I think a lot of the fuss over dedicated graphics would easily be resolved if Apple made it a build to order option.
Would that make everyone happy?
Would that make everyone happy?
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.
New MacBooks by November?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
OrI think a lot of the fuss over dedicated graphics would easily be resolved if Apple made it a build to order option.
Would that make everyone happy?
could use the upgraded graphics in all models, and the people who want it to 'just work' won't be disappointed (probably won't notice if they're as dull as the aforementioned examples), and the people who would like an update get what they want for improved gaming and 3D modelling. Win-win situation Juxtaposer
Well some users think that the integrated solutions are just fine since it makes the MacBook "just work".Or
Juxtaposer
We should give them the option of integrated graphics.
Or
Juxtaposer
Increased cost + increased power requirements + increased heat + lack of "special relationship" with Intel
Intel doesn't seem to be concerned in the iMac.Increased cost + increased power requirements + increased heat + lack of "special relationship" with Intel
It sports top of the line mobile processors available before their official launch and ATi graphics.
Maybe because Apple is graciously buying all their GM945 chipsets that no one else wants.
Sorry, just trying to please everyoneIncreased cost + increased power requirements + increased heat + lack of "special relationship" with Intel
, but as I'm sure I've said before, if a MacBook update is on the cards, then I'm sure will do a great job. I haven't used an apple machine I didn't like so far (bear in mind I've only used the Intel Mac's and the iPod 5G onwards). So I'm prepared to wait a while and see how it all pans out. I'll be happy whatever happens as long as I get a Mac that is portable enough and powerful enough for my audio editing (and I have to say that my Mac Mini does the audio editing fine enough).Juxtaposer
I'm surprised the 945GM hasn't reached end of life.Maybe because Apple is graciously buying all their GM945 chipsets that no one else wants.
Not while Apple is still around. If the MB weren't so popular, they probably would have upgraded it already and the 945 would have been dead. Ironic, isn't it?
Surprisingly enough I don't think it's Apple alone.
I still see new motherboards based off of the 945GM being made.
Yes, everyone but Apple executives. As we all know, BTO costs Apple more because logistics cannot rely on volume. Therefore BTO is destined for only Pro lineup that has bigger profit margins. Why do you think only MBP has the option of Glossy or Matte display?
I could see Apple dropping the price of 15" MBP a little, because they really cannot make the 17-incher any more expensive than it already is. Currently the price difference between 15" top model and the 17" model is very small so buying the middle model is an act of stupidity.
If the 15-incher was cheaper, it would make customers that want the fully loaded MacBook compare to the MBP base model and think again. It would also make customers that want the fully loaded MacBook Pro think if they want 15 or 17 inch display.
But I cannot see BTO graphics on MacBooks.
Yes. Apple consumer lineup has "lousy" graphics. That includes the iMac, the MacBook and the Mac Mini. Neither has good graphics.
Apple pro lineup has "good" graphics. The MacBook Pro and the Mac Pro both have decent graphics by default. The Mac Pro can be upgraded to be "excellent" if GPU is the most important aspect of the workstation on the kind of work you do.
The Mac Pro can be upgraded to "powerful yet woefully outdated" graphics at this time, should one choose the x1900xt or the Quadro 4500. The stock 7300GT should fall into the "crappy" category.
Graphics cards have never been Apple's strong suit.
If Mac Pro default graphics is "crappy", then I cannot even think of a proper category for Apple consumer lineup...
Yes.. please go back and slap that guy! And yes.. I get stressed when people continually miss the point. While you suggest a G4 iMac, I'll remind you that you cannot buy one from apple any longer.
It all comes down to numbers. Apple is selling the Macbook like hotcakes because it meets 99% of its customers needs in its default configuration. While I agree that a better graphics chipset would be nice, its not necessary due to the majority of the customer base not needing it.
Here's the optimal solution:
A cheaper notebook like the macbook in its current configuration, but a few hundred bucks cheaper. A midrange that has slightly better graphics options but is priced the same as the current MB. Then, lastly, the MBP range. How many models of laptops does Dell have? (Im serious, I dont know and am too lazy to go search their site). The only people I know who are really into games, either have a dedicated win machine, or game from their couch via a console.
In addition, there should be a midrange tower in between the mini and the Mac Pro, with room for expanding storage and better GPU's. I think Apple is totally missing the boat there.
As far as the iMac goes, I think the options and pricing are perfect for that line.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and take my jeep grand wagoneer to the racetrack and see if I can keep up with the Nascar guys.
I hope they update the MB so bad! I've been saving my change for a new MB when Leopard is released, but now I am considering waiting until mi Nov to purchase incase they dont anounce a product refresh with the Spotted Cat
Is it meeting our needs, or are we just accepting the limitations because of cost vs. benefit/need?
I bought the MacBook because it meets enough of my needs to warrant the price, whereas the additional needs the MacBook Pro would meet aren't worth the extra cost to me. Same with my iMac 24" vs. a Mac Pro and 23" Cinema Display.
Games are not a major focus of my usage, so I am willing to give them up to save significant money. But if the system would let me do them for little to no extra cost, that is a bonus to me and reinforces my justification to buy it.
By default, Apple will eventually need to move to the Santa Rosa platform because that is all Intel will be offering in that segment (or lack of availability will make the older platforms more expensive then using Santa Rosa). So by also taking advantage of the more powerful X3x00-series of integrated GPUs that platform offers, Apple can "future-proof" their design a bit, which improves profits because they stay on a single platform longer and it makes that platform more desirable to own, driving additional sales, which also improves profits.
And yet, those X3x00 GPUs will not offer the same graphics performance of the nVidia and ATI chipsets used in the MacBook Pro, so the likelihood of the MacBook poaching a significant number of sales from the MPB line is unlikely.
Wasn't the idea of a 15" MacBook tossed around earlier this year?
Apple really needs a sub-$1,000 notebook.
We can hope for SR, but Intel also makes a consumer line of motherboards with lower specs than SR. I am now optimistic about SR, but I'll believe it when I see it.By default, Apple will eventually need to move to the Santa Rosa platform because that is all Intel will be offering in that segment (or lack of availability will make the older platforms more expensive then using Santa Rosa). So by also taking advantage of the more powerful X3x00-series of integrated GPUs that platform offers, Apple can "future-proof" their design a bit, which improves profits because they stay on a single platform longer and it makes that platform more desirable to own, driving additional sales, which also improves profits.
Yeah, I am sure they know that as well. But I figure with Leopards eye candy they will seriously consider a better graphics card.
I can see a "thin" line for both public and pro as Apple push design in the direction of their iPhone/touch build designs.
No, I think you're missing the point. I'm saying you using words like "most people" based on your six Mac friends is a pretty limited view of the world. Mac users represent 5-8% of the World's computer users so how can you *EVER* under ANY circumstance use the words "most people" when referring to a statement based on 6 existing Mac users that don't even know what kind of hardware they bought and admittedly don't even care so long as it "just works" ??? I'm saying that's not a reasonable, let alone a valid statement.
"Most people" DO care what they're buying is what I'm saying. Now I could go ask 6 PC users I know or even 6 Linux users I know whether they know what's in their computer, whether they plan to upgrade anything in it and whether gaming or 3D applications are important to them and I'm sure depending on WHICH 6 I ask, I'll get 6 different answers because I know more than 6 computer users and certainly a lot more that have PCs than Macs and most of them DO know what's under the hood of their PC.
I'm so glad you cleared that up and why Macs don't have any "techy admin stuff" to do on them compared to PCs.
The thing is IF that were true, then 94% of the world would be using Macs, not PCs. The fact that 94% of the world uses Windows tells me "most people" do apparently want to worry about technical complexities, virues, etc. because they DO buy them and DO use them (or feel they are forced to since that's where the software is or in some of our cases, where the hardware that we want is). I'm not saying we wouldn't all be be better off with MacOSX compared to Windows (I do much prefer MacOSX personally), but rather it's a fact of life that MacOSX is a niche product tied directly to hardware by Apple's choosing which further limits it. It might even be 25% or more of the market right now if Apple didn't force you to buy their hardware to get their OS. But that's another matter.
Now what all this patent nonsense has to do with the fact that some of us want something better than a completely outdated Intel GMA 950 in the next Macbook update is really starting to get waaaay out in left field. Whether a person knows what it's in their Macbook is beside the point if they decide to run Madden 2008 and it refuses to run because the GPU isn't supported. Maybe one of those 'Sad Mac' faces would be a good way to break it to your six friends so they can comprehend why it won't run since they know not what is in their computer?