[Eug Wanker]

Dell XPS M1210
12.1" 1280x800 screen
Core Duo 1.83
1 GB DDR2-667
GMA 950
60 GB 5400 rpm drive
CD-RW/DVD combo
Bluetooth
802.11 a/g
No webcam
85 W-hr battery
Windows XP
4.? lbs
$1449

Dell XPS M1210
12.1" 1280x800 screen
Core Duo 1.83
1 GB DDR2-667
GeForce Go 7400 TurboCache
80 GB 5400 rpm drive
CD-RW/DVD combo
Bluetooth
802.11 a/g
Integrated webcam
85 W-hr battery
Windows XP
4.? lbs
$1911

Apple MacBook
13.3" 1280x800 screen
Core Cuo 1.83
1 GB DDR2-667
GMA 950
60 GB 5400 rpm drive
Combo CD-RW/DVD
Bluetooth
802.11 a/g
iSight
55 W-hr battery
Mac OS X
5.2 lbs
$1199

So it seems the MacBook is very nicely priced in comparison. The Dell is much smaller though (with the same rez, at 10% higher pixel density), and lighter too. (It's 4.37 lbs with the 53 W-hr battery and no webcam. Not sure how much it weighs with the free 85 W-hr battery upgrade, and the webcam.) Plus it has the option of the GeForce Go 7400 even at the low end (for $129). The Dell is quite fugly though.

[harrisjamieh]

I swear Dell's XPS line is targeted towards gamers.... if so then what the hell is a GMA 950 doing anywhere NEAR even the base model?

[powerbook867]

Nice to see apple getting competitive...the video card option would have been nice, but I've been really happy so far..

[Heavy]

I like the looks of that Dell. That camera looks really nice too.

[Simon]

The Dell is fugly as hell. Gosh, they really need to hire a professional hardware designer.

It's nice to see Apple offering the same feature set at a lower price point. Is it just me or do these 12" Dells seem pretty thick? Their lower weight is very nice though.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Unless the dell can run XP and OSX it is like comparing Apples to oranges for me.

Eug, you also forgot to mention the little things like latch-less lid, colour options, iLife, Boot-camp, magsafe, accelerometer, double finger trackpad scroll, etc.

Those little things are really important to me and other people.

[Heavy]

Yeah those are all good things, Social. I didn't know you can't scroll on a Dell laptop?

I cannot get my MB to right click. I'm doing something wrong.

[force838]

Originally Posted by Heavy

Yeah those are all good things, Social. I didn't know you can't scroll on a Dell laptop?

I cannot get my MB to right click. I'm doing something wrong.

get sidetrack. it's a trackpad program where you can program one of the corners to right click. you can also assign the right (or left) side as a scroll area for webpages. i found the double finger scroll clunky. it's free, but a nag box will pop up every once in a while until you give 'em 15 bucks.

[Hi I'm Ben]

Please remember that dell has disgusting amounts of coupons available when ordering. No one pays retail for a dell machine, even when you order directly from Dell coupons are applied at purchase without any user interaction.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Hi I'm Ben

Please remember that dell has disgusting amounts of coupons available when ordering. No one pays retail for a dell machine, even when you order directly from Dell coupons are applied at purchase without any user interaction.

Yeah, I find that extremely annoying actually. I hate the fact that you have to play the coupon game with Dell to buy anything worth getting.

Similarly, I hate the fact that Apple intentionally cripples its low end machines so often, for the upsell.

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Unless the dell can run XP and OSX it is like comparing Apples to oranges for me.

Eug, you also forgot to mention the little things like latch-less lid, colour options, iLife, Boot-camp, magsafe, accelerometer, double finger trackpad scroll, etc.

Those little things are really important to me and other people.

I'm just comparing components. As for the stuff you listed:

1) Latch-less lid: Nice, but not a necessity
2) Colour: I prefer white. I don't like the black model that much, and I think that it's not worth an extra $150. (Mind you I think it looks a lot better than the Dell.)
3) iLife and BootCamp and OS X: Nice.
4) Magsafe: Nice but I can do without it.
5) Accelerometer: Doesn't really matter to me.
6) Double-finger trackpad scroll: Nice.

However, also nice are:

1) GeForce Go 7400 option
2) Lighter weight
3) 85 Watt-hour battery
4) etc.

[Hi I'm Ben]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Yeah, I find that extremely annoying actually. I hate the fact that you have to play the coupon game with Dell to actually make a purchase worthwhile.

I got a cheap TV out of Dell this way, but you can never count on Dell's pricing being consistently good.

Similarly, I hate the fact that Apple intentionally cripples its low end machines so often, for the upsell.

It is annoying to have to hunt out Dell Coupons, but that's how they make people think they're getting some incredible deal.... Sometimes you can though. I got my 24inch LCD for $600.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

iLife and BootCamp and OS X: Nice.

You call iLife and Bootcamp "nice"?

Delete both off your computer and think to yourself, they were "nice" but I can do without them.

Those are 2 HUGE selling points for most people.

You might be able to do without magsafe but just about everyone I know has had a mishap with a laptop cord before.

True things like a Latch-less lid are not a necessity but they are what make a Mac a Mac. Same goes for small details like the cord you can wrap around the power adapter, 2 finger scrolling and the sleep light. You don't find that as well implemented on PCs.

If you took the guts of a Mac and put it in that Dell case without the extras you know that neither you nor I would buy one.

i don't know anyone that buys a Mac by comparing the specs to a PC. Mac's aren't about the hardware, next to a PC they almost lower in every way. People gets Macs because of the total package, that includes, hardware, software everything. Heck, people are even in love with the packaging.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

You call iLife and Bootcamp "nice"?

Delete both off your computer and think to yourself, they were "nice" but I can do without them.

Those are 2 HUGE selling points for most people.

Errr... That's why I called them "nice", not "nice but I can do without them".

i don't know anyone that buys a Mac by comparing the specs to a PC. Mac's aren't about the hardware, next to a PC they almost lower in every way. People gets Macs because of the total package, that includes, hardware, software everything. Heck, people are even in love with the packaging.

Actually, everyone I know that buys a Mac compares its specs to a PC, except you and your friends.

Anyways, you missed my point completely. My point was what kind of hardware can be offered in such a small package, and for what price. Some have argued that asking for a better GPU (as a CTO option) was not reasonable in such a small package as the MacBook because there was so much else in there that it'd be hard to put it in there. Well, the Dell just proves that it's not that hard, considering they can put a GeForce Go 7400 in a laptop that is much smaller and lighter. It's just a $129 upgrade to the base model.

Apple's choice of the GPU is a marketing choice, not an engineering choice. Personally, I think if they're going to have two models that are $200 apart, they should differentiate them based on the GPU, not the case colour.

The prices on Dell's site also illustrate that Apple can lower RAM prices. Apple's $400 upgrade price from 1 GB RAM to 2 GB RAM is simply insane.

[brokenjago]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Some have argued that asking for a better GPU (as a CTO option) was not reasonable in such a small package as the MacBook because there was so much else in there that it'd be hard to put it in there. Well, the Dell just proves that it's not that hard, considering they can put a GeForce Go 7400 in a laptop that is much smaller and lighter. It's just a $129 upgrade to the base model.

Dell's Machines are not 1.08" thick.

I do agree on Apple's RAM Prices though. They are insane.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by brokenjago

Dell's Machines are not 1.08" thick.

No, but they are 4.37 lbs. Actually, I'd prefer if the MacBook were thicker, if it meant I could get a MacBook that wasn't so wide, and one with a dual-layer SuperDrive. Because Apple has designed the MacBook so thin, the only SuperDrive they could get to fit is single-layer only.

Plus I thought the thickness of the iBook was fine, even though it was not 1.08" thick either.

[JasonA]

I haven't owned a Mac for some time, but I just bought a Macbook (arriving today!). I shopped a lot at Dell, and I could indeed get a better spec'd notebook for less than the MB quite often. It varies day to day of course with the coupons and discounts.

The biggest thing for Apple is that they have gotten "close enough" pricewise for Eug's "nice" features to sway someone like me. I don't *need* to run OSX. I have before, liked it, but had no problem giving it up in the name of inexpensive performance. But now that I can have both for not much of a premium (especially ordered from Amazon with a rebate), I was willing to take the leap again.

[mathew_m]

Well if Dell can do a BTO graphics card option then I don't see why Apple can't either. I think a lot of people would be willing to pay $1799 for a black Macbook with 128 meg dedicated video and 1 gig of ram standard.

[Simon]

Nobody in his/her right mind would argue that Apple put in a GMA950 for technical reasons. No idea where you got that from, Eug. On second thought, I'm sure somebody posted something along that line somewhere on this board, but hey, what did he/she know?

It's quite clear it's a marketing decision and as that it's fine - if they had put a decent GPU in the MB, they would have probably lost quite some MBP sales to the MB and that would have meant less profit. For geeks like us that sucks, for Apple it was a good business decision.

If I were Apple, I'd take a look at that Dell and start to think where the MB could lose some weight. The MB is definitely too heavy and the Dell's 4.37 pounds is a very nice figure. I highly doubt it's just because the Dell case is flimsy. Also, I think Apple chose a rather large bezel around the screen making the MB wider than it could be. Obviously since it's also an iBook replacement and will be used in schools they wanted to make sure it's a sturdy design, but I'm really wondering if they couldn't have shaved off at least half an inch.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Simon

Nobody in his/her right mind would argue that Apple put in a GMA950 for technical reasons. No idea where you got that from, Eug. On second thought, I'm sure somebody posted something along that line somewhere on this board, but hey, what did he/she know?

Yes, it's been posted previously in various MacBook threads. I think the Dell puts those arguments to rest once and for all.

If I were Apple, I'd take a look at that Dell and start to think where the MB could lose some weight. The MB is definitely too heavy and the Dell's 4.37 pounds is a very nice figure. I highly doubt it's just because the Dell case is flimsy. Also, I think Apple chose a rather large bezel around the screen making the MB wider than it could be. Obviously since it's also an iBook replacement and will be used in schools they wanted to make sure it's a sturdy design, but I'm really wondering if they couldn't have shaved off at least half an inch.

Well, one thing is the Dell has a 12.1" screen (at the same rez). I'm not 100% sure if I'd like the screen, cuz the 13.3" is already a fairly high pixel density as it is, and the 12.1" is 10% higher. Perhaps a 13.0" with smaller bezel could have been acceptable to Apple, who knows, but Apple chose not to use the 13.0 for whatever reason. (I know a 13.0" exists, but I don't know if it's the same price or as plentiful as the 13.3", or if it even would have saved much weight.)

[Hal06]

Originally Posted by Simon

The Dell is fugly as hell. Gosh, they really need to hire a professional hardware designer.

True, but I guess what they really need is to switch the industrial design studio hired to do such abominations, since I could think hardware design is mostly done out of Dell, I don't think most of makers -beisdes Apple- have a proper in-house design group, they just hire ID Studios.

Ugly nevertheless

[snoopy199]

The camera is a cool idea and the price is a little confusing. I never pay list price for Dell equipment. Makes no sense, every month they have a 20 to 30% series of coupon floating around. If you take the coupons into account the price difference is negligable.

What apple has on its side, is better design (I wonder of the dell runs as hot as the MB) better software and of course osx. Having the super drive for some of the MB models certainly doesn't hurt either.

the 85 wr battery in the dell kind of makes me jealous

-D

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Errr... That's why I called them "nice", not "nice but I can do without them".


Actually, everyone I know that buys a Mac compares its specs to a PC, except you and your friends.

Eug I know what you are trying to say all I am saying is that if you compare only the hardware guts of Mac's and PC's you miss the point of a Mac entirely.

Side by side the PC will almost ALWAYS have a faster burner, bigger hard drive, more RAM and USB ports. If that is what people are looking for than I am surprised Apple sells any computers at all.

It is like looking at buying a house based only on the number of rooms it offers not taking things into account like location and design.

I can't imagine you hand only the hardware specs to your friends and they compare it to a PC and they end up buying a Mac. They will take into account the big plus that there is no spyware or virus' plus the iLife apps.

Has any of your friends actually bought a Mac when you show them the specs only?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Eug I know what you are trying to say all I am saying is that if you compare only the hardware guts of Mac's and PC's you miss the point of a Mac entirely.

Side by side the PC will almost ALWAYS have a faster burner, bigger hard drive, more RAM and USB ports. If that is what people are looking for than I am surprised Apple sells any computers at all.

It is like looking at buying a house based only on the number of rooms it offers not taking things into account like location and design.

I can't imagine you hand only the hardware specs to your friends and they compare it to a PC and they end up buying a Mac. They will take into account the big plus that there is no spyware or virus' plus the iLife apps.

Has any of your friends actually bought a Mac when you show them the specs only?

No. Those who end up finally buying the Mac, do so for the whole package, and the relative paucity of viruses.

HOWEVER, I know several who have avoided buying Macs specifically because they were missing a key feature. And often times for laptops that key feature has been the GPU. And no, they don't go to the next model up. They just don't buy the Mac at all.

[mathew_m]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

HOWEVER, I know several who have avoided buying Macs specifically because they were missing a key feature. And often times for laptops that key feature has been the GPU. And no, they don't go to the next model up. They just don't buy the Mac at all.

In the past the excuse has always been "it won't run my software." I've never heard anyone outside of the internet complain about a GPU. Now that the software issue has been resolved (though not completely as XP is still needed and is costly for those used to it coming for free) you might have some people complaining about the GPU since there are actually games that can be played on it.

We'll probably see a dedicated graphics chip in the next rev. or so. Apple probably purposely crippled the rev. A Macbook to keep it at a lower price point and not compete with the MBP.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by mathew_m

In the past the excuse has always been "it won't run my software." I've never heard anyone outside of the internet complain about a GPU.

I have. Real people, with money to spend, and who were actually considering a Mac.

However, there were also many that didn't give a damn, or didn't even know what a GPU was.

We'll probably see a dedicated graphics chip in the next rev. or so.

I'm expecting to see Intel G965. It's still crap integrated, but it's supposedly a noticeable improvement over GMA 950.

My uninformed guess that it will do better with previous generation games than Intel 945 plus GMA 950, especially if it is coupled with faster system memory, although I'm also guessing it will continue to be fairly useless with current games. However, even though G965 is not ideal, it would be enough to satisfy more people if that's the case. A lot of MacBook owners would like to play previous generation games with more fps than bare minimum.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

HOWEVER, I know several who have avoided buying Macs specifically because they were missing a key feature.

I assume these people are extremely anal PC geeks right? I don't mean that in an insulting way but I know plenty of people that use the "I'll get it when it has a 50 gig hard drive not a 40 gig". Thing is they are usually with some ultra old and crappy PC to begin with and will never end up switching in the end.

I can't imagine to many people could have used the GMA excuse on you as it is new to Apple.

[snoopy199]

Originally Posted by mathew_m

In the past the excuse has always been "it won't run my software." I've never heard anyone outside of the internet complain about a GPU.

I agree, I used to sell computers back in the day and most people could care less about a video card. People avoided Macs because they couldn't run the software that they needed.

[mathew_m]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I have. Real people, with money to spend, and who were actually considering a Mac.

If they have "real money" to spend then I would think that the Macbook Pro would be more attractive. The only reason they might not is that they want a black model. I think that the size issue is negligible as the MB is fairly hefty and you get 2" more of screen real estate with the MBP.

Of course I think that either Apple is going to release a black MBP or drop a dedicated GPU into the top end MB.

[mathew_m]

Originally Posted by darth-vader000

I agree, I used to sell computers back in the day and most people could care less about a video card. People avoided Macs because they couldn't run the software that they needed.

Totally. And the ones who really care about the GPU wouldn't even consider a Mac as they want to build their own. Eug is talking about a very miniscule market segment.

[gentryfunk]

Interesting discussion....the thing that keeps me from buying the MacBook is the GPU....if Apple had a built to order option, I would consider it. Same thing with the Mac Mini.....a BTO GPU would seal the deal for me.....right now, I'm waiting for a cheaper G5 Dual 2.3 Ghz or a new Intel Mac desktop model.

[iBorg]

Originally Posted by gentryfunk

Interesting discussion....the thing that keeps me from buying the MacBook is the GPU....if Apple had a built to order option, I would consider it. Same thing with the Mac Mini.....a BTO GPU would seal the deal for me.....right now, I'm waiting for a cheaper G5 Dual 2.3 Ghz or a new Intel Mac desktop model.

Ditto.

If Dell can offer the 256MB GeForce Go 7400 TurboCache as BTO for $129, so could Apple, but they chose to cripple the MB to force MBP sales. (But then you're also forced into the increased size of 15.4" MBP, which is too large for many potential buyers, who need a small form-factor to travel. Like me.)

So, for now, I'll continue to wait, and see what Apple has to offer this fall, when Merom debuts, and Apple gets neither a decent profit from sales of a MB, nor the large profit from sales of a MBP.



iBorg

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by mathew_m

If they have "real money" to spend then I would think that the Macbook Pro would be more attractive. The only reason they might not is that they want a black model.

Nope. Size matters. In laptops, small is often much preferred.

I can afford a 15", and much prefer its GPU, but I definitely don't want to get something that big. I had a 15" TiBook 1 GHz, and I found its size very frustrating for travelling. As soon as the iBook got a Core Image GPU, I bought one to replace the TiBook. Even though the optical drive was a downgrade (SuperDrive --> combo) I was much, much happier. In fact, I find the 13" a bit big already, but it's still a heluvalot less unwieldy than the 15".

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

I assume these people are extremely anal PC geeks right? I don't mean that in an insulting way but I know plenty of people that use the "I'll get it when it has a 50 gig hard drive not a 40 gig". Thing is they are usually with some ultra old and crappy PC to begin with and will never end up switching in the end.

I can't imagine to many people could have used the GMA excuse on you as it is new to Apple.

Actually, the video card I was thinking of is the GeForce 5200 in the iMac and the PowerBook 12". Everyone thought it sucked. And indeed it did. I specifically did not buy the first iMac because of it, and the fact that it only had 64 MB. And good thing too, since Aperture does not support any machine with the 5200 series GPU, but works on my iMac with Radeon 9600.

I have the MacBook, but would have paid significantly more for one with a better GPU.

[snoopy199]

Originally Posted by iBorg

Ditto.

If Dell can offer the 256MB GeForce Go 7400 TurboCache as BTO for $129, so could Apple, but they chose to cripple the MB to force MBP sales.

I wouldn't use the word cripple because the MB is a very capable computer but I do catch your drift and I agree that it would be a great option for apple to offer. Likewise it may have a negative effect on MacBook Pro sales as people on the line are forced to get a MBP. I'm not sure how big or small that segment of people but I do notice the MBs flying off the shelves at my local apple store a lot quicker then the MBP.

If that's the case in other stores and online then apple must be doing something right and/or most people don't really care about the GPU.

If I had my druthers, I'd get a MB with an upgraded GPU, but that's not in the cards. I opted to buy a MB last week and to be honest I'm happy I did, of course my lap now has a Permanent sun burn

[mathew_m]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Nope. Size matters. In laptops, small is often much preferred.

The Macbook is roughly only a 1/2" less wide than my old Tibook. I don't have a scale handy but its probably about the same weight. Now maybe the newest MBP is larger. Bottom line is that I think weight is much more a concern for traveling and the MB and MBP are too similiar in that regard if you need the extra power.

I'm still unsure of what you're complaining about though. Are you in need of a better GPU? What kind of tasks are you performing with the MB? I can't see the need for a dedicated GPU for doing lectures.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by mathew_m

The Macbook is roughly only a 1/2" less wide than my old Tibook. I don't have a scale handy but its probably about the same weight. Now maybe the newest MBP is larger. Bottom line is that I think weight is much more a concern for traveling and the MB and MBP are too similiar in that regard if you need the extra power.

The MacBook is about 0.6" less wide compared to the TiBook, and about the same amount shorter. It's only about a quarter pound lighter.
More importantly, the MacBook is about 1.3" less wide than the 15" MBP, and about 2/3" shorter. It's about 0.4 lbs lighter.

Side by side, the 15" MacBook Pro feels MUCH more bulky than the MacBook, but like I said, the MacBook is already too big as it is for my tastes. I definitely don't want to go any bigger. That's one of the reasons I bought up the Dell in the first place. It's only a 12.1" screen. Something like that might be a little too small for the rez for a consumer Mac, but it's something to think about. Plus there are other screens at 1280x800 available that are in between the Dell and the MacBook in size.

I'm still unsure of what you're complaining about though. Are you in need of a better GPU? What kind of tasks are you performing with the MB? I can't see the need for a dedicated GPU for doing lectures.

It'd be nice if Aperture editing were a little more responsive on the MacBook. Also, it'd be nice for many people to have a bit better gaming performance. It's kind of moot though for me, because my Windows UT2003 won't work on the MacBook for some reason. It installs fine, but crashes before it even gets into the game, even with the latest patch.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by mathew_m

If they have "real money" to spend then I would think that the Macbook Pro would be more attractive.

The problem is these anal people are usually cheap. So even if you offer them a pro system that costs more they want everything the pro system has in the low end model.

In all honesty I must have sold friend/family/co-workers about 30+ macs in the last 15 years. NEVER ever ever has anyone ask me about a video card.

This includes low end consumers to pro video editors, photographers etc.
These same people do ask me lots of intelligent questions regarding software, inputs, compatibility etc but none of them care about a video card. Just because the forums here get filled with a small number of people bitching about some video card in the iMac's doesn't mean it is a widespread problem.

Can anyone pull up the iMac sales figures for the one with the "crappy" video card to the later gen? It won't prove anything but it will be interesting none the less.

Sure there are lots of people who care a great deal about video cards for games. If you are a gamer though you should be nowhere near a mac in the first place.

Eug as far as I remember you in all your years with a Mac have never put a game on it for anything other than to test the framerate. I know now it is important to you for Aperture which you sometimes use but you still got a MacBook not a pro. If it was that big of an issue you wouldn't have cared about the extra inch of width the MBP brings.

If even you can get over the GMA and still get a MacBook I can see others as well.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Eug as far as I remember you in all your years with a Mac have never put a game on it for anything other than to test the framerate.

That is true... because I used to play my games on a PC. Remember, although I've had OS X laptops since 2001, I've always had a Windows PC desktop... until last year. Before that I never used to buy Mac games because they used to suck so bad on the Mac platform, especially on G4s.

I know now it is important to you for Aperture which you sometimes use but you still got a MacBook not a pro.

Like I said, I hate the size of the MacBook Pro.

If it was that big of an issue you wouldn't have cared about the extra inch of width the MBP brings.

Like I said, I always disliked the size of the 15" PowerBook I had. I bought it though because the iBook at the time had a G3, which sucked royally.

The MacBook is almost my dream machine... except for the GPU, and the glossy screen. It could go on a bit of a diet too...

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

In all honesty I must have sold friend/family/co-workers about 30+ macs in the last 15 years. NEVER ever ever has anyone ask me about a video card.

I don't doubt you, since most people probably don't even know what a video card is. But I can't help but wonder if some of them might have been disappointed when they tried to play a game. This is particularly true with the new machines since they can now run Windows and Windows games, which brings us to the next point.

Sure there are lots of people who care a great deal about video cards for games. If you are a gamer though you should be nowhere near a mac in the first place.

This attitude is outmoded. First of all, Boot Camp makes Macs into PCs for all intents and purposes. My iMac is a pretty kick-ass gaming machine. Sure, you can get much better if you want to go for the "XTREME GAMERZ" rigs out there, but for an all-in-one consumer machine, it's great. It soundly beats the gaming PC I made about a year ago.

It may be true that the average person won't go to the trouble of installing Windows XP just for games. But things like World of Warcraft and the Sims have Mac versions and appeal to a surprisingly wide variety of people. My sister, who never plays games, asked me about the Sims when we were talking about getting her a MacBook.

In short, you even if people don't realize it, video cards do matter.

[mathew_m]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

The problem is these anal people are usually cheap. So even if you offer them a pro system that costs more they want everything the pro system has in the low end model.

I assume that you are talking about Eug. He needs to buy himself that Dell and just get over it already.

[mathew_m]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

It'd be nice if Aperture editing were a little more responsive on the MacBook. Also, it'd be nice for many people to have a bit better gaming performance. It's kind of moot though for me, because my Windows UT2003 won't work on the MacBook for some reason. It installs fine, but crashes before it even gets into the game, even with the latest patch.

I can't imagine using the MacBook for intensive Aperture sessions. I find iPhoto to be rather cramped as it is on the MB screen.

If you're such a poweruser to need the MBP then I would also think that the extra screen real estate would be important. Of course you fall into the "never happy" crowd if you ask me. Buy the Dell and be done with it. Based on what you've said in this thread, it seems that it would fit you better than the MB.

[Eug Wanker]

I don't doubt you, since most people probably don't even know what a video card is. But I can't help but wonder if some of them might have been disappointed when they tried to play a game.

Indeed. When I was looking at the MacBook the salesman was trying to sell one to a kid... who had a 3D game in his hands.

Mom wouldn't consider the MacBook Pros, and the kid wanted a laptop for school. The salesman was pushing the MacBook hard but you could almost see it in his face that he was stuck in a hard place pushing a MacBook for kid who wanted to play games.

Finally he started pushing harder for the iMac, and I think finally the mom and kid relented.

Originally Posted by mathew_m

I can't imagine using the MacBook for intensive Aperture sessions. I find iPhoto to be rather cramped as it is on the MB screen.

If you're such a poweruser to need the MBP then I would also think that the extra screen real estate would be important. Of course you fall into the "never happy" crowd if you ask me. Buy the Dell and be done with it. Based on what you've said in this thread, it seems that it would fit you better than the MB.

Perhaps you should stop making assumptions about people, because every time you do, you're invariably wrong.

I don't use my MacBook a lot for Aperture. However, when I do use it I'd prefer something faster at edits. Not too complicated to understand that. And no, I don't expect Apple to give me a faster GPU for free. I'm willing to pay for it, as are very many people.

As for larger screens, I have a 20" iMac which I use with a 27" LCD dual screen. That machine is slow at Aperture too, but it will be replaced with an Intel Mac, probably next year. I have access to a 20" iMac Core Duo 2.0 with Aperture at work too.

The Just-Get-the-Mac-Book-Pro statement you make just illustrates you completely miss the point.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by Icruise

I don't doubt you, since most people probably don't even know what a video card is. But I can't help but wonder if some of them might have been disappointed when they tried to play a game. This is particularly true with the new machines since they can now run Windows and Windows games, which brings us to the next point.

In 100% honesty I don't think any of those 30+ people I mentioned ever played a game on their Macs. Heck even Eug who doesn't play games on his iMac (with the wicked video card) still bought an Xbox 360.

I have played one game for a week on my 2.5 year old G5 tower which more than met the requirements.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by mathew_m

I can't imagine using the MacBook for intensive Aperture sessions. I find iPhoto to be rather cramped as it is on the MB screen.

Yup, that's what I have been trying to tell him.

yes there are photographers that want a 12" powerbook with aperture. They are idiots.
The screen is too small and more importantly the colour accuracy and brightness is no where near accurate enough on the older laptops. It was possible to proof images on the road before Apple invented Aperture, it is still is today. No photographer I know has made the switch or even feels a strong desire to.

Even on my Dual G5 with a 20" monitor Aperture feels sluggish and cramped.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

yes there are photographers that want a 12" powerbook with aperture. They are idiots.

For someone who never uses Aperture, your statement that all photographers who want to use it on a small machine on the road are idiots is very condescending and insulting.

No photographer I know has made the switch or even feels a strong desire to.

A lot of pro photo people are ALREADY Aperture users. The photographers that you know don't fall into that category, that's fine, but you should actually visit the photo forums for once to check it out. Now a lot of those guys aren't hardcore fashion photographers, but as far as I'm concerned, if they make a living taking pictures, they are pro photographers.

Even on my Dual G5 with a 20" monitor Aperture feels sluggish and cramped.

Strangely enough the MacBook is as fast as (or faster than) a dual G5 for RAW conversions. Unfortunately, the MacBook can be slow for edits after that, because of the GPU.

BTW, the MacBook has almost the same resolution as most 15" PowerBooks, but I guess since the screen isn't 15", those photographers who want a MacBook sized machine are idiots.

[mathew_m]

Dude, we get that you want a GPU in the MB. I think most of us would. We're geeks after all.
Apple though has always crippled their 'consumer' machines in some way so not to take away sales from the pro machines. Only recently with the intel iMac have they released a system competitive with the pro model and thats because we're waiting on the desktop intel chips for the towers. Another reason is probably that Adobe is still fiddling with their universal binaries. A dual-core G5 is going to smoke the intel based Macs in Photoshop but not so compared to a Powerbook G4.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

And no, I don't expect Apple to give me a faster GPU for free. I'm willing to pay for it, as are very many people.

Eug, I think we all got that a few pages ago. You can go on like this for the next couple of months or you can just learn to live with it.

The way I see it, Apple made an awesome MB with one important flaw: The GPU. We'd all like a better one and we'd all like a BTO option to get a better GPU in there. Heck, some might even be willing to put down a lot of cash for an upgraded GPU.

But, it's not happening. Apple isn't doing it. No chance. So either you just learn to deal with, go see a shrink or get a girl or whatever and hope that with rev B they'll get it fixed or you stop buying from them and put your money where your mouth is (the 12" Dell for example). The very fact that you still bought a MB form Apple indicates that they're winning this game.

Seriously, no offense intended. I think most of us here agree with your GPU disappointment. However, there's no reason to repeat the obvious on and on when there's nothing you or I or anybody but Steve can do against it.

[icruise]

I don't think Eug is repeating himself for no reason. He's responding to people who say that the graphics card makes no difference. I think he and I both realize that no amount of posting on MacNN is going to change the fact that there's no independent graphics card in the MacBook, but that doesn't make debating the issue pointless.

[Simon]

Of course the GPU makes a difference - it's very easy to prove.

Some people might just not consider it important for themselves whereas others (like Eug, you or myself) consider it to be an important part of the package.

So you can debate all day long why Apple should side with one or the other group, but I believe the fact that the MB's GPU sucks isn't really worthy of debate at all and repeating that fact is useless too. As I already wrote, no offense intended (and actually I agree with you or Eug for that matter), I just believe we need to actually debate things and not just keep restating the obvious.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Simon

Eug, I think we all got that a few pages ago.

There is only one page in this thread.

Originally Posted by Simon

So you can debate all day long why Apple should side with one or the other group, but I believe the fact that the MB's GPU sucks isn't really worthy of debate at all and repeating that fact is useless too. As I already wrote, no offense intended (and actually I agree with you or Eug for that matter), I just believe we need to actually debate things and not just keep restating the obvious.

We debate this because people keep claiming that a good GPU isn't needed in a small laptop, and that people that ask for small but powerful laptops to do their work are idiots.

Often it's kinda the same excuses used for why Apple would never release a 12" PowerBook, or why Apple would never release an inexpensive headless Mac. Now, I don't think Apple is going to release a 13" MacBook Pro either, but as you agree, the reasons for some people to desire one aren't going to go away simply because some Apple apologist has said they're dumb for wanting it.

[snoopy199]

I don't think anyone is debating that it would be nice to have a better GPU, but rather the majority of people don't know, or care about the GMA950 vs. Radeon X1600.

People who want to play games, or use aperture will be hampered by the GMA950 but that's a rather small segment of people. As I mentioned, from first hand experience the majority of computer buyers just want a machine to accomplish there work and the MB is capable of doing that.

To summarize I don't think its needed, I do think it would be nice but it seems antidotal evidence is supporting that most people don't care. That is the MB appears to be selling very well and that wouldn't be the case if there was an issue with the MB that touched a nerve with the majority. Right now it seems to bother you and a few others.

Like I said, I would have chosen a better GPU if it was offered, it wasn't but the MB is more then up to the tasks I throw at it.