milo said:
What "pro" apps do you plan on running on a 13" laptop that require heavy duty 3d accelertation?
I haven't understood these arguments from people. Just because I ask for discreet graphics does not mean I ask for
powerful discreet graphics. I'm not asking for an X1600 (although I wouldn't complain). I'm asking for something along the lines of an X1300. I don't care about hardcore gaming on a small laptop. That said, with integrated graphics, even minor gaming is pretty much not an option (And yes, I know the performance of these things). You can't even play older games at a respectable resolution (1024x768) without turning things all the way down if you want a decent frame rate.
For office computers that will be serving no purpose other than word processing / web surfing, I completely agree that integrated graphics are sufficient. Especially if this will be done at lower resolutions. If you have a decent cpu (core duo fits the bill), then this is even more true. Once media comes into the picture, however, this changes. I don't care if the GMA graphics in the Core Duo Mac mini "can handle" 1080 video. Frankly that doesn't say anything about the GMA's ability. The fact is that the Core Solo Mac mini can't handle it (If I still had the link to the article I read that in I'd link you), which means the GMA graphics aren't doing much. A decent graphics accelerator (not necessarily a powerful one, this includes cheaper ones like the X1300) offloads some of the processing (beyond just scaling) from the cpu. Also, for someone who wants a machine for personal use that is also portable, it is not unreasonable to ask for a graphics accelerator that can handle playing some relatively recent games with either a)options turned down all the way but at native resolution or b)options at a reasonable level at slightly lower resolutions. Integrated Graphics offer neither of these cases.
Additionally, as far as pro apps on a small laptop are concerned, there are many things I'd personally like to do. If I want to use it plugged into high-resolution external displays without having to deal with general UI slowdown, slowdown in Tiger's advanced graphical features, or slowdown in apps that might not be the most graphically demanding on a low-res screen (ie Google Earth), I need dedicated graphics. Google Earth may run fine on integrated graphics normally, but if you run it on a 1920x1200 external display while having many other windows open on both the external display and the built-in display, and start using expose, you
will experience slowdown.
And finally, there's the RAM issue. Intel GMA graphics take RAM away from your system. Maybe I don't want to particularly run something graphics intensive. But say I want to run Garageband while running Parallels. That requires a good chunk of memory. Now if the argument is that this is a budget system and you should add memory yourself, that means the system will actually cost
more than if Apple had included a built-in Graphics accelerator that did not take system RAM. After all, I might not need to add as much memory (which is capped anyways in a system this size) if the laptop cost slightly more and had a dedicated graphics solution. Even if the cost comes out to about the same, you then have a situation where you have a similar amount of system-available memory, with less upgrade potential in that system-available memory with the integrated solution, as well as a system that can't do quite as much graphics acceleration. So the end result is that it's less of a value for me even if I never do something exceptionally graphics intensive, but I want to upgrade my laptop's memory to its max because of my usage patterns. The issue here is not only the graphics horsepower.
generik said:
Considering Apple has to machine new tools for the new lines and commit to buy millions of units from the ODMs, I can very safely say that your $2500 doesn't even matter in the slightest if Apple feels that it is not commercially viable (aka doesn't sell in the millions)
I wasn't actually serious in saying that Apple should worry about my money in particular. That said, the 12" Powerbook certainly did sell well, so I don't think there's a question as to whether or not a small pro laptop would be worth it.
I don't want to game badly on a small laptop. I might, however, want to do so occasionally and not suffer miserable performance at low resolutions with little eye candy. The cost for a low-end discreet solution is minimal (sub $50) and will slightly future-proof the laptop with higher upgrade potential for system RAM as well as greater chances for being able to do eye-candy from future revisions of the OS (10.5 is going to be here relatively early in the life of this laptop). I hated getting an original Mac mini only to find that Tiger (released just barely later) already had graphical features that my computer couldn't do. I know the tech well enough to know that the GMA includes all the features as far as shaders and such are concerned that the low-end discreet stuff have, but it won't necessarily be able to perform such features
smoothly.
