[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by goMac

I've been featured in MacWorld and MacAddict. I've been to WWDC, and I sat in the Intel Labs porting my code over, including my code for CoreImage which apparently I know very little about. Don't belittle me. I know perfectly well what I'm talking about.

Don't you find it odd that the iBook shipped with a better GPU than the Macbook? Microsoft won't even support the GMA950 in Vista, but meantime Apple gladly is using it. As soon as Apple decides to match Vista's window server feature set we're going to see the GMA950 become unusable.

Ya great you make software that lets you change colours of the Apple menu. Props to you.

I don't find it odd that the iBook had a better graphics card actually. I find it odd that the new MacBooks have 10x better guts and the cost is the same.

I also find it odd that in the tests that Macworld ran the Mini with GMA ran better than the Mini with a video card in most tests.

GMA950 will work in vista just not all the fancy effects. Heck MS wants people to have 256meg video cards for Vista.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

People on average replace their computers ever 3 years.

Cell phones are replaced every 2 on average.

Neither one is considered "replaceable".

Sure, I know techies that replace three years on average. My girlfriend is on about year 5 with her iBook. The only reason she's getting a Macbook is because her iBook is dying. I've already had to replace the hard drive once. Otherwise she wouldn't even be upgrading. I'm on about year 3 with my laptop, although I'll be replacing it at the end of the year.

As far as normal people go, in my experience as a system technician, people keep machines until they die. Just yesterday I was in a house working on an iMac/500.

[Salty]

I don't think Apple's going to stop supporting these Macs for a good six years or so. That's how long it took them to ditch my iMac. So if Apple is planning on doing something the GMA950 isn't good enough for... I think we have a wait for that. Sure new features might not run on these in three years... but I'd expect that!

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by goMac

As far as normal people go, in my experience as a system technician, people keep machines until they die. Just yesterday I was in a house working on an iMac/500.

And you think Apple cares about people on systems that are 6 years old getting the latest and greatest effects?

They are a BUSINESS you know.

Guess what my G4 Cube that is 500MHz AND has a 16 meg video card doesn't do core graphics. Was I surprised or mad? No.

[Salty]

By the way I think I might be getting the white one simply because it's so much cheaper than the MacBook Pro... we'll wait to see what they're doing with the Core2 Duos though.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Ya great you make software that lets you change colours of the Apple menu. Props to you.

I don't find it odd that the iBook had a better graphics card actually. I find it odd that the new MacBooks have 10x better guts and the cost is the same.

I also find it odd that in the tests that Macworld ran the Mini with GMA ran better than the Mini with a video card in most tests.

GMA950 will work in vista just not all the fancy effects. Heck MS wants people to have 256meg video cards for Vista.

The Mini had a far worse graphics card than the iBook.

By not using the fancy effects in Vista, a lot of functionality is broken. I don't mean the transparency around windows. I mean the Windows Presentation Foundation stuff. All the cool sparkle stuff in Windows doesn't work. If Apple comes up with something like Sparkle to replace Interface Builder, we're going to see apps based on Sparkle-like stuff crawl on the GMA950.

How much experience do you have coding in OpenGL and Quartz?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

And you think Apple cares about people on systems that are 6 years old getting the latest and greatest effects?

They are a BUSINESS you know.

Guess what my G4 Cube that is 500MHz AND has a 16 meg video card doesn't do core graphics. Was I surprised or mad? No.

We could be looking at these upgrades to our windowing system in 1-2 years. Microsoft is doing them now. The GPU is so important these days I would have rather seen 1.6/1.8 Macbooks with an X200 or X600.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by goMac

How much experience do you have coding in OpenGL and Quartz?

zero. I have experience in buying computers and using the appropriate hardware for its intended purpose and not buy the low end consumer hardware and expect it to be supported for 6 years with pro high end software.

I have never seen a "Pro" using low end hardware and complain that they can't do high end things. Never.

I have never seen or heard a studio suggest to me (as a graphic designer) "can we buy you the low end consumer stuff and have it work for you for the next 6 years the same way as the pro stuff does". If any studio has a screw loose enough to say that they got problems.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

zero. I have experience in buying computers and using the appropriate hardware for its intended purpose and not buy the low end consumer hardware and expect it to be supported for 6 years with pro high end software.

I have never seen a "Pro" using low end hardware and complain that they can't do high end things. Never.

I have never seen or heard a studio suggest to me (as a graphic designer) "can we buy you the low end consumer stuff and have it work for you for the next 6 years the same way as the pro stuff does". If any studio has a screw loose enough to say that they got problems.

You need to come to my place of employment.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

zero. I have experience in buying computers and using the appropriate hardware for its intended purpose and not buy the low end consumer hardware and expect it to be supported for 6 years with pro high end software.

I have never seen a "Pro" using low end hardware and complain that they can't do high end things. Never.

I have never seen or heard a studio suggest to me (as a graphic designer) "can we buy you the low end consumer stuff and have it work for you for the next 6 years the same way as the pro stuff does". If any studio has a screw loose enough to say that they got problems.

I work with normal users. Normal users use computers until they die. The use of a real GPU has frequently helped Mac life-spans, both by being fast and not sucking up memory. In addition to the iBook having a faster GPU, an iBook is going to have more memory free because it's memory isn't shared.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

zero. I have experience in buying computers and using the appropriate hardware for its intended purpose and not buy the low end consumer hardware and expect it to be supported for 6 years with pro high end software.

You are missing the point. What people are asking for is keeping the consumer price, but including high end components in the consumer machines. This way those machines can work with high end applications in six years.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by ort888

You need to come to my place of employment.

I was expecting that. You'll always have some cheapskate, what can Apple do in that case? make less money on each sale of a MacBook so they can please one ultra-cheap customer that holds onto hardware for 6 years and still demands the latest effects on every OS upgrade?

Cuz that is what it comes down to.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

I was expecting that. You'll always have some cheapskate, what can Apple do in that case? make less money on each sale of a MacBook so they can please one ultra-cheap customer that holds onto hardware for 6 years and still demands the latest effects on every OS upgrade?

Cuz that is what it comes down to.

They managed to make iBook's with quality components on the consumer level for cheap while still making a very nice profit margin. Now it's impossible?

The Macbook isn't balanced. Consumers don't need 1.83 and 2.0 dual core CPU's. They need a decent GPU.

[olePigeon]

Most everyone is going to turn off that "sparkle" crap. The major difference between what Apple is doing and what Microsoft is doing, is that Apple's effects are also visual cues to the operation of the window. Microsoft's effects are almost strictly eye candy. They don't add anything to the function of the computer.

So who f*cking cares if you can't get Aero on your Mac?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Most everyone is going to turn off that "sparkle" crap.

You can't turn off Sparkle. I don't think you know what Sparkle is.

[stevesnj]

Black looks cool but I am dreading the 'Lots of scratches on Black MacBook' thread.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by goMac

...make iBook's ...core CPU's.

STOP IT! There's no motherf*cking apostrophe in plural words unless it's possessive.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by goMac

You can't turn off Sparkle. I don't think you know what Sparkle is.

I guess not. I thought it was all the window transparencies and slipping/sliding effects.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

STOP IT! There's no motherf*cking apostrophe in plural words unless it's possessive.

Ummmm. Ok.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by goMac

The Macbook isn't balanced. Consumers don't need 1.83 and 2.0 dual core CPU's. They need a decent GPU.

For iMovie, internet, email and iphoto right? Ya I hear all of those use a video card like no tomorrow

I can hear the requests now.... " I want iMovie and iDvd to take longer to render and I would like a 64 meg video card in exchange for um... OSX effects in 3 years".

Are you even taking yourself seriously?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I guess not. I thought it was all the window transparencies and slipping/sliding effects.

Here is a demo:

http://channel9.msdn.com/showpost.aspx?postid=115387

The demo is a bit gimmicky (being Microsoft), but for programmers at least it looks pretty yummy, and I don't see Apple standing by while Microsoft passes them up in UI tools.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

For iMovie, internet, email and iphoto right? Ya I hear all of those use a video card like no tomorrow

I can hear the requests now.... " I want iMovie and iDvd to take longer to render and I would like a 64 meg video card in exchange for um... OSX effects in 3 years".

Are you even taking yourself seriously?

You do know that as of Tiger, Quicktime is rendered using the GPU? And the newest iMovie uses CoreVideo?

Yes, I dare say the GPU matters. Not in three years. Right now.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by goMac

Consumers don't need 1.83 and 2.0 dual core CPU's. They need a decent GPU.

And it's up to you to decide that?

Remember that Quartz is not hardware accelerated today. So consumers will immensely profit from fast DualCore CPUs. Much more so than from a fast GPU. Also, the built-in graphics provides for longer battery lifetime and less heat (and fan-noise) than a dedicated GPU. I will actually prefer that.

How well the MacBook will run Vista in 2 or 3 years is pretty much irrelevant for Mac users, isn't it? And besides, all computer users I know that kept their computer that long without upgrading never upgraded their system or applications during that time as well.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by goMac

You do know that as of Tiger, Quicktime is rendered using the GPU? And the newest iMovie uses CoreVideo?

Good, thanks for proving it is not an issue then. The g4 Mini with a video card plays High def Apple QUICKTIME videos WORSE than the Intel mini with GMA950.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by goMac

You do know that as of Tiger, Quicktime is rendered using the GPU? And the newest iMovie uses CoreVideo?

It has already been mentioned that that new mac Mini plays H.264 much more smoothly than the G4 Mac mini with dedicated graphics card could. It will most likely be the same with the MacBooks.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by goMac

Here is a demo:

http://channel9.msdn.com/showpost.aspx?postid=115387

The demo is a bit gimmicky (being Microsoft), but for programmers at least it looks pretty yummy, and I don't see Apple standing by while Microsoft passes them up in UI tools.

Who gives a crap about Vista's stupid glass effects. It actually looks worse.

We are mac users not needing to worry about how poor programmers are at microsoft. Have you seen their system requirements for Vista that doesn't even look at good as 10.3 that ran on 32 meg video cards?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Remember that Quartz is not hardware accelerated today. So consumers will immensely profit from fast DualCore CPUs. Much more so than from a fast GPU. Also, the built-in graphics provides for longer battery lifetime and less heat (and fan-noise) than a dedicated GPU. I will actually prefer that.

Quartz isn't GPU accelerated? Quartz Extreme runs on the GPU. And Quartz 2D Extreme will just up the ante on using the GPU. QuickTime runs on the GPU these days. CoreVideo runs on the GPU.

Let me give you an example of how the GMA950 is trouble. Let's say I create a consumer screensaver. Something like... a rotating cube, using a different QuickTime movie as the texture for each side (which is possible now in 10.4). Family movie cube or something. On the Radeon 9550, this would probably run ok. On the GMA950? I wouldn't trust it to run well. That's saying a lot, given that I've done this before on my Radeon 9600 on my Powerbook.

[ambush]

I think I'll be keeping my Alubook 12 for a long, long while, and save for a new powermac.

My alubook's HD died recently, so I decided to upgrade it. I got a 7200 RPM 60 GB HD and a DVD burner... I will probably upgrade from 768 to 1.25 GB RAM soon (when I get the money). This thing still has a 64MB GF4 in it. And it's fast enough for my needs (Xcode development), bittorrent, internet, mail, massive Xvid library. It's good enough for H264 too.

Those new macbooks don't impress me. at all.

I don't get the 200$ gap between them either.. the top opf the line should have 1GB ram. 512 is just not enough, period. 1 GB should be the minimum nowadays. Safari with 3 tas open will suck like 50% of your physical ram. Not to mention the slow 5400 swapping VM... sigh.

I just hope apple doesnt cut PPC support too soon...

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

My Intel Mini runs HD video better than the G4 mini with a video card.

Unless you are a gamer you won't notice, and why the hell would a gamer buy a iBook?

Target audience, kids in college and HS. What demographic plays the most games? This thing doesn't even qualify as a casual game machine, and given that most students are on a fixed budget, and only have 1 computer, Apple has successfully screwed themselves by introducing such a half-assed product.

I've already talked 3 students out of buying one of these, and hopefully I can get many more before the week is out.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Who gives a crap about Vista's stupid glass effects. It actually looks worse.

We are mac users not needing to worry about how poor programmers are at microsoft. Have you seen their system requirements for Vista that doesn't even look at good as 10.3 that ran on 32 meg video cards?

You don't even begin to understand what the demo was. They were using interface widgets in a 3D hardware accelerated environment using scripting. That is entirely awesome, and would save me a lot of development time.

Microsoft may not know consumers well, but they certainly know what developers want. And where there are happy developers there are lots of software choices for consumers.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

My Intel Mini runs HD video better than the G4 mini with a video card.

Unless you are a gamer you won't notice, and why the hell would a gamer buy a iBook?

I play games, I choose iBooks over PB/MBP because they suit me better and that is crap graphics card.

I'm glad I went for the latest iBook G4 revision. This is a stinker. Sorry Apple

V

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by ambush

Those new macbooks don't impress me. at all.

Honestly, does anything?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by voodoo

I play games, I choose iBooks over PB/MBP because they suit me better and that is crap graphics card.

I'm glad I went for the latest iBook G4 revision. This is a stinker. Sorry Apple

V

Hell, I work as a system administrator at a school, and nearly all the kids here have the Halo demo loaded on their iBooks. The joke this morning is that at least with the Macbooks we don't have to patrol their laptops to keep games off, the games simply won't run well at all.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Ok this GMA thing has been beaten to death. Either get over it or don't buy it.

On another note where are the speakers on this new MacBook? Does the Apple Logo on the back still look the same or did they do something stupid?

What is it made out of?

[ambush]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Honestly, does anything?

The 12" Alubook was just a ****ing great Machine. That did impress me. Too bad they seem to have killed it and replaced it with this stupid black macbook ****.

The new iMac impresses me too. That's about it for now, I guess. The original iPod impressed me, too. Now the iPod Video really sucks, just like the iPod Photo did... The nano... well it's OK but I still *wonder* *why* they killed the mini (???)

The shuffle is great.. if you like to not choose what you want to listen ( i find myself hitting the forward button quite a lot)

What are they going to kill next ? The iMac... replace it with the "Mac" ?

[greenamp]

I like this new MacBook lots. I expected integrated gpu so that's no biggie IMO.
I'm really miffed they added a premium for the black though. Very stupid move IMO. How does black plastic cost $150 more than white plastic? (-$50 for bigger HD)

[Chuckit]

It's OK. No students or ordinary consumers play games, so they won't need a good graphics card. Only pros play games on their computers.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by goMac

Here is a demo:

http://channel9.msdn.com/showpost.aspx?postid=115387

The demo is a bit gimmicky (being Microsoft), but for programmers at least it looks pretty yummy, and I don't see Apple standing by while Microsoft passes them up in UI tools.

So instead of highlighting and depressing a button, I get to have a 3D clippy jump out and do cartwheels while the button zooms off in backflips, all the while having 3D rendered clowns jumping out of a car in the background.

Fun for programmers, nightmare for users. You won't have any 2 programs in Vista that even remotely function the same.

What you have is the Homermobile of user interface design.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

It's OK. No students or ordinary consumers play games, so they won't need a good graphics card. Only pros play games on their computers.

the MacBooks don't play games at all? Does it eject a game CD the second you put it in?

[Chuckit]

Might just as well.

Come on, it'll play games in the same sense that the original iMac will run the latest iMovie — it won't put up a big "NO!!!" sign, but it's really not going to work out for you.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Might just as well.

Can we see some benchmarks?

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by goMac

You do know that as of Tiger, Quicktime is rendered using the GPU? And the newest iMovie uses CoreVideo?

You better tell Apple that because iMovie is 1.5x faster.

http://www.apple.com/macbook/intelcoreduo.html

Ya, people are going to hate that and demand a better video card

[rickey939]

Proud of you all.®

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by rickey939

Proud of you all.®

My life is now complete.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by rickey939

Proud of you all.®

Wow, I SOOOOO did not see this coming.

-t

[rickey939]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

Wow, I SOOOOO did not see this coming.

-t

Yeah, I agree...the black MacBook through me for a loop as well.

[mdc]

I can see myself selling my 17" PowerBook and getting the MacBook pro with the biggest harddrive and a 20" monitor for around $2,000. Spend a little on a few hundred gig external backup drive.

[cjrivera]

Originally Posted by greenamp

I like this new MacBook lots. I expected integrated gpu so that's no biggie IMO.
I'm really miffed they added a premium for the black though. Very stupid move IMO. How does black plastic cost $150 more than white plastic? (-$50 for bigger HD)

Maybe if they made the keyboard red, they could sell it as the Spedical edition U2 MacBook.

[andreas_g4]

Originally Posted by willed

Has been pointed out elsewhere that there is a $150 premium just for getting the black one. The only difference between that and the mid-range white one hardware-wise is a 20GB bigger HD, which costs $50 to upgrade to from teh white one... and yet the black one costs $200 more.
Cynical.

The black one is bullet proof.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Yup, the screen sucks. Look at those reflections! Why APPLE why?!