 |
 |
What's with Rage?!?
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Why, oh why, did Apple not get rid of the Rage 128 Pro? Why not the ATI Radeon instead of the Rage 128 Pro?
Granted it may misguide consumers into believing that one card is more powerful than the other solely because of its use in a higher-config machine, but I'd rather have the Radeon instead of the Rage 128 Pro...
It would have been nice if Apple puts the GeForce2 MX in the lesser units and included the Radeon Mac Adition (not the OEM one) which will benefit some users who don't have FireWire digicams but yet yearn for some video editing.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Status:
Offline
|
|
Gee, I dunno. Perhaps the very old Rage 128 Pro is cheaper than a brand new Radeon. Perhaps Apple would like to make as much profit as possible?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I hope not. Although then again, I could simply be asking just for too much. 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Jamaica Plain, MA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Asking for a video card that is better than what you can find on some $700 PCs is not asking too much. You should have a choice between Radeon and GeForce, standard. The Rage 128 was crap when it first showed up on the B&W G3s back in January 1999!
However, Apple is cheap. 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top