[Simon]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

There is only one page in this thread.

Hehe, must have got carried away there with all the bitching going on in various threads.

No seriously, Apple has a history of coupling features to sizes. The best specs always meant getting the big rig. If you want a tiny package you're going to have to put up with a less spec'ed out machine. Unfortunately it's been that way for years already. Apple is not Dell - they never let you BTO a small Mac so that its features can compete with those of a big one. Just compare the crap GPUs they put in the 12" PB compared to those they put in the 17" at the same time!

Now, if you really want to make an impact on Apple in this decision making process, all you can do is stop buying the MB. But that isn't working very well because a) you already gave in and bought it and b) it's selling like hotcakes so c) Apple probably played it right form a business perspective.

It sucks, but that's the way it's gonna be for the next 6 months or so. As long as Apple can generate more sales with these MBs, they'll have no reason to change anything about it. I'm already expecting the GMA to stick around for rev B, maybe a GMA965, but there's a good chance it won't be a Radeon Mobility.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by darth-vader000

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.

I think Icruise's point is a good one. Many consumers don't know much about the GPU at all, but still sometimes want to play reasonably recent games. From the reports out there, it sounds like World of Warcraft is playable on the MacBook, but it can be very annoying because it's often so slow:



While nobody expects that the MacBook should be a Quake 4 gaming monster, a little boost with older generation games like WoW go a long way in making these types of customers happy.

P.S. It's interesting to see just how poorly the fastest PowerBook ever created fared. I guess this is a pretty good example as to why I never bought games for my Macs. (I bought a few for my PC, and eventually succumbed and got an Xbox 360.)

Originally Posted by Simon

Now, if you really want to make an impact on Apple in this decision making process, all you can do is stop buying the MB. But that isn't working very well because a) you already gave in and bought it and b) it's selling like hotcakes so c) Apple probably played it right form a business perspective.

Yup. I agree.

I had to buy though, cuz I sold my iBook in April.

It sucks, but that's the way it's gonna be for the next 6 months or so. As long as Apple can generate more sales with these MBs, they'll have no reason to change anything about it. I'm already expecting the GMA to stick around for rev B, maybe a GMA965, but there's a good chance it won't be a Radeon Mobility.

Yup. I agree here too.

[nitpick] P.S. It's the Intel G965 chipset. If they use the GMA name for the GPU, it's not guaranteed it will be called GMA 965. It's similar to the current situation. Our MacBook's chipset is 945GM, but the GPU is called GMA 950. [/nitpick]

[Hi I'm Ben]

Here's a price check. I got my Costco "Passport to Savings" booklet in the mail.

HP Pavilion DV5237 15.4"
Widescreen Notebook
Intel Core Duo, 2GB Memory, 120GB Hard Drive, DVD+/- RW DL, Remote Control, Win Media Center Edition.

YOUR COST: $999.99


Man, if I liked PC notebooks that sounds like a fantastic computer.

[Heavy]

Hmm. I was under the impression that the powerbooks did better in the game area than a MB. I thought I saw some benchmark testing with that.

I admit that I don't know much about integrated graphics. Didn't know what it was until I bought the MB and started reading reviews. I thought I bought cutting edge technology by buying the new MB when it came out.

Isn't Apple blatantly lying when they say " the super fast do everything out of the box machine?" They certainly misled me. Though I don't play games much, I did want a laptop that was strong in all areas at this point in technology's time. I tried to cancel my order which was not even close to delivered yet, and they refused to refund.

[freakboy2]

thats weird because from what i remember they don't charge you til it ships. you can cancel it before then.

[snoopy199]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I think Icruise's point is a good one. Many consumers don't know much about the GPU at all, but still sometimes want to play reasonably recent games.

I'll grant you that most consumers don't know much about the GPU but your missing my point. I think they don't care much about it. I do think however you are out of touch with the average user, most people don't play lots of games. The only people I've seen complain about the GPU (or game performance) is you and a few other uber-geeks.

One point I'm missing is I see lots of posts (various threads) from you about the GPU yet you own the MB. If it is as bad as you complain why didn't you just opt for the MBP.

Clearly the MB has advantages over the MBP that caused you to choose it. If you want to play games, buy a console. If you want to use aperture then the MB being an entry level consumer product is not the right choice. Your looking for pro performance using pro software on an entry level computer.

Finally it is what it is and either move on or enjoy your laptop - life is to short to sweat the small stuff

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by darth-vader000

I'll grant you that most consumers don't know much about the GPU but your missing my point. I think they don't care much about it. I do think however you are out of touch with the average user, most people don't play lots of games. The only people I've seen complain about the GPU (or game performance) is you and a few other uber-geeks.

The comments I hear are not, "Man I wish it had the PCIe Radeon Mobility X600 with 256 video RAM", but "I bought this brand new machine for $1300, but WoW is really slow. Do I need a 3 GHz Pentium or something?"

Lots of people play games. Lots of people play 3D games too. They just don't necessarily play the latest games like Doom 3 or Quake 4.

One point I'm missing is I see lots of posts (various threads) from you about the GPU yet you own the MB. If it is as bad as you complain why didn't you just opt for the MBP.

As I've said before, the MBP is too big.

If you want to play games, buy a console.

I have one. And no, consoles are not a replacement for computer gaming. They are very powerful yes, but certain types of games are not suited for consoles.

If you want to use aperture then the MB being an entry level consumer product is not the right choice.

Bingo! See next point.

Your looking for pro performance using pro software on an entry level computer.

Actually, no. I'm looking for better but not top end performance on a higher priced small Mac laptop, but it doesn't exist.

[Heavy]

Yeah most don't know about GPU's speed/performance, but when you buy the most recent model, and they advertise it as a do it all machine, you kind've expect to get cutting edge technology. That's what a reputable company would sell anyhow.

[Heavy]

And I didn't buy a MB thinking it's an entry level computer. To me, that'd be some no name off Home Shopping Network for $599 or so.

I bought according to Apple's promises from TV ads and their site, that I was getting a smoking small, powerful machine for fun and work.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Eug if you HAD to get a PC for the exact same cost (or less) of the MB which would you get?

[Eug Wanker]

I wonder how much money Apple would save by offering a 1.66 GHz Core Duo in the low end model and a 1.83 GHz Core Duo in the high end model.

I'm not convinced it would be enough to cover the costs of a better GPU and video memory (and extra engineering effort), but I'm not sure. I'd prefer that setup, although that would definitely eat into MacBook Pro sales, potentially making it a less-than-ideal business decision as Simon suggests.

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Eug if you HAD to get a PC for the exact same cost (or less) of the MB which would you get?

Not sure. I just spec'd a Dell Core Duo at work but it's fugly, and I specifically spec'd it with integrated graphics to save money. We will do zero 3D stuff on it at work, so integrated graphics is fine.

However, one main reason I started this thread in the first place is because the price/spec comparison illustrates that Apple DOES have a very compelling low end machine. It's got nice specs, and it's price competitive. It just seems that everyone seems to be focusing on the one GPU CTO comment I made in that post.

[snoopy199]

This wil be the last I post in this thread, Its getting to the point of flogging a dead horse. I really like my MB does everything I want it too and if its not what you need then I suggest you find a tool that fits your needs better.

The macbook is what it is, apple for what ever reason decided to put the GMA950 in the mini and the macbook. If that doesn't work for you get the pro model. Dell, gateway, HP may throw in better GPUs into their consumer level computers, so be it. I'm not interested in them and to be perfectly honest I'm content with the MB. May I suggest to you, be content with your purchase. Life is too short to sweat the small stuff.

FWIW, I was pleasently surprised that aperture does run on the MB but I stand by my words don't expect pro performance running pro software on a consumer level computer.

Regards

[lookmark]

Blizzard has said Apple is "actively working" on the 950 drivers to improve performance for WoW with the MacBooks. Better than nothing, I guess.

I agree that it's disappointing that Apple now offers an otherwise really great consumer laptop... that works poorly (or at best mediocre) with all-but-casual games. It's quite potentially confusing, too, as otherwise the machine is blazing fast.

Hopefully the next rev will use 965, at least.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Not sure. I just spec'd a Dell Core Duo at work but it's fugly, and I specifically spec'd it with integrated graphics to save money. We will do zero 3D stuff on it at work, so integrated graphics is fine.

No seriously, I am looking for the best PC laptop for the same cost of a MB. Can anyone find one?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by lookmark

Blizzard has said Apple is "actively working" on the 950 drivers to improve performance for WoW with the MacBooks.

Yeah, I heard that. However, my understanding is that WoW on Windows with GMA 950 isn't good either, but I don't have the details.

Also, Apple has already dramatically improved overall OpenGL performance with the last OS X update I think. Cinebench's OpenGL tests used to suck royally on Macs, but the latest version of Cinebench with the latest version of OS X gives very good OpenGL performance. But there's only so far Apple can take GMA 950.

Hopefully the next rev will use 965, at least.

I still don't know how much better G965 is, but I'm pretty sure Apple will use that in the next MacBook, given it's still an improvement, it's still cheap, and it still is comparatively simple to implement. I'm guessing it will perform better in WoW, but I have no idea by how much, and so far Intel has been pretty tight-lipped on the subject.

[Hi I'm Ben]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

No seriously, I am looking for the best PC laptop for the same cost of a MB. Can anyone find one?

I posted it above.

[lookmark]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Yeah, I heard that. However, my understanding is that WoW on Windows with GMA 950 isn't good either, but I don't have the details.

Apparently it's about 10 FPS better than OS X, FWIW.

Upcoming further OpenGL improvements look like they'll help reduce the games performance gap between XP and OS X, too, which sounds great.

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

But there's only so far Apple can take GMA 950.

I expect that's true.

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I still don't know how much better G965 is, but I'm pretty sure Apple will use that in the next MacBook, given it's still an improvement, it's still cheap, and it still is comparatively simple to implement. I'm guessing it will perform better in WoW, but I have no idea by how much, and so far Intel has been pretty tight-lipped on the subject.

Yeah. It's a shame that Apple won't offer a BTO option for a discrete graphics card for a high-end MacBook.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by Hi I'm Ben

Here's a price check. I got my Costco "Passport to Savings" booklet in the mail.

HP Pavilion DV5237 15.4"
Widescreen Notebook
Intel Core Duo, 2GB Memory, 120GB Hard Drive, DVD+/- RW DL, Remote Control, Win Media Center Edition.

YOUR COST: $999.99


Man, if I liked PC notebooks that sounds like a fantastic computer.

Do you have a link to this computer?

Costco doesn't really count though as it is a members only club.

[Hi I'm Ben]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Do you have a link to this computer?

Costco doesn't really count though as it is a members only club.

It's an in Store only item.

it costs what.. $45 to be a member? so 1044.99? OH yeah you can return your membership if you're unhappy with it anytime in that year. The computer is originally 1199.99 but will be on sale in 3 weeks for 999.99.

However, if you don't have a costco membership I highly recommend getting one anyway, they have excellent deals on all sorts of stuff. The only thing I haven't bought there is food. It's worked out much better than my SAMS membership.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by Hi I'm Ben

It's an in Store only item.

I'm asking because basic specs aside it doesn't show what the computer looks like or any other niceties.

[Heavy]

"Sony Vaio SZ because they are both similarly priced and have almost the same specs. However, the Vaio SZ has a much more superior and dedicated videocard, Dual Layer burning, an expansion slot, and a memory card reader which are all missing on the MacBook. "

From Notebook review. Sounds like a great PC.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by Heavy

"Sony Vaio SZ because they are both similarly priced and have almost the same specs. However, the Vaio SZ has a much more superior and dedicated videocard, Dual Layer burning, an expansion slot, and a memory card reader which are all missing on the MacBook. "

From Notebook review. Sounds like a great PC.

http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTE...me=specs&var2=

It also costs more than the white mid iBook and is missing all the nice little things that the Mac Has.

Like I said it has higher specs for the most part. Question is why would anyone get a Mac over this thing then?

[icruise]

The only thing that really bothers me about being a Mac user is that you have to take what Apple gives you and be grateful for it. Luckily, Apple's hardware is usually very good, but they can't cover all the bases. In particular, they never seem to want to come out with small portables. It's looking like the 12" PowerBook (and the 12" iBook) were the smallest that Apple portables are going to get, and you can't even get anything in that form factor now. Still, I'd rather use OS X on a slightly bigger/heavier/more expensive/whatever computer than Windows on a slim Sony. I've been down that road before.

And things are a lot better now than back in the days of the original iBook and PowerBook G3/early G4. You basically only had two options -- huge pro portable or even huger (and heavier and candy-colored) consumer portable.

[slugslugslug]

I agree with Eug it's great that Apple's offerings are price-competitive with similarly-spec'd machines from other big brands, especially considering the Apple exclusives—OS X + iLife, beautiful industrial design. And I also agree that it's a bit of a bummer that they make great machines that are almost perfect for some people.

Like the MacBook. It is certainly an awesome machine whose specs will prompt no complaints from most of its buyers. But for Eug and assorted non-idiots who want to run Aperture, its graphics capabilities need improvement. And for me, Eug, and other people who want to carry their Mac around a lot, a half pound's weight loss would be really nice.

Like Eug and Simon, I don't think there's much we can do about it. And I imagine that Apple's offering fewer choices is what allows them to remain price competitive. Offering more options means they buy components in smaller quantities and lower discounts, and it means that mistakes in demand forecasting are more costly. You could say the same applies to other vendors, but Apple's just got more R & D to recoup on their computers. OS X's development costs aren't paid for by retail-box sales alone, and I'd wager Apple spends more on design per model than most PC makers.

So I don't really know what we whingers can do to make Apple sell the model we want, but there's certainly no harm in comparing Macs to other companies' offerings on a Mac forum. I thought that's what this place was here for

[Simon]

Originally Posted by slugslugslug

Like Eug and Simon, I don't think there's much we can do about it. And I imagine that Apple's offering fewer choices is what allows them to remain price competitive. Offering more options means they buy components in smaller quantities and lower discounts, and it means that mistakes in demand forecasting are more costly.

That is a very important point.

People should also keep in mind that a GPU BTO option is not peanuts. Contrary to RAM or HDD where they just drop in another module or a different HDD in a pre-assembled Mac, the GPU is soldered onto the motherboard. It is by no means a drop-in replacement - a GPU BTO option basically means Apple has to design, manufacture, store and support two different types of motherboards. It means they can only put together a MB once the BTO options have been specified. This is a much more expensive BTO option than just RAM or HDD which are actually rather CTO than BTO.

Of course there are people like Eug or myself that would be willing to pay some serious cash for such an upgrade, but my guess is Apple would charge a premium for such a BTO that they believe would not be accepted by most buyers and therefor they've concluded that it's just not worth the trouble. It will be difficult to judge if they were right or wrong about that. All we know right now is the MBs are selling very well and many buyers will cave in even though the GMA950 sucks.

[bleee]

I used the MacBook today and was really dissapointed at it's performance. I played WoW on it at native resolutions it's performance is the same as my 12inch PowerBook, also my pb can turn on all the options where as the piece of crap 950 graphics chip does not support some of the graphics options in wow. My main problem is that Apple stopped making a 13inch MacBook Pro I cannot stresss I HATE integrated graphics chips. When I switch to apple I though I would never see a shitty integrated graphics chipset gain. Personally I like my 12inch powerbook more than the new MacBooks and I'm glad I bought it back when I did. My only pet peve is that my pb only support 1024x768 on the LCD but I can live with it. I'd also like to point out the noticeable difference in weight between my pb and macbook. If OS X ran on generic laptops I'd take the dell with the Geforce chipset anyday of the week it has a dedicated graphics chip and is roughly the same size as the macbook

[Simon]

Originally Posted by bleee

My main problem is that Apple stopped making a 13inch MacBook Pro.

Well actually, they never started making one.

But you're right, the 12" PB is ultra-compact and leaves behind a noticeable size/weight gap in Apple's notebook line.

[mathew_m]

I think we'll see a smaller 13" Macbook come second revision. They could easily trim an inch off of it. I think they have a design issue though with the iSight. Right now the design is symetrical but if they shorten the frame that will leave more space on the top and bottom of the bezel. The TiBook, which I own really has the nicest design I think. The Titanium screen bezel is small enough that it almost disappears. I also like how the screen will fold back a good 180 degrees. Great for when working and standing up over a desk.

[Heavy]

I don't get the weight issue a lot of folks have. Everyone who sees my MB comments on how small and light it is. Most of them have or had notebooks too. I think it's a great size to watch video and it's portable. If it was a smaller screen, everything would be crammed. If it was lighter, it'd feel cheaper. I like how it's solid feeling but not heavy. Perfect balance really.

I am dissapointed in the graphics like most. Just because I just switched to Apple because of them being known for more of an artistic kind've computer. Graphics would go hand in hand. As it turns out, I shoulda' bought the Sony and got a lot more notebook with the graphics and card slots.

But otoh, I don't really see how it's practical to play games on a tiny 13" screen anyhow.

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by Heavy

I don't get the weight issue a lot of folks have. Everyone who sees my MB comments on how small and light it is.

Do you carry it on your back or shoulder for 6-8 hours a day with 5-10 pounds of books as well? That's what I'd be doing if I got one, and that's why I wish Apple would make the lightest possible OS X-equipped laptop. If I were driving with it to an office for the day, or if I wasn't gonna have other stuff to carry, I wouldn't mind the weight at all.

I gotta say, thinking about this is making me miss the expansion bays of the pre-Titanium PowerBooks. I could just pop the DVD drive out of my Lombard and replace it with a "Weight Saving Device", basically a hollow block of plastic that filled up the space to protect the contacts..

[Heavy]

Originally Posted by slugslugslug

Do you carry it on your back or shoulder for 6-8 hours a day with 5-10 pounds of books as well? That's what I'd be doing if I got one, and that's why I wish Apple would make the lightest possible OS X-equipped laptop. If I were driving with it to an office for the day, or if I wasn't gonna have other stuff to carry, I wouldn't mind the weight at all.

I gotta say, thinking about this is making me miss the expansion bays of the pre-Titanium PowerBooks. I could just pop the DVD drive out of my Lombard and replace it with a "Weight Saving Device", basically a hollow block of plastic that filled up the space to protect the contacts..

I see. But if they lightened it a bit, is a 6-8 oz. really gonna matter? Some people are like this with Les Paul guitars. They won't buy one that's 9 lb.s, but will if it's 8.6 lb.s!? It's crazy. We're talking ounces in difference.

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by Heavy

I see. But if they lightened it a bit, is a 6-8 oz. really gonna matter? Some people are like this with Les Paul guitars.

You should see people who are into high-end road bikes (that's bicycles, not motorcycles) with their endless efforts to shave off grams. I think I'm being a little more reasonable, talking laptops, since that's something I carry, not something to carry me (my bikes are both steel).

I don't know, though, I mean 6-8 oz. isn't a lot, but it's not nothing. I think I'm mainly so bummed because the thing is only .2 lb lighter than my TiBook, and I wanted to buy a lighter Mac laptop to replace that. The TiBook, while 3.5 years old, is still eminently usable for my purposes, so the fact that I barely save any weight with a MacBook makes the purchase harder to justify..

[icruise]

The difference between the 12" PowerBook (or the iBook) and the MacBook isn't that huge, but the extra weight and especially the extra width do make a difference. What I would really like, though, is a sub 4-pound Mac portable (ideally around 3 pounds). There are dozens of Windows machines like this, and yes you do pay a premium for this kind of miniaturization.

[Heavy]

Originally Posted by slugslugslug

You should see people who are into high-end road bikes (that's bicycles, not motorcycles) with their endless efforts to shave off grams. I think I'm being a little more reasonable, talking laptops, since that's something I carry, not something to carry me (my bikes are both steel).

I don't know, though, I mean 6-8 oz. isn't a lot, but it's not nothing. I think I'm mainly so bummed because the thing is only .2 lb lighter than my TiBook, and I wanted to buy a lighter Mac laptop to replace that. The TiBook, while 3.5 years old, is still eminently usable for my purposes, so the fact that I barely save any weight with a MacBook makes the purchase harder to justify..

I could see for racing where you want every bit of an edge. I guess if I had to lug one around in a backback all day, I might see it differently.

[slugslugslug]

Yeah, even for non-racers, there are some advantages, practical and/or psychological, for lighter frames, wheels, components (e.g. I have to carry my ride up the porch steps to bring it inside for the night, so I don't want a 40-lb beast), but there is a point of diminishing returns. Nonetheless, the stuff often called "stupid-light" is also what's ridiculously expensive.

I'm glad you're seeing my point about backpacks. We can all get along! Now what was this thread about?

[Eug Wanker]

The difference in weight between my TiBook at 5.4 lbs, and my iBook at 4.9 lbs was very easily noticeable. I was disappointed in the 5.2 lb weight and the relatively large size of the MacBook. Now, the difference in weight between the iBook and the MacBook isn't as noticeable as with the TiBook, but the width definitively makes the MacBook feel more unwieldly (despite the fact that it actually takes up less volume). But yeah, it's obviously not a deal killer.