[Phat Bastard]

Or, if you want the ULTIMATE gaming laptop, you can wait until RevZ. I hear rumours it will have

-a secret Geforce15 with 512 MB RAM that can run Q3 at 939949 fps
-a G7-1.7 Ghz (you haven't heard of that chip yet?)
-2 GB RAM standard
-etc etc

The point is, if you're always going to wait for the NEXT revision of the Tibook because it's going to be so much better, you might as well wait forever since there will ALWAYS be better components.

In the meantime I'll enjoy my beautiful Tibook.

------------------
Phat Bastard

http://members.home.net/pstogios
-brand spankin' new Tibook! Isn't life grand?

[dviant]

I think people are missing the point with us wishing the TiBook had a better graphics chip. Sure, people are unlikely to buy a portable for gaming purposes *only* when desktops do a better job for cheaper. But when you replace your desktop (like I did with a Pismo) why *wouldnt* you want to play games on it?? Especially if it's your only machine. It's perfectly capable of doing it well with more video ram and/or better graphics chip.

The stupid thing is that our wish/request isn't anywhere near being far-fetched or outrageous. The TiBook is using a pretty darn old chip with a very small amount of video ram by todays standards. Even by todays notebook standards. Heck it's M3 chip is not just one, but *two* revs behind ATI's best mobile chip if you count Radeon Mobility (is it actually shipping?), and it's 8mb is anemic compared to the 32mb available in most upper end PC notebooks.

Anyone who thinks the 8mb M3 is just fine for a $3500 notebook is smokin' crack. Take a look at PC offerings and then come back and tell me it's ok. I can't believe people think it's ok to charge a premium price for old hardware. They might as well just stuck a G4 daughtercard in the Pismo and called it Rev C....

[Kalessin]

Originally posted by dviant:
I think people are missing the point with us wishing the TiBook had a better graphics chip.

Okay, point taken.

The stupid thing is that our wish/request isn't anywhere near being far-fetched or outrageous.

I don't think it's outrageous or far-fetched either. It didn't happen at the time, but why not wish for one right?

On the other hand, the reasons for not having included a Geforce2Go are not far-fetched or outrageous, either.

Anyone who thinks the 8mb M3 is just fine for a $3500 notebook is smokin' crack. Take a look at PC offerings and then come back and tell me it's ok. I can't believe people think it's ok to charge a premium price for old hardware. They might as well just stuck a G4 daughtercard in the Pismo and called it Rev C....

See, you were fine up until this paragraph.

Frankly, I'm would be far more disappointed by the desktop offerings than a nice, shiny Titanium PowerBook G4. But then again, I'm probably "smokin' crack."

Kalessin

[dviant]

Originally posted by drainyoo:
And another thing, i read all these post about how the Ti isnt that much different than the PISMO. Are people F*cking stupid? The Ti is faster, the Ti is lighter, the TI is thinner, the Ti has a wider screen, the Ti has better battery life, THE TI HAS A G4, the keyboard is much more solid, the TI is made out of TITANIUM and the TI looks better. Should i continue? So please stop trying to find its flaws, cause its still the first of its kind. I guess you people just cant afford so you have to abuse it.

The only major differences are altivec, 128 horizontal pixels and a snazzy case. Everything else (aside from losing a few things, which doesn't really bother me) is pretty much the same as a Pismo.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying it's a *bad* machine. I like it just fine. It just that's it's still got last years hardware...

By the way, I can afford one just fine tough guy. But why would I want to? Not based on the "major" changes I mentioned above. That's sort of the point of this thread, in case you missed it.... pointing out it's flaws.

[dviant]

Originally posted by Kalessin:
On the other hand, the reasons for not having included a Geforce2Go are not far-fetched or outrageous, either.

True, they would have had to modify the PB G4 motherboard much more to include the GF2Go, but how hard would have been to at least up the M3 to 16mb? Or maybe include an M4? Front what I understand the M3, M4 and Radeon Mobility all use the same pins (but that's just something I read so take it with a grain of salt).

See, you were fine up until this paragraph.

Frankly, I'm would be far more disappointed by the desktop offerings than a nice, shiny Titanium PowerBook G4. But then again, I'm probably "smokin' crack."

Heyyy I'm still doin' fine.

At least with the desktops they are doing the best they can. Sure the 7450 still has mhz problems compared to the Intel/AMD world, but the towers *are* shipping with 133mhz bus, AGP 4x, improved memory throughput, write combining, and current video cards. When Apple rev'd the towers they increased their hardware practically across the board. Not so with the PB G4 unfortunately, it's not nearly the step up comparatively that the desktops saw.

The PB G4 update should have been akin to the Blue & White G3's to Graphite G4's update. I mean that was a decent update too. Aside from the G4 chip, there was mhz increase (well for a short while), better memory throughput, AGP 2x, faster video etc.

Is it too much to ask for a current video chip in Apple's fancy new notebook? Guess so, gauging some of the reactions..

[Kalessin]

Originally posted by dviant:
When Apple rev'd the towers they increased their hardware practically across the board. Not so with the PB G4 unfortunately, it's not nearly the step up comparatively that the desktops saw.

Nah, they look the same, man!!

Kalessin

[dviant]

Originally posted by Kalessin:
Nah, they look the same, man!!

Kalessin

You just couldn't resist could ya...

[seanyepez]

I know everyone who votes against a new graphics chip is probably trying to make their investment last. I would do the same if I bought a TiBook already.

They will update the TiBook and iBook at the same time, otherwise the gap between the machines would be too thin, cannibalizing TiBook sales. I am hoping for major revisions to the iBook and light revisions to the TiBook including a GeForce2 Go, faster G4 processors, and better manufacturing quality. My mother recieved a TiBook with a white border, which in my opinion, doesn't look that great. Things that I hope for but won't happen are the repositioning of the AirPort card and larger/more effective antennae, and a more scratch-resistant case.

[haunebu]

(Once again, Phat Bastard makes an ass of himself by speaking before thinking.)

Originally posted by Phat Bastard:
Or, if you want the ULTIMATE gaming laptop, you can wait until RevZ. I hear rumours it will have

-a secret Geforce15 with 512 MB RAM that can run Q3 at 939949 fps
-a G7-1.7 Ghz (you haven't heard of that chip yet?)
-2 GB RAM standard
-etc etc

OK Mr. Sarcasm. Your point is moot because the rev. Z laptop isn't coming out in just a couple of weeks/months, like the TiBook's revision is.

And won't you feel like an outdated dildo when it does... LOL.

[Kalessin]

Originally posted by haunebu:
And won't you feel like an outdated dildo when it does... LOL.

Hm..right..is that how you feel now?

Seriously, WTF is up with the incredible concentration of llamas on this forum?

Kalessin

[mike one]

Originally posted by chemical x:
Its also missing raw speed. With gHz pc's here, I need more speed than 400-500mHz.. G4? Don't believe the hype.

Plus I owned a G4 400 in October of 1999. That was a year and a half ago...c'mon! What ever happened to Moore's law?

i'm still using my g3 350 from jan 1999. Moore's law doesn't apply to Macs apparently. a ti-400 or ti-500 would be marginally faster than my g3 350 with a 7200rpm HD.

waiting for the following revs to the Ti:
graphics card, don't really care what they put in but it better have 16MB vram
faster processor, bigger HD, or lower the price a tad.

for me to buy one would really just require more beefed up graphics.

[pele]

OK, here's the thing. We all expect Apple to be an innovative company and deliver us great products right? We were all happy and proud when Apple introduced firewire before anyone else did. Apple was years ahead of PC notebooks having 10/100 ethernet built in. A lot of them still use PC cards to do that. We were very impressed when Steve Jobs introduced the first Rage 128 Mobility in a notebook, but that was when, in 1999? It's been TWO FRIGGIN' YEARS, and that's a long time in the computer world.

So you mean to tell us it's OK for Apple to not upgrade the graphics component of its laptop for two years? When are some people going to realize that just because they don't expect 3D performance from their notebook, it doesn't mean we shouldn't either? I want either a geforce2go or a Radeon Mobility dammit! And believe you me a lot of people do.

It boggles the mind this logic. "We don't need 3D performance or better/faster graphics performance on a notebook." OH!!? Great!! That means we've already reached the pinnacle of technology, and yet it was so early, so soon. Let ATI and Nvidia tell all their engineers:

"Dear employees, we are pleased to announce that we've reached the ultimate goal of completely satisfying the graphics expectations of notebook customers. You may abandon any new technologies you're working on, people don't need anything better. They don't want it. They tell us they have desktops for that. They want their notebooks to have slow choppy graphics"

It boggles the mind, really, it does...



[This message has been edited by pele (edited 04-27-2001).]

[pele]

One more thing, there were various threads about this issue since the very first day the PowerBook G4 was announced. Back then a lot of us who wanted a better graphics chip and a higher-resolution screen like most high-end PC laptops have even suggested these should be "built-to-order" options, that Apple should give us the choice.

The naysayers were quick to argue that a different graphics chip "couldn't possibly be a built to order option, that it would require an entirely different motherboard, that we were being unreasonable and too demanding". Here's what I have to say to those people:

If a crappy, lego-builder of a company like Dell, can offer the built to order options of:

15 " Ultra XGA (1600x1200) or 15 " Super XGA+ (1400x1050) or 14" Super XGA+

and

8 or 16 or 32 MB ATI M4 Mobility AGPx4 or 16 or 32 MB DDR Nvidia Geforce2Go AGPx4

On the same laptop model

Apple should be able to as well. Excuse me for expecting Apple to do better than Dell...




[This message has been edited by pele (edited 04-27-2001).]

The people who already bought their Ti and are shooting us down for expecting more are just pissed that they caved in so early to buy a 2001 Pismo instead of waiting for the real Ti which (hopefully) will be available this summer. Perhaps I'd be pissed too if I already bought one. But I have my pismo and thought with my head not with my wallet. Yes, I love how it looks (cept for that white border) but I need more of a reason than that to replace my pismo. The flagship of Apples laptops should be nothing less than extraordinary and the fact that there are many PC laptops with higher end hardware just doesn't sit well with me.

I will always feel that the current TiBook was Steve Jobs way of satisfying everyone who was whining about wanting a G4 laptop. I don't think this is the Ti that they originally wanted to to unveil, but instead of having us wait til this summer or next year they put primarily pismo parts in their new design and rolled her out early knowing that the early adopters (just gotta have it crowd) would fall over themselves to get one.

[DoeJury]

You people baffle me. I don't care WHAT type of graphics cards is in the TiBook. It's an LCD screen people!!! NOT GOOD FOR GAMES. I just bought a Cube. I opted for the 17" CRT because LCDs ghost images when graphics are rendered so fast (I'm not talking about graphics editing, but rapid movement polygons/shading IE Quake,UR, etc.). Anyone is planning on waiting for a TiBook w/better chip to play games on the screen it has had better share what they're smoking with me. This is a non-point and there are too many posts on this.

JGD

"Maybe fun is just fragments of reality with better packaging." -Steve Jobs, 1982

[tmophoto]

FYI the Powerbook has vga out that is connected to the crappy graphics card.

8 MB of ram for a system that supports dual monitors is totally pathetic, when there are cards w 32 MB available, regardless of what you use your system for.

If it had a decent graphics card there would be little reason to own a desktop system. You could have 1 GB ram / 21 inch monitor + the LCD/ firewire Drives / firewire CD/DVD burner etc....why own 2 systems when you could have this?

-thomas

[pele]

High quality LCDs don't ghost images. I have a 17" Samsung LCD that rocks, and even though I don't play too many games, when I do, they look awesome on it.

On another note, I invite all the "Who needs an up-to-date graphics chip in a top-of-the-line laptop" guys to ponder this:

We have all sadly found out one fact, Mac OS X's interface is very demanding on the computer. Currently, even dual processor machines prove to be less than zippy when it comes to things like window resizing. Future optimizations will alleviate this problem to a certain extent, but that is not enough. What we really need is for some of these heavy graphical calculations to be offloaded to the graphics chip to save valuable CPU and battery power. The more recent graphics chips have enough hardware features to be able to do this if new drivers are written for them, but with older chipsets like the rage 128 that's a question mark.

So if you find out pretty soon that a decent 3d chip was not such a bad thing after all, don't go around blaming Mac OS X, blame your crappy hardware, he he he...

Ok. Fine. Then there should never be another upgrade to the graphics chip. From now on the powerbook will have the Rage 128 until they cease production of powerbooks altogether because anything else would be too much for the poor laptops. Who cares if PC laptops now come with 32MB of VRAM...they're the dummies right? Cause anything over 8MB is just overkill. So go ahead Compaq and Dell, put in 64 or 128MB of VRAM in your measily laptops if you want. We don't care cuz we have our 8MB and DOEJURY says that its all a laptop can take or we'll start seeing little ghosties.

HEY DOE! BUGGER OFF YOU TWIT!

[pele]

I really wonder how the laptop industry would have progressed if all customers and computer makers thought like these guys do.

"Well who needs a laptop to have a color screen, we have desktops for that"

"Who needs a laptop with firewire for video editing, laptops have slow drives, we have desktops for that"

"Who needs a laptop with 1 GB RAM, we have desktops for that. I never use any application that needs 1 GB anyway. What? Some people do? Well, they should use desktops."

"Who needs a laptop with a 30 GB harddrive? We have desktops for that"

"Who needs a laptop with a 500 Mhz G4, we have desktops for that"

"Who needs a laptop with DVD?. A DVD plays 30 fps, so it would ghost on an LCD, and its small and doesn't have surround sound. If you wanna watch DVDs you should do it at home on a big screen, we have TVs and DVD players for that."

[haunebu]

Gaming on modern TFTs is every bit as clear as it is on CRTs, and causes far less eye strain at the same time.

Amazing to see these people bitch & moand about "The Ti is just fine" and "the graphics chip is good enough." Well, for you old timers it is. But for the rest of us, whom this thread is directed to, it ain't good enough.

So if you've already bought a Ti, shut yer yap. No-one asked you.

[Kalessin]

Originally posted by haunebu:
Gaming on modern TFTs is every bit as clear as it is on CRTs, and causes far less eye strain at the same time.

Absolutely not. Even a modern TFT has much slower response than a CRT, and the principle advantage of a TFT (perfect sharpness) is not as great an advantage in a fast-paced 3-D game as it is for fine text.

Amazing to see these people bitch & moand about "The Ti is just fine" and "the graphics chip is good enough." Well, for you old timers it is. But for the rest of us, whom this thread is directed to, it ain't good enough.

LOL!! Okay, I suppose we "old timers" should just let the preschoolers play in peace.

So if you've already bought a Ti, shut yer yap. No-one asked you.

Right.. Plz get some manners k?

------------------
Kalessin

[Bugs Bunny]

But for the rest of us, whom this thread is directed to, it ain't good enough. So if you've already bought a Ti, shut yer yap. No-one asked you.

I believe the original question was:
Are you not buying a TiBook because of its graphics chip?

I bought the Ti, and it did not matter to me which graphics card was installed. However, I can appreciate the fact that people want more. So just because I own a Ti, doesn't mean I am unforgiving of Apple to include a choice of vid cards, or at least keep up with the PC laptop hardware. It's a darn shame. Maybe some day Apple's hardware will be on an even keel with the rest of the market. I'm also looking forward to a rev 2 of the Titanium, not just for a vid card upgrade, but other things as well. Mac users need some bragging rights.

[rambo47]

I'm holding off on buying the Ti Book for two reasons already stated numerous times. First, my Wallstreet still does enough for my modest (really modest) needs. Second, I'd like to see 16 MB VRAM. Yeah, 8 MB is enough now, but for how long? The overkill of today is bare minimun for tomorrow. Look whats happened to system RAM requirements. 128 MB minimum to run OS X !? Not too long ago 32 MB was standard and 96 MB was considered overkill. I keep my hardware longer than most other people so I look for features that will ensure its usability well into the future. I also think Apple needs to start playing the numbers game. Consumers are caught up with specs like processor speed and screen resolution. Sure, they'll never use the max configuration available, but it certainly does influence their buying decisions. I've seen it in my office with pc's. Its not smart but its the way most consumers operate. Guys bought Dell laptops over Gateway because of a spec comparison they did. Guess what? The two laptops they bought were not even the model with the best specs. They simply chose Dell to have "more options". They don't have a clue about computers but their decision, as misinformed as it was, meant over $6000 in sales for Dell. How often does this happen every day do you suppose? I wish Apple would grab some of this revenue. Good for Apple, plus the buyers would be started on the path of true enlightenment!

------------------

iDisk: rseijas
Homepage: homepage.mac.com/rseijas

Originally posted by Kalessin:

Absolutely not. Even a modern TFT has much slower response than a CRT, and the principle advantage of a TFT (perfect sharpness) is not as great an advantage in a fast-paced 3-D game as it is for fine text.

Not to mention the viewing angle of a CRT is superior. Even watching DVDs, I can see a falloff of brightness and contrast toward the edges of the screen.

Originally posted by haunebu:
Amazing to see these people bitch & moand about "The Ti is just fine" and "the graphics chip is good enough."

You betray your ignorance. "Bitching and moaning" is complaining. The people who are satisfied, myself included, aren't complaining. So who are the actual bitchers and moaners here? Physician, heal thyself.

[seanyepez]

It's hell of annoying when you're playing Quake and there is tremendous (50 milliseconds) cursor lag, or the other side of the screen hasn't refreshed yet and you get nailed by a rail from far off that you didn't have a chance to dodge (because you didn't know the person was there).

The LCD monitors of today don't refresh as fast, are not as bright, and generally not as rugged as today's CRT.

[Kestral]

Originally posted by seanyepez:
The LCD monitors of today don't refresh as fast, are not as bright, and generally not as rugged as today's CRT.

Yeah but it sure is a nice feeling knowing when I'm using my Mac that I don't have a big ass gun pointed in my face

[M�lum]

That a better graphics chip inside the PBG4 would be good for gaming we know by now. Actually we always knew, didn't we?

Instead of going on with "morons" here and there, it would be nice to find out if there would be negative effects on the PBG4 if it had a better graphics chip. Would it consume more power, create more heat, does it fit inside? etc.

I think this forum could become more interesting, hopefully not even more boring.

[pele]

Well, the naysayers will tell you that a more powerful graphics chip will eat more power. It's actually not true. First of all a better graphics chip offloads calculations from the CPU, and since it runs at a much lower frequency and consumes much less power than the CPU, it's a good thing overall. The more recent chips like geforce2go and radeon mobility also support DDR RAM, which consumes 30% less power than regular RAM. To top it off, the Radeon mobility has power management, kind of like the Mobile Pentium IIIs SpeedStep, reducing its core frequency when there's no demand for heavy graphics processing. The geforce2go uses slightly more power than the ATI Rage 128 that's in the TiBook now when it's at the top of its use, but that also means it's T&L unit is in action, which in turn means it's offloading a lot of work from the CPU and saving more power than the extra it's using. So there...

[This message has been edited by pele (edited 04-28-2001).]

[mkd]

To answer the forum's question, Yes, I am NOT buying the PowerBook G4 because it has am ancient graphics card. I mean, magazines and news sites you saying, "Apple is finally getting into the gamming market, and so far getting a big chunk of the action." But that's only on the G4s! There needs to be a better chp in the Tis!
-Morgan Davis