Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MacBook grafic card Intel GMA X3100
- Thread starter Zer00
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
OK... Guys LET ME GET SOMETHING STRAIGHT HERE!!!
WINDOWS AND MAC BOTH HAVE THIER ADVANTAGES!!!!
Windows Vista:
because of DX10 it has great gaming capabilities... and it allows people to take full advantage of their hardware to run some very nice games.... on the SIDE it does have applications that are somewhat useful... but MOSTLY you must download/get them somehow. Stability is an issue, as of so far, only the 64 Bit Versions of Vista are actually very stable... vista does NOT take full advantage of multiple cores.
Mac OS X:
OS X is mainly built to be a FAST out of the BOX system, where someone can push a power button, and start doing office work in about a minute. its built to take full advantage of your processor to multitask applications that do your office work (NOT for GAMES) - so hardware acceleration isn't REQUIRED. so the other thing is, OS X is MORE stable than windows Vista [EXCEPT the new 64 Bit Edition] - If you are wanting to "game" or do "video editing" then what you need is a windows PC (beware of stability though).
When snow leopard comes out, with grand central, OSX will be able to take full advantage of hardware acceleration.
So looking at the above, THAT Is when i will BUY a Macbook, Use BOOTCAMP, and then Install Vista 64Bit (which will hopefully be supported by Snow Leopard) and have the best of BOTH systems!
i expect about a 1-2 year wait.
Who's With me?? - and NOTE i am NOT bashing EITHER... it would be MUCH better to have BOTH operating system (stability of a mac for schoolwork) and Power of Vista for Gaming.
Precisely why I have a Mac & PC. The only thing on the PC is Vista Business 64 and games. Nothing else. Still run bootcamp with 32 bit Vista for Games on the road. Works great, no crashes, no slowdows. Gets warm but no indication of over-heating.
I also have a company provided HP laptop. Great at everything except games but supports the Notes apps that do not run under the Mac version of Notes. Some day, I will only have a Mac (perhaps when I can afford a Mac Pro with bootcamp to a 4870 based Vista 64 install)
Cheers,
there should be one thing clear
mac is not a computer for "office-work"
every single mac or mac product has een produced for multimedia and entertainment.
mac is not a computer for "office-work"
every single mac or mac product has een produced for multimedia and entertainment.
OK... Guys LET ME GET SOMETHING STRAIGHT HERE!!!
WINDOWS AND MAC BOTH HAVE THIER ADVANTAGES!!!!
Windows Vista:
because of DX10 it has great gaming capabilities... and it allows people to take full advantage of their hardware to run some very nice games.... on the SIDE it does have applications that are somewhat useful... but MOSTLY you must download/get them somehow. Stability is an issue, as of so far, only the 64 Bit Versions of Vista are actually very stable... vista does NOT take full advantage of multiple cores.
Mac OS X:
OS X is mainly built to be a FAST out of the BOX system, where someone can push a power button, and start doing office work in about a minute. its built to take full advantage of your processor to multitask applications that do your office work (NOT for GAMES) - so hardware acceleration isn't REQUIRED. so the other thing is, OS X is MORE stable than windows Vista [EXCEPT the new 64 Bit Edition] - If you are wanting to "game" or do "video editing" then what you need is a windows PC (beware of stability though).
When snow leopard comes out, with grand central, OSX will be able to take full advantage of hardware acceleration.
So looking at the above, THAT Is when i will BUY a Macbook, Use BOOTCAMP, and then Install Vista 64Bit (which will hopefully be supported by Snow Leopard) and have the best of BOTH systems!
i expect about a 1-2 year wait.
Who's With me?? - and NOTE i am NOT bashing EITHER... it would be MUCH better to have BOTH operating system (stability of a mac for schoolwork) and Power of Vista for Gaming.
+1 for that
HAHAHHAHAHA
You are high.
I know for a fact the Steve Jobs' Gulfstream interior was designed on a Mac. (One of the guys that did the work was on of my friends). So I guess that interior design and professional video editing dont count as office work.
I used to work in the office of an aircraft charter department and we used MACS for price quotes, flight planning, etc. I guess that doesn't count as office work either.
I have some extra cash I can spend on some new toys and I've been looking at all of Apple's products, mainly because I own and find the iPod Touch to be an amazing device, and also because I would like a new computer.
Apple's products are not as expensive as people claim them to be though. The problem with many arguements is that people are comparing bare specifications. First of all, even in "pc" terms, if you want the most bang for your buck, you buy a laptop with a 14" or 15" screen. I don't know why, but manufactures can dish out cheaper laptops at the larger sizes than at the smaller 12" and 13" sizes.
The main point people are missing in comparing pcs and macs is engineeringThere are several laptops that claim to be only an inch thick, but they measure an inch thick on the front and on the back they go up to 1.3 inches. The Macbook though is just a tad over an inch thick all around, Apple has an obession with thiness but this adds to the cost of the laptop, which is why most manufactures do not bother doing this. Also, show me a laptop with a magsafe power supply that isn't an Apple, or how about showing me one that has an optical out port? All of these little features adds on to the price of the Macbook and the only other computer manfacturer that can match Apple in terms of engineering and style is Sony. Sony makes some very nice pcs, and they make some budget pcs that aren't at all impressive but are geared towards those who are more budget conscience. If you look at Sony's nice laptops though, you'll see theres a "premium" to be paid, again the engineering involved adds to the cost.
The premium you pay for an Apple isn't just because its an Apple, it's because of the engineering Apple puts in, same as Sony's higher end laptops. If you dont care for the sleek designs, or the small added touches like the magsafe power supply then you are better off getting a pc because your percieved value for your dollar will be higher.
Apple doesn't and will probably never make a low end Macbook the way some manafactures make budget pcs. Can they? I'm sure they could but that would dilute there name brand and I just can't seem them doing that.
Apple's products are not as expensive as people claim them to be though. The problem with many arguements is that people are comparing bare specifications. First of all, even in "pc" terms, if you want the most bang for your buck, you buy a laptop with a 14" or 15" screen. I don't know why, but manufactures can dish out cheaper laptops at the larger sizes than at the smaller 12" and 13" sizes.
The main point people are missing in comparing pcs and macs is engineeringThere are several laptops that claim to be only an inch thick, but they measure an inch thick on the front and on the back they go up to 1.3 inches. The Macbook though is just a tad over an inch thick all around, Apple has an obession with thiness but this adds to the cost of the laptop, which is why most manufactures do not bother doing this. Also, show me a laptop with a magsafe power supply that isn't an Apple, or how about showing me one that has an optical out port? All of these little features adds on to the price of the Macbook and the only other computer manfacturer that can match Apple in terms of engineering and style is Sony. Sony makes some very nice pcs, and they make some budget pcs that aren't at all impressive but are geared towards those who are more budget conscience. If you look at Sony's nice laptops though, you'll see theres a "premium" to be paid, again the engineering involved adds to the cost.
The premium you pay for an Apple isn't just because its an Apple, it's because of the engineering Apple puts in, same as Sony's higher end laptops. If you dont care for the sleek designs, or the small added touches like the magsafe power supply then you are better off getting a pc because your percieved value for your dollar will be higher.
Apple doesn't and will probably never make a low end Macbook the way some manafactures make budget pcs. Can they? I'm sure they could but that would dilute there name brand and I just can't seem them doing that.
well but it is multimedia at the same time -.-
u could call anything office work then because everyone does something else.
wot a noob,why would you buy something you know nothing about,nor do any type of research about it.
Spending so much time here? It only takes a handful of minutes to post here. Its not like I'm wasting away hours or anything.
I have a Mac because I was stupid and bought into the Apple Hype©. After about 4 months of owning a Mac and getting passed the "honeymoon" and seeing how I could have gotten hardware that was more than twice as powerful at the time (GMA 950 versus GeForce Go 7600) for $600 less, I realized that Macs were just that: hype. OS X isn't all its cracked up to be at all and Windows with cheaper hardware is far more capable.
I still have my Mac because its far too much of a hassle to sell it and I'll lose too much money if I sell it.
Thank you
And I still use it because I'm too lazy to sell it and I'd lose too much money in the process. I should have taken that refund that was offered to me when my second MacBook (a replacement for a faulty unit) started having issues itself. Why not ask around here or other forums? I came up with my own opinion based on the fact that I read a lot of forums and usually only a very small number of people take advantage of the iLife apps outside of iPhoto and iTunes.
Again, I'm lazy and I don't want to lose that much money. However, lately I have been tempted to sell it and put it towards a desktop PC. For the money my MacBook is still worth I could easily build a desktop PC that would be a better gaming machine than a Mac Pro
What sites? What kind of people? How many of them were still XP users that voted against Vista? You know, thanks to Apple's lies, Vista has a pretty bad reputation and people think Vista is bad by default.
I had a recent experience like what MS is doing. I knew someone who wanted a new notebook but didn't want Vista and was intelligent enough to realize that Macs are overpriced. So I let use Vista on my HP and she said "this is great. why does Vista have such a bad reputation?"
Well, I'd like for you to go back and find some of those gaming products they offered it on. Because I frequented the HP site during that time, helping people find computers that would fit their needs, and the only consumer product they offered XP on was a low end Compaq that started at $399. But like I said, it at least came with a DVD writer.
Prove that they do. Of all of the people I know in person and from all of the forums I've read, this one included, not a single person regularly uses any iLife application outside of iTunes and iPhoto. One girl I know has been a Mac user all of her life and she refuses to use iPhoto because it takes so ridiculously long to import pictures from her camera. I showed her how much easier it was to pop the memory card into the memory card reader in my HP and how fast Vista copied the pictures off and she was extremely jealous.
Windows Photo Gallery is basically a direct ripoff of iPhoto but its faster and has separate libraries for video and photos.
The current version of Windows Movie Maker (not the one from the ME/XP days) is about making real movies for DVD, not about youtube clips like the current version of iMovie. It also takes far fewer system resources.
Windows DVD Maker is is the iDVD equivalent. It doesn't have the pointless 3D menus (everyone I know hates DVD menus anyway, they want it quick and too the point) and it also takes far fewer system resources than iDVD.
Both of those apps also take full advantage of hardware acceleration.
Garageband? Well, Vista doesn't have any equal software. But Garageband is pretty pointless anyway for most people. The musicians and other music creators I know won't even touch Garageband.
iWeb? Well, like I said, iWeb is essentially useless if you don't have Mobile Me. Everything is designed around Mobile Me. If you don't publish to MM, you have to go in and change the coding and such to publish it on a different site. That completely ruins the point of iWeb and if you're someone with that kind of knowledge, you're going to use a more advanced editor or code by hand.
Because everyone has a video camera, right? Everyone makes home movies all of the time, right? All quality video cameras ship with video editing software thats more advanced than iMovie anyway, so whats the point? Even my old Leadtek TV tuner shipped with uLead Video Studio and DVD Movie Factory. Full versions. More advanced than iMovie or iDVD and the whole package was only $60 at that time. And that was 4 years ago.
Everyone goes on and on about how Macs ship with iMovie and iDVD. But in reality, you don't need them. Any good DV cam you buy is going to ship with quality editing software (for Windows) that is higher quality than either one of those applications and does the same plus more.
Now I know someone is going to say "but the point of a Mac is you don't need that extra software" and to that I will say yeah, but the Mac comes with inferior software compared to those products. Why should I settle for less?
Windows does this too.
Garageband is a joke for anyone who wants to seriously make music. For someone who just wants to play with instruments and string things together, there are plenty of freeware apps that are better than Garageband.
For playing music, Windows has much more variety in terms of software players (better than iTunes, mainly because of the lack of bloat) and in terms of music stores.
If you want to pay $100 a year for Mobile Me, sure. If you don't have Mobile Me then its useless.
Because everyone wants to be a movie writer? I can't open up WordPad in Vista and do the same? Considering OS X only ships with TextEdit.
At much lower quality than Windows thanks to integrated graphics and the lack of technology similar to DXVA.
Windows does this too.
Very limited stuff. In some cases, not as high quality as Windows and in other cases no more than Windows lets you do you out of the box. Let's not forget that in some instances, like Front Row versus Media Center, Windows wins hands down
It only sounds like an inferiority complex to an elitest Mac owner
I see most Mac owners as foolish people who bought into a fad because they were told they were getting a superior product but, in the end, got an inferior product and paid twice what they should have. I don't remember if it was this thread or the other where I mentioned this already. Even if that number were true, that still makes leaves what? 5 times the amount of people using Vista compared to Mac users as a whole. Roughly 10x as many people using Vista as Leopard.
The blog also mentions that the original article author seems to feel that Microsoft is shifting focus away from Vista and on to Windows 7. This after Microsoft announced a multi-million dollar advertising campaign to spread the truth about Vista and clear up Apple's lies.
You see, its only the media and Apple fans that have a problem with Vista. Not the real users
There are a number of legitimate reasons for businesses and such to want to stick with XP. For example, its easier for their IT department to XP across the board or it would be too costly to upgrade the entire business to Vista so the few new computers they NEED to buy still have XP on them. Microsoft and manufacturers at least give consumers and businesses the CHOICE of what they want. With Apple its the iWay or the highway. You either get Leopard or nothing at all, even if your software will only run on Tiger and your business depends on it.
You're missing the point.
First of all, my statements about Vista taking advantage of the hardware have to do with things like video playback being handed off to the GPU rather than being done all in software.
Second, people called Vista a resource hog at first because they noticed their 2GB of RAM was all being used up. Its just the way Vista handles memory and they're used to the XP/Leopard way of using memory as needed. However, this makes Vista faster. All of my most used apps open instantly after a fresh boot, where in OS X they all take seconds or more to open after a fresh boot.
Thank you
Exactly. For $1299 you don't get much at all. This is why I've been pushing everyone towards HP, Gateway, or custom manufacturers like ibuypower. For $1299 you deserve to get a lot more hardware for the money.
Exactly. If I had realized what I was getting into when I bought my Mac, rather than believing the hype and just going off of past experience with Macs, I would have bought a PC instead as well. Thankfully things worked out and I was able to get the HP I have now.
The excessive heat is why my MacBook sits closed and shut down right now. Its a warm day here in the desert and I need a system that runs cool. Not excessively hot because a website has a flash ad. Plus I might want to play a game later. My HP playing games runs at the same temp as my MacBook does idle (55-61c for both)
Everybody should care. Lower CPU use on trivial tasks means longer battery life, less heat, and overall longer component life thanks to lower heat and less stress.
Hey, if Mac users want to spend more money on hardware that will not last as long because of inefficient programming then they are more than welcome to do that. But theres no reason other people can't say "hey! This isn't right! this task shouldn't require that much CPU use".
The kernel and protections Microsoft have put in place with Vista are two different things. UAC as well as other protections in IE, FF, Windows Mail, etc. protect the system. The kernel itself might not be as "secure" as Linux, however, combined with the other protections and the fact that Windows itself generally only lets signed software modify the system, the user would have to actively try to modify it to mess things up.
Hey I can do that with HP Photosmart Essentials. And the book will cost half as much as the Apple printed one and I'm not stuck with Apple's stock designs
Yes I am serious.
Theres no reason there can't be intelligent discussing regarding the differences between the two.
It only gets "out of hand" when the Apple diehards don't like hearing the truth, that their OS isn't as good as it could be.
With the exception of Final Cut Pro (which I generally hear is overrated from my friends in video creation), all standard video editing software and hardware is on the PC.
How do you know this? Most 3D modeling and such apps use the GPU for the real-time manipulation and then the CPU for the actual rendering. With Macs generally having low-end GPUs or Intel GPUs, I can't imagine 3D work being good at all on a Mac. I know an artist who relies on Blender for her work and she wouldn't touch a Mac because the MacBook Pro was overpriced and underpowered for the price and the MacBook had an Intel GPU.
Photoshop runs the same on Windows as it does on OS X. In fact, Windows will get 64-bit Photoshop before OS X
And if Adobe ever does start to use the GPU... well, you're stuck with low-end GPUs on MacBook Pros and Mac Pros versus high end for half the price on Windows PCs. Firefox 3 is way better than Safari. Its faster, more stable. And it at least has spoofing/phishing protection. Some security experts warn against Safari because of its lack of spoofing and phishing detection.
And high definition video, like blu-ray discs.
Not true. Leopard crashed for me yesterday. You know what I was doing while it crashed? I was moving the mouse. I was going to click to open Firefox and before I could get the mouse to the dock to open FF OS X just locked up for no reason.
Vista has NEVER crashed on me. It has NEVER given me a BSOD, nothing. Windows on my Mac is rock solid as well. But Leopard? Unstable. Random crashes during random tasks that can never be repeated.
How does it not? Both Vista and Leopard take advantage of multiple cores the same way. By handing tasks off to different cores for better multi-tasking. If a multi-threaded app comes along, then the app gets to use both cores at once.
Fast boot time does not make a system itself fast. If you watch activity monitor or iStat pro, you'll see that some processes eating up CPU and HDD cycles are going on in the background for well after the time you've reached a useable desktop.
Again, how is this any different than what Windows does? Both will micro-manage tasks to different CPU cores to allow for better multi-tasking. You'll have MS Office running on 1 core, iTunes on the other on Vista/XP or Leopard. If you happen to have multiple apps open, as most of us do, then the tasks get divided between the cores based on load. Its no different on either OS. What is different is that Windows generally uses LESS CPU time to get the same task done.
Hardware acceleration for office work? heh.
Another person missing the point. Hardware acceleration is good for tasks that can be handed off to specific hardware. Such as video or audio.
Again, that is not true. I'm running Vista 32-bit and I have NOT had it crash on me EVER. Nor have I ever had a BSOD. The only instability I ever had was the first version of Firefox3. But 3.0.1 fixed all of that. Where my Mac with Leopard (and my MacBook with Tiger before that) will crash randomly doing random things and I can never repeat the crash. It just simply happens during random tasks at random times. I've run the in-depth Apple Hardware Test and it showed everything as perfect. Windows on the same system installed via Boot Camp, however, is rock solid. I don't have Windows on it at the moment because I intend to re-partition the drive and dedicated the majority of it to Vista and make OS X the secondary OS.
Again, you're missing the point. I mentioned hardware acceleration for tasks that can be handed off to the hardware that was designed for such tasks.
Thanks to nvidia and ATI, developers for Windows can ALREADY take full advantage of GPUs if they want extra speed. To put that extra speed in perspective, the F@H client on my GeForce 8400M GS can spit out 3 completed units in the time it takes the PS3 to do ONE.
Also, Grand Central is a technology (according to Apple) that will "make better use of multi-core processors".
What you're talking about is OpenCL. That depends on Apple's OpenGL support which, at this moment, is terrible. If Apple wants OpenCL to be taken seriously, then they need get off their butt and join the modern world with their OpenGL support.
OpenCL will also be essentially useless on any MacBook with an Intel GPU.
Boot Camp already supports Vista 64-bit.
Because sales prove that people want 15.4" and bigger screens.
And as I've pointed out before, the vast majority of people who buy a MacBook do NOT buy it for its size. They buy it because its the only Mac they can afford.
Nobody will claim to be an inch thick if its not. My HP is an inch thick at the front and 1.5 at the back. This actually works out because it allows for PROPER COOLING and my CPU idles 20c lower than that in my MacBook. My GPU and CPU peak under load about the same as the MacBook idles. It also keeps the external case COOL so I don't have to worry about getting ridiculously uncomfortable like with the MacBook.
PCs and Macs are like women. Curvy and well designed is better than stick thin
Considering that MagSafe adapters are known fire hazards, I'd rather not have one. Besides, HP and most all other manufacturers have solved the problems with DC jacks becoming disconnected on the motherboard. They're on their own reinforced boards now.
I had a $1,000 HP before the MacBook was released that had optical in and out.
Now most PC notebooks do digital audio out through their STANDARD HDMI outputs.
Let's compare connectivity of a MacBook to a standard notebook PC, shall we? MacBook has mini-DVI that requires adapters for ANY connection, costing $20 a piece. It has 1 Firewire, 2 USB, optical audio in and out, and ethernet. A standard PC will have HDCP certified HDMI output (and most quality displays have HDMI inputs these days), VGA, S-Video, 3 USB, 1 Firewire, 2 headphone jacks, 1 input, memory card reader, full size ExpressCard, gigabit ethernet (just like the MacBook), dialup modem, and a docking station port.
Yeah I'd say more goes into the PC than the Mac.
Again, MagSafe is a fire hazard. I don't care about "sleek" or "stylish" designs because I'm not shallow. I don't care if someone thinks my PC is ugly (my HP looks better than my Mac anyway). And a standard notebook PC will get you far more connectivity and features than a Mac. Oh, and Sony was, at one time, more overpriced than Apple. But recently they've lowered their prices to become more in-line with others.
mosx, what will it take for Apple to change your perception about Macs and Mac OS X? Basically, what do you want Apple to change before you even consider buying another Mac. I would like to hear your opinion and I like reading your posts.
Also, would you ever buy another Mac besides the MacBook?
Also, would you ever buy another Mac besides the MacBook?
Glad you enjoy my rants
Apple would need to do a couple of things. First and most importantly to me, since I'm a big movie fan, they need to get hardware acceleration going for all video codecs across the entire OS on GPUs that support it. That includes HDCP support.
Second, they need to bring dedicated graphics back to the entire line. Its appalling that the Apple TV has a GeForce 7200 in it, a card better than any of the Intel GPUs, and it costs significantly less than any Mac. The last generation of iBooks had Radeon 9550s, which, when paired with an equal processor, are still better than any Intel GPU. The G4 Mac mini had a Radeon 9200. While it lacks Pixel Shader 3.0, for games and video it would perform better with an equal CPU.
If they put the equivalent of a GeForce 8400M GS in the MacBook and came up with a real cooling solution for it, I'd be happy. Theres no reason for such an expensive computer to have such low end hardware. Especially not when the Apple TV has dedicated graphics that it doesn't even use. If it did use the GPU it wouldn't be hardware limited to 4Mbps 720p H.264 video. That GeForce 7200 can push blu-ray video.
I'd buy a Mac mini for $799 if it also had a GeForce 8400M GS equivalent and HDMI output.
But I won't buy an iMac. I refuse to spend $1500 on a desktop computer that is built off of mobile parts, except for the HDD. I certainly won't buy a Mac Pro ever either, considering you can count the number of applications on one hand that can take advantage of more than 2 cores. There are many games that can use as many cores as you can throw at them, but your GPU options for the Mac Pro are extremely limited and extremely expensive. ATI's new GPU is coming for the Mac Pro and its going to cost nearly double what you can find it for on the PC. If you're an average person, a 3GHz Core 2 Duo with the GeForce GTX 2x0 series for roughly 1/3 the prices will be a better buy. If you're a hardware enthusiast, a GTX 280 and that same 3GHz Core 2 Duo (or slower Core 2 Quad) overclocked (both) to 4GHz on stock cooling will give you more performance than the Mac Pro in its current form could. Plus the Xeon, while being built off Core 2 architecture, is designed more for server and work station style performance. The actual Core 2 Duo and Quad lines are built for gaming and multimedia.
I would also say Apple needs to work on efficiency and the bloat of their software, but it seems thats what Snow Leopard is for. Hopefully Apple can trim file sizes down and cut down the amount of RAM many apps use and optimize CPU use, because some of the apps just eat up far more RAM and CPU cycles than they need to.
ONE small problem with that...
OS X has NO HARDWARE ACCELERATION... HOW am i supposed to PLAY GAMES ON IT???
Video, Pictures and stuff like that i can understand (they are too valueable for me to trust to windows!!!)
and i definetly plan on using iMovie and iDVD to burn stuff like home videos.
And don't forget better flash support.
Flash is prevalent in today's online world. And yet on any Mac in OS X (Windows on the same machine is not so) there is extreme heat and low fps. I can have JUST Safari up on my Macbook, and try to play a flash game or watch a Youtube video. My machine quickly heats to 170+ Fahrenheit, the fans crank up, my lap is stinging in the pain, and my battery life goes down to 1.5 hours, from the 4 hours battery life I normally get with just a browser open.
Completely unacceptable.
haha thats true. I forgot about that. I generally try to avoid Flash when I'm on my MacBook. Which means avoiding youtube and most sites in general.
Come to think of it, all I really use my Mac for these days is... well, emailing, light browsing, and syncing my iPods and iPhone. I love my iPods and iPhone but Mac OS X is.. not good.
Flash wouldn't be so bad if Apple had better OpenGL support. Considering that Flash 9 makes full use of the hardware at hand. Apple needs to put some real graphics hardware into the MacBook (nothing that relies on the CPU!) and bring their OpenGL support into the modern world.
It seems almost as if they kind of hacked in OpenGL 2.0 support after the specifications and hardware were made public more than half a decade ago and they haven't updated their support for it since.
Apple really needs to bring their OpenGL support up to speed and give us dedicated graphics. Modern GPUs can handle Flash, video, and GUI eye candy like Core Animation in reduced power states. It'll help our battery life and fertility when using MacBooks on our laps.
I also wanted to point out that the Apple TV has the more powerful GeForce Go 7300, not the 7200 I have accidentally been typing.
Glad you enjoy my rants
Apple would need to do a couple of things. First and most importantly to me, since I'm a big movie fan, they need to get hardware acceleration going for all video codecs across the entire OS on GPUs that support it. That includes HDCP support.
Second, they need to bring dedicated graphics back to the entire line. Its appalling that the Apple TV has a GeForce 7200 in it, a card better than any of the Intel GPUs, and it costs significantly less than any Mac. The last generation of iBooks had Radeon 9550s, which, when paired with an equal processor, are still better than any Intel GPU. The G4 Mac mini had a Radeon 9200. While it lacks Pixel Shader 3.0, for games and video it would perform better with an equal CPU.
If they put the equivalent of a GeForce 8400M GS in the MacBook and came up with a real cooling solution for it, I'd be happy. Theres no reason for such an expensive computer to have such low end hardware. Especially not when the Apple TV has dedicated graphics that it doesn't even use. If it did use the GPU it wouldn't be hardware limited to 4Mbps 720p H.264 video. That GeForce 7200 can push blu-ray video.
I'd buy a Mac mini for $799 if it also had a GeForce 8400M GS equivalent and HDMI output.
But I won't buy an iMac. I refuse to spend $1500 on a desktop computer that is built off of mobile parts, except for the HDD. I certainly won't buy a Mac Pro ever either, considering you can count the number of applications on one hand that can take advantage of more than 2 cores. There are many games that can use as many cores as you can throw at them, but your GPU options for the Mac Pro are extremely limited and extremely expensive. ATI's new GPU is coming for the Mac Pro and its going to cost nearly double what you can find it for on the PC. If you're an average person, a 3GHz Core 2 Duo with the GeForce GTX 2x0 series for roughly 1/3 the prices will be a better buy. If you're a hardware enthusiast, a GTX 280 and that same 3GHz Core 2 Duo (or slower Core 2 Quad) overclocked (both) to 4GHz on stock cooling will give you more performance than the Mac Pro in its current form could. Plus the Xeon, while being built off Core 2 architecture, is designed more for server and work station style performance. The actual Core 2 Duo and Quad lines are built for gaming and multimedia.
I would also say Apple needs to work on efficiency and the bloat of their software, but it seems thats what Snow Leopard is for. Hopefully Apple can trim file sizes down and cut down the amount of RAM many apps use and optimize CPU use, because some of the apps just eat up far more RAM and CPU cycles than they need to.
I like your rants too...sometimes i dont agree though. I think this post was extremely logical, and i agree completely with your reasoning here. I have a Macbook 2nd rev and I love it and leopard...but i do have things i really dont like.
1. Entry Level model: NO DVD Burner!! Come on apple!
2. 1 GB of RAM...My windows desktop from 6 years ago has 1 GB of RAM!
3. Leopard is still unstable..I too get random system lock-ups. But they're OK, its still not as bad as my old XP desktop
.4. Cracks...nuff said
5. Temperature and flash support....nuff said
But I also love my Mac, for these reasons
1. Leopard Design: I think that Leopard is an amazingly well designed OS, quirks and all.
2. UNIX Substructure: I like the large bounty of Open source programs and freeware available for UNIX and mac. The terminal is also a lot more powerful.
3. No Bloatware, only usefulware..nuff said
4. The little things: Magsafe, two finger scrolling, etc. (NOTE: Magsafe fire hazard has 1880 hits in google, so i would assume its not much of a problem)
5. Devotedness of mac delelopers: nuff said.
Therefore i do prefer a mac to a PC. But i dont consider myself a mac fanboy.
Glad you enjoy my rants
Apple would need to do a couple of things. First and most importantly to me, since I'm a big movie fan, they need to get hardware acceleration going for all video codecs across the entire OS on GPUs that support it. That includes HDCP support.
Second, they need to bring dedicated graphics back to the entire line. Its appalling that the Apple TV has a GeForce 7200 in it, a card better than any of the Intel GPUs, and it costs significantly less than any Mac. The last generation of iBooks had Radeon 9550s, which, when paired with an equal processor, are still better than any Intel GPU. The G4 Mac mini had a Radeon 9200. While it lacks Pixel Shader 3.0, for games and video it would perform better with an equal CPU.
If they put the equivalent of a GeForce 8400M GS in the MacBook and came up with a real cooling solution for it, I'd be happy. Theres no reason for such an expensive computer to have such low end hardware. Especially not when the Apple TV has dedicated graphics that it doesn't even use. If it did use the GPU it wouldn't be hardware limited to 4Mbps 720p H.264 video. That GeForce 7200 can push blu-ray video.
I'd buy a Mac mini for $799 if it also had a GeForce 8400M GS equivalent and HDMI output.
But I won't buy an iMac. I refuse to spend $1500 on a desktop computer that is built off of mobile parts, except for the HDD. I certainly won't buy a Mac Pro ever either, considering you can count the number of applications on one hand that can take advantage of more than 2 cores. There are many games that can use as many cores as you can throw at them, but your GPU options for the Mac Pro are extremely limited and extremely expensive. ATI's new GPU is coming for the Mac Pro and its going to cost nearly double what you can find it for on the PC. If you're an average person, a 3GHz Core 2 Duo with the GeForce GTX 2x0 series for roughly 1/3 the prices will be a better buy. If you're a hardware enthusiast, a GTX 280 and that same 3GHz Core 2 Duo (or slower Core 2 Quad) overclocked (both) to 4GHz on stock cooling will give you more performance than the Mac Pro in its current form could. Plus the Xeon, while being built off Core 2 architecture, is designed more for server and work station style performance. The actual Core 2 Duo and Quad lines are built for gaming and multimedia.
I would also say Apple needs to work on efficiency and the bloat of their software, but it seems thats what Snow Leopard is for. Hopefully Apple can trim file sizes down and cut down the amount of RAM many apps use and optimize CPU use, because some of the apps just eat up far more RAM and CPU cycles than they need to.
To tell you the truth, I agree with you. I don't dislike Macs but you show the truth right now. Let's hope these September Mac updates would be surprising.
MOSX if you don't care about style and the small touches that go into a product then Apple is the wrong company for you. You're like the majority of American's, easily given and satisfied with mediocrity. I bet you're the type of guy that walks into best buy and buys the biggest tv for the lowest amount of money, nevermind quality.
Yes Apple's laptops have had technical issues, just like any other product. It's easy to pick on Apple's notebooks because they are so popular and have an entire forum dedicated to them, but the bottom line is that if you want rock bottom prices then don't go for a Mac because the R&D that goes into an Apple computer will raise the price.
Why do you spend so much time bashing on Apple though? You easily spend a few hours on here reading through posts and posting. No way do you spend a few minutes.
Are you that bitter about making the wrong purchase? Install Vista on your mac and be done with it, at this point you look like a petty troll.
Yes Apple's laptops have had technical issues, just like any other product. It's easy to pick on Apple's notebooks because they are so popular and have an entire forum dedicated to them, but the bottom line is that if you want rock bottom prices then don't go for a Mac because the R&D that goes into an Apple computer will raise the price.
Why do you spend so much time bashing on Apple though? You easily spend a few hours on here reading through posts and posting. No way do you spend a few minutes.
Are you that bitter about making the wrong purchase? Install Vista on your mac and be done with it, at this point you look like a petty troll.
I hope so too. I like to see Apple giving Microsoft and others some good competition. But they've fallen behind.
When the Intel Macs were first released, they were priced very close to PCs. There was a little bit of an Apple Premium but not much. You had very similar specs compared to PCs. The only difference is that the PC might have had 1GB of RAM where the Mac had 512MB. You might have seen 80GB in the PC while the Mac had a 60GB HDD.
But now thats completely different. For $750 now you can get an HP with 3GB of RAM, 160GB HDD, blu-ray reader, integrated graphics that put the rest to shame.
Apple really needs to get off of their "update every 6 to 8 month" schedule. It really keeps them behind. It worked back in the PowerPC days because they generally had no competition in that area. But now they're using standard PC parts. And this 6 to 8 month cycle just doesn't cut it. For the past 3 months or so you could walk into Best Buy or Fry's and you'd see the $1299 MacBook with its small screen and Intel graphics sitting next to a $1300 Gateway with a much bigger screen and a GeForce 8800M GTS. Now if you're an average person, whats better to you? Something with a big screen that can play all the latest games? Or something thats small and has fallen behind the curve in hardware?
Every "Joe Sixpack" I know whats a computer with a big screen that can play CoD4 better than other people.
What small touches? You mean the discoloring cases? That discolor from both regular use and heat? The cracking caused by the magnetic latches? The AC adapter that has a cord thats notorious for fraying and becoming a fire hazard? The fact that I can't replace my optical drive if it ever dies? The lack of dedicated graphics? Or how about the case getting ridiculously hot during trivial tasks? How about the MacBook Pro? What small touches does it have? Even worse heat issues than the MacBook? The same fire hazard AC adapter? A case that will not discolor, but instead warps from heat? A cooling system linked to mountains of motherboard failures? Yellow screens? Both an optical drive and HDD that are NOT user replaceable? How about both systems lacking standard connectivity like HDMI ports, memory card readers, full size ExpressCard slots? Even many "netbooks" have that!
Not to be an ass, but the MacBook and MacBook Pros are the definition of mediocrity. Do I need to repeat what I said above? They lack standard connectivity, ports, and options. They have case issues. They have heat issues. They have an OS that is not as capable as the competitions. The hardware under the hood is mid-range at best, though you're paying high end prices. All in the name of "design!" Sorry, but functionality comes first. Then form. Fortunately, PC makers these days have that down right. Apple needs to catch up.
Nah, I did lots of research before buying my HDTV
An entire forum? Wow, really? You do know that theres dozens of other forums dedicated to PCs and Windows notebooks, right?
What R&D? Theres nothing different about a MacBook compared to any other PC out there. Its using standard Intel processors and chipsets and standard GPUs made by Intel, nvidia, or ATI. The optical drive is a standard thin slot loader that Panasonic (Matsushita) makes and sells to anyone who wants one. Its using a standard 2.5" SATA that PCs adopted before Macs. The webcam is a basic cam with custom firmware that any manufacturer could buy and throw in their system.
The only R&D I could see Apple doing is "hey! Let's see if we can make it this thin, run this hot and see if it will last running that hot just long enough passed the warranty so the person has to buy a new one when it dies an early death from heat!" "yeah that sounds like a great idea!"
Heh, no I do spend a few minutes. I generally come here when I have a few minutes of down time. Sometimes I can't make it here for days at a time. But I can assure you I don't spend "hours" here
Petty troll, eh? People throw that kind of wording around when they don't like hearing people tell the truth about something they support. You would have had more credibility if you didn't resort to that level.
I am better I made the wrong purchase. I bought into the Apple hype. The hardware was not anywhere near what it should have been for the price, and OS X was more unstable than Apple would like you to believe.
I could have gotten a more stable and more powerful system for much less. Which is what I ended up with. My problem now is what to do with my Mac? Sell it and lose lots of money? Can't do that. I most likely will install Vista on it. I just wish I had taken Apple up on that refund offer they gave me a few months ago. I made two mistakes so far. First, buying the Mac. Second, not accepting the refund on the Mac.
I hope so too. I like to see Apple giving Microsoft and others some good competition. But they've fallen behind.
When the Intel Macs were first released, they were priced very close to PCs. There was a little bit of an Apple Premium but not much. You had very similar specs compared to PCs. The only difference is that the PC might have had 1GB of RAM where the Mac had 512MB. You might have seen 80GB in the PC while the Mac had a 60GB HDD.
But now thats completely different. For $750 now you can get an HP with 3GB of RAM, 160GB HDD, blu-ray reader, integrated graphics that put the rest to shame.
Apple really needs to get off of their "update every 6 to 8 month" schedule. It really keeps them behind. It worked back in the PowerPC days because they generally had no competition in that area. But now they're using standard PC parts. And this 6 to 8 month cycle just doesn't cut it. For the past 3 months or so you could walk into Best Buy or Fry's and you'd see the $1299 MacBook with its small screen and Intel graphics sitting next to a $1300 Gateway with a much bigger screen and a GeForce 8800M GTS. Now if you're an average person, whats better to you? Something with a big screen that can play all the latest games? Or something thats small and has fallen behind the curve in hardware?
Every "Joe Sixpack" I know whats a computer with a big screen that can play CoD4 better than other people.
What small touches? You mean the discoloring cases? That discolor from both regular use and heat? The cracking caused by the magnetic latches? The AC adapter that has a cord thats notorious for fraying and becoming a fire hazard? The fact that I can't replace my optical drive if it ever dies? The lack of dedicated graphics? Or how about the case getting ridiculously hot during trivial tasks? How about the MacBook Pro? What small touches does it have? Even worse heat issues than the MacBook? The same fire hazard AC adapter? A case that will not discolor, but instead warps from heat? A cooling system linked to mountains of motherboard failures? Yellow screens? Both an optical drive and HDD that are NOT user replaceable? How about both systems lacking standard connectivity like HDMI ports, memory card readers, full size ExpressCard slots? Even many "netbooks" have that!
Not to be an ass, but the MacBook and MacBook Pros are the definition of mediocrity. Do I need to repeat what I said above? They lack standard connectivity, ports, and options. They have case issues. They have heat issues. They have an OS that is not as capable as the competitions. The hardware under the hood is mid-range at best, though you're paying high end prices. All in the name of "design!" Sorry, but functionality comes first. Then form. Fortunately, PC makers these days have that down right. Apple needs to catch up.
Nah, I did lots of research before buying my HDTV
An entire forum? Wow, really? You do know that theres dozens of other forums dedicated to PCs and Windows notebooks, right?
What R&D? Theres nothing different about a MacBook compared to any other PC out there. Its using standard Intel processors and chipsets and standard GPUs made by Intel, nvidia, or ATI. The optical drive is a standard thin slot loader that Panasonic (Matsushita) makes and sells to anyone who wants one. Its using a standard 2.5" SATA that PCs adopted before Macs. The webcam is a basic cam with custom firmware that any manufacturer could buy and throw in their system.
The only R&D I could see Apple doing is "hey! Let's see if we can make it this thin, run this hot and see if it will last running that hot just long enough passed the warranty so the person has to buy a new one when it dies an early death from heat!" "yeah that sounds like a great idea!"
Heh, no I do spend a few minutes. I generally come here when I have a few minutes of down time. Sometimes I can't make it here for days at a time. But I can assure you I don't spend "hours" here
Petty troll, eh? People throw that kind of wording around when they don't like hearing people tell the truth about something they support. You would have had more credibility if you didn't resort to that level.
I am better I made the wrong purchase. I bought into the Apple hype. The hardware was not anywhere near what it should have been for the price, and OS X was more unstable than Apple would like you to believe.
I could have gotten a more stable and more powerful system for much less. Which is what I ended up with. My problem now is what to do with my Mac? Sell it and lose lots of money? Can't do that. I most likely will install Vista on it. I just wish I had taken Apple up on that refund offer they gave me a few months ago. I made two mistakes so far. First, buying the Mac. Second, not accepting the refund on the Mac.
Uhhh no, you do spend hours here, at least you have today. You seem to have a strong vested interest in coming to a Mac forum to bash the product, sorry thats a petty troll. I can understand bashing a mac product at a windows forum, but coming to a mac forum to do it? That's ridiculous. And you seem to hate OSX but you still haven't installed Vista? I guess its not that bad huh?
Show me a notebook you would buy today over the macbook or macbook pro and then point me to a forum that has as many active users as this forum. Yes of course there are forums for other notebooks, but the not at the same level of activity as this one.
You're not chris pirillo are you?
mosx I was going to reply to your arguments regarding Macs etc, however,
is this anger all down to the fact that you were a switcher whose MacBook went wrong and to put it bluntly - humiliated you because you'd boasted to people how great the Mac is/was.
I'm really sorry that both your MB and Apple let you down - it must have been a major Matsushita for you.
I hope you get on well with you new computer and wish you luck
is this anger all down to the fact that you were a switcher whose MacBook went wrong and to put it bluntly - humiliated you because you'd boasted to people how great the Mac is/was.
I'm really sorry that both your MB and Apple let you down - it must have been a major Matsushita for you.
I hope you get on well with you new computer and wish you luck
I did? Hmm. Funny. I could have sworn that I came here every so often when I had a few minutes of free time. Oh thats right, I did.
Sorry but your attempt to make it seem like I'm here for hours only to "bash" the Mac has failed.
I love it when people improperly throw around the term "bash" and "troll". Bashing something is more along the lines of "haha stupid Macs can't do this! it sucks!". But me? I point out the shortcomings of the hardware and software with facts to back it up, in a calm manner. Its actually the Apple diehards, like yourself, that can't handle hearing the truth and get all upset and start with the immature rants and immature name calling. When you point out a fact like OS X lacking technology similar to DXVA, or standard ports like fullsize ExpressCard or HDMI outputs, its the Apple fans who get all bent out of shape and bring the thread down with their immature behavior. Theres no "bashing" or "trolling" when you state a fact, like OS X can't play blu-ray discs thanks to the lack of hardware support (no blu-ray drives, no HDCP support in the GPU firmware or in OS X or in the GPU drivers) and software support (no software to play it, lack of DXVA style technology). Someone states that, a fact, and an Apple diehard will read it and get all hurt and start off with the "you're a troll! get out of here! you're bashing our products!" when thats not bashing or trolling at all. Its simply speaking the truth. If I were to say "haha your Mac sucks because it can't play blu-ray movies! What a piece of crap!" that would be trolling and bashing. But calmly stating the fact in a polite manner? Sorry, thats not "ridiculous". What is ridiculous is people not being able to handle the truth and, thanks to them being overall insecure and lacking confidence in their choices, they come after the person stating facts and call them names and accuse them of things they aren't doing.
Quite honestly, I come here to help people make the right decisions. Its not my fault that certain people loyal to a brand name don't like hearing that their brand is behind others. If you don't like hearing the truth and hearing what I have to say then don't read my posts. Simple.
I haven't had the time
Thanks to a 3 day weekend, however, I'll be doing it tomorrow. You seem to act as if having a single large community means that more people like Macs than any other notebook. Let me remind you of the fact that Dell and HP alone (not combined) sell more computers than there are Mac users in total.
Not only that, but how many of Apple's "25m users" have multiple Macs? Apple fans sometimes tend to have more money than sense and tend to buy a computer for every single person in the family, so how many of those 25m users have 4 or 5 Macs? Sorry, I'm one of those people that believes a 10 year old shouldn't have his or her own computer.
It doesn't matter if a particular brand of computer has a rather large community dedicated to it when its still not even close to approaching half of what a single competitor sells.
By the way, I like how you ignored the rest of my post and questions regarding your original statements
Nope. But you remind me of Ken Bell.
Humiliated me? No not at all. At first I did love my MacBook and I told people how great it was. Then the dark side showed itself and I saw what real hardware should cost. I told those same people without blinking an eye "boy was I wrong. I really bought into the hype." I will admit when I'm wrong. I have no problem with that. I was certainly wrong in believing the hype surrounding Apple products and I was certainly wrong in thinking it would live up to that hype.
My only real problem with Apple is that they charge twice what the computer should cost. Literally. If they brought their prices down or spec'ed the computers where they should be, I'd have no problem.
- Status