[Hal06]

the keyboard is cool… reminds me my waaaay oooold SONY MSX HitBit 55P



freaking 3,58 MHz

[ort888]

How long do you think it will take for these to show up in Apple Stores?

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by ort888

How long do you think it will take for these to show up in Apple Stores?

There were already in some this morning.

[Ulrich Kinbote]

What are "integrated graphics"? Whta's the diff?

[Chuckit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_card#Integrated

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

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

I'm glad they decided to in-set the keys.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

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.

I said the demo was a gimmick. Fortunately the ability is not.

Only in Mac OS X will you have situations where accelerated views will never look the same. Vista fixes this by rendering all UI widgets in Sparkle views, so you can use standard widgets in Sparkle. Apple is the one making their Quartz Composer views non-standardized. Sparkle views are standardized.

[goMac]

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.

I'm working in a middle school as a technician right now where every laptop I see (we issue one for each student) has games on it. Students do play games.

Not to mention there is this thing called World of Warcraft most students play.

[dazzla]

Originally Posted by goMac

I'm working in a middle school as a technician right now where every laptop I see (we issue one for each student) has games on it. Students do play games.

Not to mention there is this thing called World of Warcraft most students play.

That would be sarcasm.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by dazzla

That would be sarcasm.

: checks sarcasm detector :

Yeah. I've got to go run my hardware diagnostics, or maybe take a bit of a break from schoolwork.

[Salty]

I'm gonna wait and see what Apple says is going into 10.5 then I'll decide if I get one of these with the GMA... If they even had a low end Radeon I think I would have been set. Then again maybe they want to push people like me up to the MacBook Pro...

[Albert Pujols]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

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

I doubt it'll refelct like that when you're looking straight at it, and that's when it matters right? Either way it's damn sexy.

[legacyb4]

Yup, I've even got a PBG3/400 that's chugging steadily along as my wife's trusty email and browsing laptop. If I do get a new Macbook, she'll get my "aging" PBG4/12.

Originally Posted by goMac

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.

[Kerrigan]

The bitching has got to stop about the integrated gfx. As it's been pointed out, this system is much faster than its predecessor, performs like a dual G5, costs less than a similarly configured dell, and it looks damn good to boot.

[::maroma::]

Why is it that every single time a new Mac product comes out this forum is flooded with posts about how Apple is the dumbest company ever and they can't do anything right and how badly this new product will fail? Do these people honestly think they know more about Apple products than Apple does? It sure sounds like it.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

The bitching has got to stop about the integrated gfx. As it's been pointed out, this system is much faster than its predecessor, performs like a dual G5, costs less than a similarly configured dell, and it looks damn good to boot.

...except an iBook could easily take it in OpenGL benchmarks...

[Salty]

I think people just get frustrated with Steve saying gfx cards are so important and then never giving iBook or Mac mini owners a good card.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by goMac

...except an iBook could easily take it in OpenGL benchmarks...

Obviously it's an issue for someone in your line of work, but for the rest of us it won't be noticeable.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Obviously it's an issue for someone in your line of work, but for the rest of us it won't be noticeable.

I hate to break it to you, but issues for developers affect everyone. This might be news to you, but your software doesn't just write itself and make itself run well on your platform.

[rickey939]

Originally Posted by goMac

I hate to break it to you, but issues for developers affect everyone. This might be news to you, but your software doesn't just write itself and make itself run well on your platform.

Gasp! You don't say.

[tie]

Does this run Aperture?

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by goMac

I hate to break it to you, but issues for developers affect everyone. This might be news to you, but your software doesn't just write itself and make itself run well on your platform.

None of the tools I use to write software require OpenGL. Not sure what you're saying here.

[freudling]

Glossy screen? This is XBRITE. These screens have been on the market for well over a year. They are bright and very nice. I am sure you can get a film to place over the screen to reduce glare in bright conditions.

This notebook is money. I want one.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by tie

Does this run Aperture?

To my surprise, yes.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

To my surprise, yes.

Now will it run it well

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Salty

Now will it run it well

No, especially if you want to do heavy editing. However, not everyone needs to do heavy editing on the road. They just need to view the RAW files and organize them, and perhaps do some quick and dirty edits for quick viewing.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

None of the tools I use to write software require OpenGL. Not sure what you're saying here.

Well, there are two ways to approach this:

a) Somewhere you're using something that abstracts OpenGL. For most utility software this isn't a problem.
b) Glenda Adams has said that two of their games are usable on the GMA950. Two. Think about how much Aspyr software is on the shelf at the Apple store. Now think about how much of that runs on the MacBook.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by tie

Does this run Aperture?

With the GMA950, it will run about as well as OS X on a 604e...

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by goMac

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

Funny thing. I just played the same MP4 video on my Dual G5 2.0GHz and my intel mini 1.6GHZ dual.

On the G5 it took 38% of my CPU
On the Intel Mini it took up 30%

Hmmm.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by goMac

With the GMA950, it will run about as well as OS X on a 604e...

I ran Aperture on a Cube with 32 MB GeForce 2 MX. It definitely ain't fast, but for light stuff it was good enough. It certainly was perfectly acceptable for organizing RAW photos (since RAW conversion is CPU anyway), and for 5 MP JPEGs it was almost snappy, even for light edits.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I ran Aperture on a Cube with 32 MB GeForce 2 MX. It definitely ain't fast, but for light stuff it was good enough. It certainly was perfectly acceptable for organizing RAW photos (since RAW conversion is CPU anyway), and for 5 MP JPEGs it was almost snappy, even for light edits.

Having run OS X on a 604e, it's about the same. Good for light stuff, but definitely not fast.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by goMac

Having run OS X on a 604e, it's about the same. Good for light stuff, but definitely not fast.

I think Aperture on a 1 GB Cube G4 1.7 with GeForce 2 MX compared to a 1 GB iMac 2.0 is better than OS X Tiger on 512 MB G3 500 compared to a 1 GB iMac G5 2.0, at least for some usage.

[JoshuaZ]

Dude, I totally ran Aperature on my 8 MB iivx with 33 mhz power and a super sweet 2x CD drive. It was totally smoking! (as in it started on fire)

[Demonhood]

amateurs

[qnxde]

Doesn't the GMA950 have full CoreImage support? I thought it did. My 12" PowerBook can only just do the dashboard ripple so it has to be better than that (GeForce FX Go5200 32MB)

[Anti-Spam]

I have an iBook and a MINI, and i can tell you right now that YES I DO PLAY GAMES on them. Compared to my acient (cpu limited) G4 sawtooth TOWER, these next generation computers absolutely stinks performance wise. And i'm deeply disappointed at what Apple had offered. There goes my hope of buying a new consumer laptop. Apple's STUPID 32meg of ram in past laptops just proved they know nothing about today's GPU gaming needs. I would definitely look to SONY by christmas.

If your gonna say why would you play games on a mac, then you can also say WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU DO ANYTHING ON A MAC??? Why buy Office for mac, why anything. if virus, it is also for my sister who has Mcfee and has never experienced one to date.

There are so many Apple Apologist out there that it just looks bad on normal people who can actually think for themselves.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Because PCs with glossy screens have been selling well so Apple copied them to make Aqua look shiny. The BlacBook is a beauty. Not sure about the space between the keys. I'll buy one when I try it first.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Anti-Spam

Apple's STUPID 32meg of ram in past laptops just proved they know nothing about today's GPU gaming needs.

How many of the laptops on the shelf at CompUSA or BestBuy have decent video cards in them? Not very many. Why? Because a majority of laptop buying people don't care about playing 3D accelerated games.

[krillbee]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

and why the hell would a gamer buy a iBook?

Well, a gamer should be able to expect to find a notebook for under 2 grand that has a discrete graphics solution.

Previously the Ibook had this.

But not this time around I guess.



The Mac mini was one thing. I mean I understand it was $600, so maybe just maybe it could be excusable to equip it with a weak video card. But the ibook is $1100!

I can't think of many PC notebooks out there that have a base price of 1100, and come with such a crappy graphics solution.

Maybe Apple is trying to start some computer price inflation thing, in hopes that the industry will follow.

Originally Posted by wallinbl

How many of the laptops on the shelf at CompUSA or BestBuy have decent video cards in them? Not very many. Why? Because a majority of laptop buying people don't care about playing 3D accelerated games.

a 700 dollar notebook is one thing. heck, equip that with bottom line graphics, and people dont care. but $1100 is TOTALLY different. people who spend that much on a notebook should get a versatile notebook, that can play games too.
I havent seen many notebooks over $1000 with crappy graphic solutions. And if you buy one like that, you are a fool, because there are better alternatives out there for the same price.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by krillbee

a 700 dollar notebook is one thing. heck, equip that with bottom line graphics, and people dont care. but $1100 is TOTALLY different. people who spend that much on a notebook should get a versatile notebook, that can play games too.

I'd like it to have a better card as well, and it gives me hesitation in buying one. But, I also know that I won't actually play any games on it. I think the majority of the market is that way (realizing that the people that hang around on ArsTechnica, Slashdot, and MacNN are not the majority of the market).

FYI - look at the Dell Inspiron 1405 series - they seem to aim this at the 'Movies, TV, Music and Photos' audience, and it uses the same video card (and pretty much costs the same, if not a little more). Judging by Apple's advertising, I'd say the MacBook is aimed at the same group.

For me, I'll end up buying one because $2000 is too much to pay for a laptop, and 15" is too big. I've had big for a while now (15.4" HP), and I'll give up a few pixels to not have such a beast. But, I'd really prefer it have a better graphics card. Wouldn't be surprised to see it in the next revision, especially if I buy this revision!

[shabbasuraj]

I really think these machines would make a 13" PB obsolete...

(with regards to pricing)...

Apple has a very narrow margin to effectively/strategically price and equip a 13" PB...

To high, one would might take a pass and look at the 15"...

To low and they run into competing against these MacBook consumer-line machines...

Looks like a 13" PB is the new bastard-child of the line up if it ever materializes... (Kinda like how the 15" Al PB was once a bastard child of the Al PB line, i.e. 12" and 17" came out and were designed first..)

I am not saying that they should not build a 13" PB, but they better spec/price that thing accordingly, or it will seriously flop...



PS: Also... anyone else think that mac mini prices should be a little adjusted with the release of these new machines? (or at least they deserve a 'speed bump')

[rickey939]

I assume "Boot Camp" and Windows XP will function just fine on the new MacBook's, right?

[ajprice]

Originally Posted by rickey939

I assume "Boot Camp" and Windows XP will function just fine on the new MacBook's, right?

Yes indeedie!

[ambush]

can someone explain to me why they killed the PB12?

12 is perfect for my needs. and I need a pro machine with a graphics card.

that's what I hate with apple. they're not consistent with what they said. ppc was supposed to be better, integrated graphics was supposed to be ****, 12" was supposed to be real nice and essential to the pro laptop line.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by ambush

can someone explain to me why they killed the PB12?

12 is perfect for my needs. and I need a pro machine with a graphics card.

that's what I hate with apple. they're not consistent with what they said. ppc was supposed to be better, integrated graphics was supposed to be ****, 12" was supposed to be real nice and essential to the pro laptop line.

Well, to be fair to the new MacBook, the 12" PowerBook was most definitely not deserving of the "Pro" moniker IMO.

It had a worse GPU than the iBook, and the same mediocre screen. The CPU speed was only marginally better than the iBook. About the only good thing about the 12" PowerBook besides the slightly lighter weight was the fact that it offered DVI, a feature now available on the new MacBooks.

Integrated graphics is ****, but overall I'd take the MacBook over the 12" PowerBook any day. That said, I do hope the next iteration of the MacBook gets a better GPU.

[harrisjamieh]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

That said, I do hope the next iteration of the MacBook gets a better GPU.

I'm sure it will, however my guess is that it will get a better integrated graphics solution, that will eventually be introduced, not a dedicated card

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

I'm sure it will, however my guess is that it will get a better integrated graphics solution, that will eventually be introduced, not a dedicated card

Yeah, maybe something like Intel G965.

Not great, but an improvement over GMA 950.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

The bitching has got to stop about the integrated gfx. As it's been pointed out, this system is much faster than its predecessor, performs like a dual G5, costs less than a similarly configured dell, and it looks damn good to boot.

unless you actually want to play a game that was written in the last 3-4 years.

SWG, you want benchmarks?

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1821813,00.asp

It's 2-10x slower than one of the slowest video cards in the mainstream channel, the GeForce 6200TC.

As I said before, unless you're getting this for granny to browse the web and compose emails, it's a waste of money. There's no reason in the world for a $1100 notebook (much less one for $1500, such as the topend Mcbook) to have integrated video. It's crap.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

unless you actually want to play a game that was written in the last 3-4 years.

SWG, you want benchmarks?

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1821813,00.asp

It's 2-10x slower than one of the slowest video cards in the mainstream channel, the GeForce 6200TC.

As I said before, unless you're getting this for granny to browse the web and compose emails, it's a waste of money. There's no reason in the world for a $1100 notebook (much less one for $1500, such as the topend Mcbook) to have integrated video. It's crap.

That UT2004 bench is disappointing, although in truth it's not really clear what the numbers mean. The numbers are bad, but how bad I'm not sure because it might be a really hard test. I still have a copy of UT2004 for Windows lying around I was hoping to install with Boot Camp. I'll try it when I get my MacBook. It will be an interesting comparison, since my last frame of reference was a Celeron 1.4 GHz with Radeon 9100, also a slow system for UT2004, but definitely very playable on that system.

BTW, the X300 I was hoping for is one of the other lowest end discrete GPUs around, and competes with that 6200TC. It's cheap, and uses a portion of system memory if necessary, and accelerates H.264 decoding. I was hoping for that GPU in the MacBook (but wasn't expecting it).

[rickey939]

Originally Posted by ajprice

Yes indeedie!

Sounds nice, thanks for the link!