Machead III said:
The iBook is not a portable iMac today, and generally has been less powerful than the iMac, about half of its life not even having a similar generation of processors. The iBook G3 and iMac G3 may have been similar, but once the iMac G4 came out, the iBook continued to be G3 based for a while. They eventually overlapped for a few months with an iBook G4, before the iMac switched to the G5. Since then there's been no similarity.
In pricing terms, the iBook has generally always started around $999, with some very short termed exceptions. The iMac's lowest end models have varied with prices between $799 and $1,300.
I'm not sure the iBook has ever intended to be a portable iMac. The "i" has more been a branding thing to say "This is our consumer model". The iPod isn't the MP3 playing version of the iMac either 😉
As far as integrated graphics go. I was against their inclusion on the Mac mini. I still am. I think a consumer desktop should have moderately good graphics, good enough for games, and at least half a gig of RAM, not (effectively) 448megs of RAM. Pros don't need the ATI range, consumers do.
But... laptops have different requirements. They overheat when running heavily processor intensive software. People are more bothered about battery life than FPS rates.
So, in context, a GMA950 is a better choice for the MacBook. It's not perfect, but people who are thinking "small and light" are going to prefer a more efficient GPU to a more powerful GPU, for much the same reason as we prefer 1.8GHz Pentium Ms to 3GHz Pentium 4s in the same things. (The 1.8GHz M is slower than the 3GHz 4, though not as slow as the GHz figures might imply, it's more like comparing a 2.5GHz P4 to a 3GHz P4)
I would like an ATI as an option though. Personally, given the GMA950 is going to be in there anyway, it'd be an interesting strategy for Apple to try if, say, they allowed you to switch one off and use the other. Use the GMA950 on the road, the X300 at your desk. I don't think that'll happen though.
