But even that 1249€ laptop, for that much cash you could built a much better gaming PC tower.


well that's why most people caring about gaming do that already .. just like my friend was considering a mac mini but ended up buying a cheaper PC (who is as silent as the mac mini btw.) with more powerful graphics card,bigger HD,more RAM and then installing windows skins/themes to mimic mac os x (and i have to admit it's pretty close in looks)

Yep, and it makes sense. Keeping up with PC gaming is expensive though. That is why in January I dropped PC gaming and switched to Mac. I decided I'd get a Mac and then a 360 for my gaming - and in the end save money and support headaches.

When you aren't gaming on a PC there is little reason to upgrade.

takao
Jun 3, 2006, 10:19 AM
Yep, and it makes sense. Keeping up with PC gaming is expensive though. That is why in January I dropped PC gaming and switched to Mac. I decided I'd get a Mac and then a 360 for my gaming - and in the end save money and support headaches.

When you aren't gaming on a PC there is little reason to upgrade.

well you can bring lots of arguments but cheaper ? take the cheapest mac and then add a 360 and yeah you are already over 1k (without dvd burner) and you still gonna pay for playing online etc.
and games for consoles are more expensive then the PC ports (i know ... i play both after all)

2nyRiggz
Jun 3, 2006, 10:30 AM
I'm sick of people moaning in general........


Bless

Haoshiro
Jun 3, 2006, 10:35 AM
well you can bring lots of arguments but cheaper ? take the cheapest mac and then add a 360 and yeah you are already over 1k (without dvd burner) and you still gonna pay for playing online etc.
and games for consoles are more expensive then the PC ports (i know ... i play both after all)

Yes, because for what I use my Mac for I will not need to upgrade it for at least 6 years, I may even wait 10 (gasp!).

Consoles last me around 5 years. PC Gaming, I was upgrading at least once a year and while I did buy plenty of the cheaper games, I liked to get the new games and have them play well. That was usually $50/game and possibly an upgrade of some component. At the minimum I would to a considerable upgrade every 2 years. For a console, I don't need any new upgrades and the game will always work as intended. Games drop to "budget" $20 pricing there as well, it just takes longer.

takao
Jun 3, 2006, 11:09 AM
Yes, because for what I use my Mac for I will not need to upgrade it for at least 6 years, I may even wait 10 (gasp!).

Consoles last me around 5 years. PC Gaming, I was upgrading at least once a year and while I did buy plenty of the cheaper games, I liked to get the new games and have them play well. That was usually $50/game and possibly an upgrade of some component. At the minimum I would to a considerable upgrade every 2 years. For a console, I don't need any new upgrades and the game will always work as intended. Games drop to "budget" $20 pricing there as well, it just takes longer.

well TOC (:) ) for the 360 over 5 years is 700€ (with 5x60€ for live) ... combine that with the cheapest mac 659€ and you are at 1350€ .. for that money you could buy a medium PC at 800€ and you still have room for lots of upgrades left

and i don't know why you are upgrading your PC every year :confused: unless you want the latest and greatest i don't see a point
mine is from 2002 and i upgraded from a cd-drive to a dvd drive because they are stopping to ship games on cds

i'm not going to buy a new gaming PC untill end of 2007 .. if you buy ok stuff in the beginning you hardly have to upgrade for 4-5 years with moderate requirements (i'm not a hardcore gamer but at least i want to play my games fluently with desktop resolution)

Haoshiro
Jun 3, 2006, 12:17 PM
well TOC (:) ) for the 360 over 5 years is 700€ (with 5x60€ for live) ... combine that with the cheapest mac 659€ and you are at 1350€ .. for that money you could buy a medium PC at 800€ and you still have room for lots of upgrades left

and i don't know why you are upgrading your PC every year :confused: unless you want the latest and greatest i don't see a point
mine is from 2002 and i upgraded from a cd-drive to a dvd drive because they are stopping to ship games on cds

i'm not going to buy a new gaming PC untill end of 2007 .. if you buy ok stuff in the beginning you hardly have to upgrade for 4-5 years with moderate requirements (i'm not a hardcore gamer but at least i want to play my games fluently with desktop resolution)

I save money even if I had only upgraded my PC twice in two years.

I'm in the USA, and USD prices do not directly compare to Euro, even if you get charged the "same". $400 USD for 360, I am not getting Live Gold for all 5 years. I bought 3mo for $13, and I haven't hardly used it. So "TOC" sounds like it would be higher for you then me.

There are also what I consider Time Costs associated with maintaining a gaming PC (or a PC in general). If you do a lot of gaming it's just "good" practice to reinstall windows at least every 6 months, etc. Maintenance is so much lower on a Mac so far for me.

bousozoku
Jun 3, 2006, 01:02 PM
No, I'd honestly say that is Apple's fault. They didn't care and they didn't invest in it. There is nothing like "DirectX" for Mac OS, there is just not help for game developers in this area. DirectX, for all its faults, really helped Windows game developers and drew them in. Apple hasn't even tried to do something like this last I knew.
...

Game Sprockets + QuickDraw3D were there and a limited version of Game Sprockets still exists in Mac OS X but they weren't there immediately and Apple certainly didn't do much. WinG was available as far back as Win3.1/Win32s and later was renamed DirectX.

Of course, Apple should have invested when they first brought out colour machines but there were a lot of things that they did wrong back then.

iHeartTheApple
Jun 3, 2006, 01:50 PM
Awesome post, MRU! I was hoping one of these was going to pop up. Enough is enough with the integrated graphics BS...@%#damn! :mad: :D

decksnap
Jun 3, 2006, 05:31 PM
I think the poll numbers here show why Apple didn't put a more expensive card in it. For the LARGE majority, the graphics are sufficient.

Gaming on the Mac is a niche of a niche. This is a computer for the masses. And from what I've read, it plays plenty of games just fine. If you were more serious than that about gaming, you'd be on a PC.

Counterfit
Jun 3, 2006, 07:07 PM
While I'm not complaining all that much of the current performance of the card, my issue is the fact that once you by the machine, you can't upgrade it!

Years down the line the 'passible' performance of these cards are going to look pretty pathetic, then what do you do? Buy another with integrated graphics just to repeat the process? Or shell out extra cash up front to get that Pro Machine?

If Apple is serious about attracting all computer users why not provide a silightly higher priced, but more upgradable computers. Instead of pushing users up into the Pro line that can be a little expensive.

P.S. Please spare me the "Don't complain, buy a Pro machine." statments. It's unoriginal and doesn't address the issue.
Making the graphics card upgradeable adds size and weight to laptops, both of which are verboten by Apple.

Lord Blackadder
Jun 3, 2006, 07:29 PM
Would this be the wrong time to chime in and say that I'm a video card snob and will be buying the MacBook Pro over the MacBook partly because of the GPU? :o

I am generally very impressed with the MacBook but I'll admit that the integrated graphics thing has put a bit of a chip on my shoulder. I don't think that the Intel GMA graphics chips are crap, but when I'm spending my own money I prefer to buy a machine with a GPU that is a little on the overkill side.

Anyway, I have had a 15" G4 PowerBook with the Mobility Radeon 9700 for a few months now and would hate to buy a new laptop with a GPU that is inferior to the one I already have.