Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Notebooks > Is Macbook right for me?

Is Macbook right for me?
Thread Tools
Corwin927
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2006, 03:17 PM
 
I have been a Pc user for many years and have gotten infuriated with them for the last time.

So I am looking to purchase a Mac. I would be primarily using it for webbrowsing, online communication, writing, watching videos and listening to music. I would also be wanting to run some of my older games on it. The most recent one is Vampire The Masquerade - Redemption. So I imagine I would have to either run windows xp natively on it or use an emulator of some sort. Any suggestions on this account would be appreciated as I'd want to cart all of my pc games over.

I'm somewhat interested in newer games - the newest/most demanding one being Vampire - Bloodlines. I am unsure if it will run on the Macbook, so I thought to ask. If anyone knows it'd be appreciated..

So all in all. I would like a machine that will handle my internet, communication, video, and wordprocessing needs - as well as that of my nostalgia for older or particular genre games.

Will Macbook suffice this or would anyone recommend any other computers for my needs?

I do not intend on purchasing another computer for many years to come once I get a newer one.

I must admit I've been tempted by the Macbook Black Version - Although I don't need that high of a processor. I've a personal liking for the 1.83. What can I say? I just like that number better than 2.0. And sadly the white macbook isn't a choice for me as for personal esthetics and more immediately practical reasons, I will not be satisfied with white. (Ie, incredibly light sensitive among other reasons)

And I've read many things on the various drawbacks to the Macbooks. Should I just wait for the next revolution?


Any input is appreciated, Thanks.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2006, 06:11 PM
 
For PC games (at least anything 3D), you'll have to use Boot Camp and reboot the Mac into Windows every time you want to play.

The Macbook has a 3D video card, but it's on the slow end. I don't know how demanding these Vampire games are, but you may have to run them at relatively low resolutions.
     
brokenjago
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Los Angeles, California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2006, 08:30 PM
 
The Macbook will very likely not play Masquerades acceptably. However, it should play most of your older games, although you will have to dual boot windows to use them (unless they have Mac versions, of course)
Linkinus is king.
     
Corwin927  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2006, 08:42 PM
 
Brokenjago-

That's a shame, I was hoping that since it only requires (I believe,) a 16mb vid card I might get away with it, not to mention the low ram. I don't know about bloodlines..
Hmm..What would you say about Macbook being a good choice or are there any others you would recommend among the Apple product line? I would heartily like to avoid pcs.

And as always, thanks!
     
Corwin927  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2006, 08:55 PM
 
Okay..So I found out the stuff about bloodlines.. If Macbook or other macs can meet this requirement -3D hardware accelerator card required - 100% DirectX® 9.0c-compatible 64MB video card and drivers - Then it should work for me.

But I'm just wondering if Macbook can handle that, and if it can't are there any you would recommend, or should I wait for rev b?
     
sieb
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Under Your Stairs
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2006, 10:49 PM
 
IIRC the Macbooks GMA950 shows up as 32MB of ram in Windows whereas OSX can put 64MB towards it.
Sieb
Blackbook
(2Ghz, 2GB, 100Gig, week 21)
     
Corwin927  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2006, 12:58 AM
 
Does that mean that I'd have to run it in OSX in order to play it? And seeing as its a pc version I'd have access to I'd have to use an emulator to do that...
Is there anyway to up the windows accessability for it to use the full 64? Or is the macbook just not a good idea for me right now?
     
megasad
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2006, 06:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Corwin927
Does that mean that I'd have to run it in OSX in order to play it? And seeing as its a pc version I'd have access to I'd have to use an emulator to do that...
Is there anyway to up the windows accessability for it to use the full 64? Or is the macbook just not a good idea for me right now?
I don't know where sieb got 32MB video RAM in Windows from; with 512MB RAM in the MacBook, Windows will give you 64MB. Up the RAM to 1GB and you get 128MB. Up the RAM to 2GB and you get 256MB (those two figures minus a little for overhead).

So, for old Windows games, the MacBook is fine, so long as you boot into Windows using Boot Camp. By old, I mean Aliens vs Predator era, which I think was late 90s.

As far as "emulation" is concerned, Parallels Desktop is actually virtualisation rather than emulation, but it has the same end effect as Virtual PC; you run Windows within a window under Mac OS X.

However, this would result in an even weaker graphics card being available to the Windows install; instead of an Intel GMA 950 with up to ~256MB RAM, you'd have an emulated graphics card (I think this is right; the graphics card is emulated, even though the CPU itself is not) that's a whole lot weaker.

Parallels is perfect for working in Windows, and since I bought my MacBook for university I prefer it to Boot Camp for this reason. But it is not for games.

Sorry to go on and on, especialy when my main point is simply this:

If games are what you want, and you want them on a portable Mac, then I would recommend the "low-end" MacBook Pro; its ATI Radeon X1600 with 128MB of RAM would play games most handsomely.

Earlier today I even briefly entertained the notion of selling my white MacBook and buying one myself. At the UK Apple Refurb Store, they cost but £929, only £30 more than the midrange MacBook and with 20GB more hard drive and an actual graphics card to boot (also a 1.83GHz processor instead of 2GHz as it was the February model, not the May one...) But sense prevailed, especially as I doubt I could get anywhere near the £899 I paid for my MacBook, on eBay or anywhere else for that matter.
BayBook (13" MacBook Pro, 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, 1TB HD) // BayPhone (iPhone 4, 32GB, black)
     
sieb
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Under Your Stairs
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2006, 10:34 PM
 
Sorry bout that, that was what I gathered from the forum but did more digging into how well Vista would work on a MB (specifically Aero) and found the same as you. The more ram, the more the system will dedicate to video in Windows (and with different drivers will support Aero in Vista). Most have said OSX will usually use between 64-80MB or more if it needs it (depending on total ram).
Sieb
Blackbook
(2Ghz, 2GB, 100Gig, week 21)
     
Corwin927  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2006, 05:20 AM
 
Okay, just to make sure I understand this right.

Shared video from the graphics card is shared with the ram. So that if i have a 64mb vid card and like a gig of ram, I'll be running at what is actually a higher dedication of mbs in vid card-ness, as opposed to Just running a lot more smoothly than it otherwise would with the 64mb vid card?

So in theory, if I had enough ram, I could run a 128mb vid card requirement software - when my vid card would be something measly like 32 or less?

In short - Cool.



But drawing back to the primary question(s).
For basic wordprocessing, internet browsing and communication, music, video, and older games and possibly Bloodlines - Does this system sound right for me? Or should I perhaps go for a desktop based system like the imac 17inch?

Last but not least -


Thanks everyone!! You've all been of great help!

Corwin
     
harrisjamieh
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2006, 06:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Corwin927
Okay, just to make sure I understand this right.

Shared video from the graphics card is shared with the ram. So that if i have a 64mb vid card and like a gig of ram, I'll be running at what is actually a higher dedication of mbs in vid card-ness, as opposed to Just running a lot more smoothly than it otherwise would with the 64mb vid card?

So in theory, if I had enough ram, I could run a 128mb vid card requirement software - when my vid card would be something measly like 32 or less?

In short - Cool.
The graphics card in the MB has no memory of its own. It only uses memory from the RAM. Under OS X, the graphics will take 80MB of your RAM, no matter how much RAM you actually have. In Windows, the graphics will take a minimum of 8MB, and a max of 224MB, depending on how much RAM is installed. With 512 RAM, I believe the GMA950 will take up to around 80 MB of system memory.


Originally Posted by Corwin927
But drawing back to the primary question(s).
For basic wordprocessing, internet browsing and communication, music, video, and older games and possibly Bloodlines - Does this system sound right for me? Or should I perhaps go for a desktop based system like the imac 17inch?

Last but not least -


Thanks everyone!! You've all been of great help!

Corwin
You mention a desktop system - does this mean you do not need a portable computer? If so, then the iMac would suit you down to the ground - as it has a dedicated graphics card, allowing you to play virtually all the games on the market today.

But yes, the MB will be fine for your needs, minus maybe a few games. The machine will be fine for more than 'basic' wordprocessing and internet browsing etc, as it is a very powerful machine. So long as you are using universal applications, have 1GB+ of RAM, and aren't doing much graphics intensive stuff (aperture, motion, games etc), then the MacBook will fly with anything you throw at it.
iMac Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 1.25GB RAM | 160HD, MacBook Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 13.3" | 60HD | 1.0GB RAM
     
Heavy
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2006, 12:09 PM
 
I remember reading a list from the intel site and the vampire games won't work. There's a link around here. I don't do much games, but that one sounded pretty cool. Too bad I can't use it on MB.
     
Corwin927  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2006, 05:51 PM
 
So Vampire won't work on macbook? Do you know if its just bloodlines or the masquerade as well?

Will it work on other mac intel stuff?
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:46 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,