[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/

The GMA950 supports Windows Vista. As far as I can tell it supports everything that is needed for Aero support. When Apple has Q2DX ready for 10.5 the absolute worst thing that could happen to MacBook users would be that it is not enabled – which means nothing. The computer will continue to work exactly the same as before, ie. a whole lot better then the iBooks it replaces.

Your scare scenarios are completely unfounded.

Thank you. He just wants to impress us all with his "programming" skillz.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/

The GMA950 supports Windows Vista. As far as I can tell it supports everything that is needed for Aero support. When Apple has Q2DX ready for 10.5 the absolute worst thing that could happen to MacBook users would be that it is not enabled – which means nothing. The computer will continue to work exactly the same as before, ie. a whole lot better then the iBooks it replaces.

Your scare scenarios are completely unfounded.

So, a computer purchased just 9 months before will have a core feature disabled? That's just awesome!

[PacHead]

This thread has become way too geeky for me to even comment, what with all the wannabe programmers and 'experts' offering their .00000002 cents.

[Chuckit]

Wannabe programmers? Like, you doubt the people who claim to be programmers actually write code?

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Wannabe programmers? Like, you doubt the people who claim to be programmers actually write code?

No, but I don't place their opinions higher than anybody else's. They have their own agenda, and their needs are not my needs.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

So, a computer purchased just 9 months before will have a core feature disabled? That's just awesome!

How do you know that will happen? I said that is the worst thing that could happen. But I doubt it does. The GMA950 supports Windows Vista's Aero; that hints that it can probably support Q2DX as well or whatever may or may not be in 10.5.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Thank you. He just wants to impress us all with his "programming" skillz.

Do you read the thread or just post about whatever you want me to have said? I said the GMA950 will support Aero. That said, the 950 is far below the recommended requirements for Vista.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

"To answer the questions about the build in graphics of the new Macbook, here is the 'specs sheet' (courtesy Intel with Windows specs, for those using boot camp!):
Specifications
Intel? Graphics Media Accelerator 950 Graphics Core
256-bit graphics core running at 400MHz
Up to 10.6 GB/sec memory bandwidth with DDR2 667 system memory
1.6 GPixels/sec and 1.6 GTexels/sec fill rate
Up to 224 MB maximum video memory
2048x1536 at 75 Hz maximum resolution
Dynamic Display Modes for flat-panel, wide-screen and Digital TV support
Operating systems supported: Microsoft Windows* XP, Windows* XP 64bit, Media Center Edition 2004/2005, Windows 2000; Linux-compatible (Xfree86 source available)
High Performance 3D
Up to 4 pixels per clock rendering
Microsoft* DirectX* 9 Hardware Acceleration Features:
Pixel Shader 2.0
Volumetric Textures
Shadow Maps
Slope Scale Depth Bias
Two-Sided Stencil
Microsoft* DirectX* 9 Vertex Shader 3.0 and Transform and Lighting supported in software through highly optimized Processor Specific Geometry Pipeline (PSGP)
Texture Decompression for DirectX* and OpenGL*
OpenGL* 1.4 support plus ARB_vertex_buffer and EXT_shadow_funcs extensions and TexEnv shader caching
Advanced Display Capability
Up to 2048x1536 resolution for both analog and digital displays
Consumer Electronic display (Digital TV) support
Display hot plug support to automatically detect new display connection while system is operating (CRT and DVI)
Two Serial Digital Video Out (SDVO) ports for flat-panel monitors and/or TV-out support via Advanced Digital Display 2 (ADD2) cards or Media Expansion Cards
Intel Media Expansion Cards available providing TV-out and PVR capability
Multiple display types (LVDS, DVI-I, DVI-D, HDTV, TV-out, CRT)
Dual screen support through ADD2 digital video devices
HDTV 480i/p, 576i/p, 720i/p and 1080i/p display resolution support
Interlaced Display output support
16x9 and 16x10 Aspect Ratio for widescreen displays
2x2 Panel Scaler
Stunning Video Playback
High Definition Hardware Motion Compensation to support high definition hi-bitrate MPEG2 media playback
Up and Down Scaling of Video Content
High Definition Content Decode - up to two stream support
5x3 Overlay Filtering."

[Shaddim]

Death by Wall of Text™.

and with all that, it still can't get more than 15FPS in WoW at native res. Amazing.

[goMac]

"Microsoft* DirectX* 9 Vertex Shader 3.0 and Transform and Lighting supported in software through highly optimized Processor Specific"

Oh wow... look at all that power... Man that must be one powerful GPU...

Oh wait. That's software emulation.

[production_coordinator]

While I don't want to compare Apple to Dell, everyone complaining about the graphics card should go over there and review their offerings. Many of their ~$999+ laptops also have integrated graphics. The nice thing about Dell is that they offer an upgrade option to many of their systems.

I guess I don't game, so I really don't care all that much.

[greenamp]

This review by Ars Technica shows some pretty good benchmarks for the 2.0 Macbook.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

While I don't want to compare Apple to Dell, everyone complaining about the graphics card should go over there and review their offerings. Many of their ~$999+ laptops also have integrated graphics. The nice thing about Dell is that they offer an upgrade option to many of their systems.

I guess I don't game, so I really don't care all that much.

Exactly, not many name brand PC's have better.

[greenamp]

Also, not sure if it has been mentioned yet in this thread, but the flaking debacle on the BlackBook was kind of a farce. Some guy even used a key to try to replicate the issue and was unsuccessful, reporting that the black is in the molding of the plastic, not painted.
http://xlr8yourmac.com/ (scroll down)

[Salty]

It should also be pointed out that when Apple announced QE needing 32 megs they were shipping an iBook with a 16 meg graphics card. They later made that one work too.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Salty

It should also be pointed out that when Apple announced QE needing 32 megs they were shipping an iBook with a 16 meg graphics card. They later made that one work too.

Sure. They had to upgrade the graphics card on the iBook. The same thing happened with CoreImage. Unfortunately, the people who were stuck with a non-QE iBook were left with pretty not snappy systems. My girlfriend has one of those iBooks.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Salty

It should also be pointed out that when Apple announced QE needing 32 megs they were shipping an iBook with a 16 meg graphics card. They later made that one work too.

Originally Posted by goMac

Sure. They had to upgrade the graphics card on the iBook. The same thing happened with CoreImage. Unfortunately, the people who were stuck with a non-QE iBook were left with pretty not snappy systems. My girlfriend has one of those iBooks.

QE always worked fine on the 16 MB Radeon GPU, as long as you didn't have tons of windows open. It was only a problem with the 16 MB Rage systems.

However, QE did NOT slow things down. QE sped them up. ie. If you had a 16 MB Rage your computer didn't slow down. It just didn't speed up like it did for those who had the 16 MB Radeon.

Also, the CPU in that era iBook is MUCH more of an impediment than the GPU IMO. The G3 is sloooowwww.

Originally Posted by TETENAL

How do you know that will happen? I said that is the worst thing that could happen. But I doubt it does. The GMA950 supports Windows Vista's Aero; that hints that it can probably support Q2DX as well or whatever may or may not be in 10.5.

It can most definitely support Q2DX. The question is not whether it has the capability to support it. The question is how fast it is. If it's very slow, Apple may just choose to disable using the GPU for Q2DX on these machines, but that's not the end of the world.

The biggest problem I see now with GMA 950 is if it is truly locked to 64 MB. I would have preferred to see it be able to use 128 MB. This is the way it works on many Windows machines. I can spare the extra memory, since I'll have 2 GB in my MacBook.

BTW, I wonder if the GMA 950 MacBook can use 128 MB (or more) for the GPU on Windows.

[Kr0nos]

I don't get it. Why is everybody bitching and moaning over an 'entry-level', consumer oriented, laptop? 90% of the people I know would be totally stoked about having a well-designed MacBook that will run both Windows and OS X.

For those of us who need pro-level equipment there is always the MBP or the upcoming desktop workstations. And if you're a hard-core gamer, you can get an X-Box, PS or Wii (or whatever the fu<k it's called) console.

I've been looking at different laptops for the past 6 months as an Apple alternative and I've gotta say, these MacBooks are highly competetive.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

I don't get it. Why is everybody bitching and moaning over an 'entry-level', consumer oriented, laptop? 90% of the people I know would be totally stoked about having a well-designed MacBook that will run both Windows and OS X.

Cuz they are cheap, anal, bastards

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

I don't get it. Why is everybody bitching and moaning over an 'entry-level', consumer oriented, laptop? 90% of the people I know would be totally stoked about having a well-designed MacBook that will run both Windows and OS X.

For those of us who need pro-level equipment there is always the MBP or the upcoming desktop workstations. And if you're a hard-core gamer, you can get an X-Box, PS or Wii (or whatever the fu<k it's called) console.

I've been looking at different laptops for the past 6 months as an Apple alternative and I've gotta say, these MacBooks are highly competetive.

Well, to be fair, GMA 950 truly is crappy, and the previous cheaper iBook had a way better GPU in it, the Radeon 9550.

And while the iBook with 9550 was overall a poor performer, for many things such as light gaming (A CONSUMER FEATURE) the MacBook with GMA 950 is still a poor performer despite having a massively better CPU.

If the MacBook had gotten the Radeon 9550 that the iBook had (but with 64 MB), my guess is that just about nobody would be bitching. Realistically, it would not have gotten the Radeon 9550, since it's an AGP GPU, but something like the Radeon X300 would have been fine. It is inexpensive overall, and like GMA 950 it can use system memory to reduce costs.

GMA 950 is scraping the bottom of the barrel. It works for all that it needs to do, but it's pretty much the worst GPU that Apple could possibly use in the MacBook without inciting a complete Mac user revolt.

[dazzla]

The X300 may be cheap but not $4 cheap. Someone else posted on Macnn that bulk pricing for the chipset was $X for chipset alone and $X+4 for chipset + GMA950. That'll be why Apple chose it over an X300.

[adster]

The thing that gets me, is that these MacBooks should feel like they have leaped ahead of the previous generation of machines. In most depts. they do, but graphics is pretty important, and to see such a slight 'improvement', is discouraging.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

I don't get it. Why is everybody bitching and moaning over an 'entry-level', consumer oriented, laptop? 90% of the people I know would be totally stoked about having a well-designed MacBook that will run both Windows and OS X.

Because now you can't get a laptop with a decent GPU without spending $2000+ on a MacBook Pro with a huge screen. This used to be possible with the iBook, and now it isn't. See, it isn't that difficult to understand.

It's not just about gaming either - as has been pointed out numerous times now, it's about being locked out of future OS features.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by dazzla

The X300 may be cheap but not $4 cheap. Someone else posted on Macnn that bulk pricing for the chipset was $X for chipset alone and $X+4 for chipset + GMA950. That'll be why Apple chose it over an X300.

Of course.

Apple is using the GMA 950 because 1) It's cheap, 2) It takes up less space, and 3) For product differentiation.

That doesn't mean we have to like it.

And remember, the iBook was $100 cheaper than the MacBook. Sure, the screen costs more, and the CPU probably costs more too in the MacBook, but nonetheless they previously managed to sell a $999 machine with a markedly better GPU.

P.S. I would have happily paid $50 (or even $100) more to get a machine with the X300. That upgrade certainly would make a heluvalot more sense than paying $150 to get a different colour plastic.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Well, to be fair, GMA 950 truly is crappy, and the previous cheaper iBook had a way better GPU in it, the Radeon 9550.

Ya well the last iBook had a crappy everything else. These new MacBooks put them so close the MBP it isn't even funny.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

P.S. I would have happily paid $50 (or even $100) more to get a machine with the X300. That upgrade certainly would make a heluvalot more sense than paying $150 to get a different colour plastic.

Well, yeah. Considering that coloring the black model a different color doesn't cost them much at all, certainly not $150, they could definitely afford to put a $50 card in there.

Hell, for $150 you could probably fit the X1600 that the MacBook Pro has in there. Then you'd have something equivalent to the 12" PowerBook again...

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Ya well the last iBook had a crappy everything else. These new MacBooks put them so close the MBP it isn't even funny.

The iBooks weren't bad at all compared to the G4 PowerBooks. Apple had to artificially cripple features (monitor spanning) to differentiate them.

Sure, their GPU wasn't as good as the PowerBook G4's, but it was usable, not bottom of the barrel like the GMA 950.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

The iBooks weren't bad at all compared to the G4 PowerBooks. Apple had to artificially cripple features (monitor spanning) to differentiate them.

Sure, their GPU wasn't as good as the PowerBook G4's, but it was usable, not bottom of the barrel like the GMA 950.

I'm sorry but a week ago the iBooks has 12 inch non-widescreens and a slow 1.2GHz G4 chip. No nice treats like a camera or remote either.

Overnight they got astoundingly better for $100 more. If that means a so so graphics chip, so be it.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Ya well the last iBook had a crappy everything else. These new MacBooks put them so close the MBP it isn't even funny.

Yeah, which is all the more annoying. Many of us are willing to spend some extra coin to get a full featured 13". Some of us don't want bulky 15" or monstrous 17" laptops.

However, like I said, I'll deal with it. I can live with GMA 950, for what I need the MacBook to do.

Originally Posted by CharlesS

The iBooks weren't bad at all compared to the G4 PowerBooks. Apple had to artificially cripple features (monitor spanning) to differentiate them.

Sure, their GPU wasn't as good as the PowerBook G4's, but it was usable, not bottom of the barrel like the GMA 950.

Yeah, but the PowerBook G4 had a lousy CPU too.

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Hell, for $150 you could probably fit the X1600 that the MacBook Pro has in there. Then you'd have something equivalent to the 12" PowerBook again...

Well, The GeForce Go 5200 is not very impressive either. While I don't like GMA 950, I don't think GeForce Go 5200 would have made people happy either. It wouldn't have made me happy anyways.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

However, like I said, I'll deal with it. I can live with GMA 950, for what I need the MacBook to do.

So what is with all the complaining? You just looking out for everyone else? You NEVER ever ever play games on your Mac's or PC's.

Cuz to you it is a "crappy chip" you HATE it as well as the glossy screen yet you ordered it on the day it came out.

So if it as big a disaster as you guys are making it out to be don't you think it is a bit odd to still order one with your only excuse being you think a 15" MBP is too large?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

So what is with all the complaining? You just looking out for everyone else? You NEVER ever ever play games on your Mac's or PC's.

Actually, I was hoping to play UT 2004 on my laptop. (I have the Windows version, but I got rid of my PC last year.) I guess I won't.

Cuz to you it is a "crappy chip" you HATE it as well as the glossy screen yet you ordered it on the day it came out.

So if it as big a disaster as you guys are making it out to be don't you think it is a bit odd to still order one with your only excuse being you think a 15" MBP is too large?

I use iMovie on my laptop once in a while. iMovie HD '06 leverages Core Video to a certain extent, for real-time effects. Fortunately, I don't use the effects much, so pretty much most of what I do in iMovie would be CPU. That said, it's always nice to have more functionality than less, and having a bit better GPU can make a noticeable difference.

BTW, CharlesS, if I understand things correctly, a low end Radeon 9550 is roughly similar to an X300, which in turn is roughly similar to a somewhere around a GeForce 5600-6200.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

So what is with all the complaining? You just looking out for everyone else? You NEVER ever ever play games on your Mac's or PC's.

OS features

Cuz to you it is a "crappy chip" you HATE it as well as the glossy screen yet you ordered it on the day it came out.

No other choice

So if it as big a disaster as you guys are making it out to be don't you think it is a bit odd to still order one with your only excuse being you think a 15" MBP is too large?

And (way, way) too expensive

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

BTW, CharlesS, if I understand things correctly, a low end Radeon 9550 is roughly similar to an X300, which in turn is roughly similar to a somewhere around a GeForce 5600-6200.

And far better than the GMA 950

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

No other choice

Indeed. I like Macs and thus am stuck with this choice. However, as others mentioned, I know what I'm getting myself into.

P.S. SWG, you hate the glossy screen even more than I do.

And far better than the GMA 950

Yes, but my point was that they're all much better than the GeForce Go 5200 too. I wouldn't have been that much happier to get the 5200 over GMA 950.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

So what is with all the complaining? You just looking out for everyone else? You NEVER ever ever play games on your Mac's or PC's.

You don't get it. As a developer, I would love to to use Quartz 2D Extreme Extreme (or whatever they decide to call it) features in my software. When I write the software, I have to figure out (a) how many machines can run Quartz 2D Extreme Extreme (b) how many machines can run it well. If not enough machines would be able to run it well, I simply can't use that functionality in my software. This means it takes longer to program equivalent functionality.

Apple's laptop specifications affect all developers because it tells us what kind of functionality we can and can't implement for end users. Now I have to deal with building applications for a decent sized chunk of users running on a GMA950. Fortunately, my application is heavily CoreImage based, and CoreImage runs great on the GMA950. If 10.5 ups the graphical anti to match Vista, I probably wouldn't be able to write code to use those features fully, because I have to remember I'm deploying to laptops with GMA950. I'd have to wait for all those laptops to become "old enough" to start writing more advanced code.

I think SWG should spend some time writing software, trying to figure out which features to cut and keep based on what spec's your users have. If he had some real world experience he might understand. The problem isn't that the laptops aren't good enough for todays software. The problem is that us developers are going to have to continue to deploy for these laptops, tomorrow, and next year, and the year after, and three years from now...

[Eug Wanker]

Fortunately, my application is heavily CoreImage based

Well, that means you've already excluded most Mac users, no? (Unless Altivec-fallback is good enough for you, that is...)

What kind of app are you developing?

P.S. I'd be surprised if the next MacBook didn't Intel G965. Is that good enough?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Well, that means you've already excluded most Mac users, no? (Unless Altivec-fallback is good enough for you, that is...)

What kind of app are you developing?

P.S. I'd be surprised if the next MacBook didn't Intel G965. Is that good enough?

CoreImage has a software mode, and to help accelerate it I'm rendering my CoreImage stuff in OpenGL, which works on nearly every Mac.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

What kind of app are you developing?

http://whitemagiclabs.com/products/

All of his statements make so much more sense now - all of their software is eye candy (that's not meant to be derogatory).

[goMac]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

http://whitemagiclabs.com/products/

All of his statements make so much more sense now - all of their software is eye candy (that's not meant to be derogatory).

The downloads are down right now, but we still have our beta stuff listed on MacUpdate, etc. Catalyst had some nasty usage bugs, so I'm keeping it down of our main site until I get 0.8 finalized. Just to clarify.

[ambush]

Wow.... the GMA950.. subject of another fetish war on Macnn.

the gay wars guy has an irrational love for it (HD nude han solos images anyone?) and collin "the guys who really knows is thangs" thinks he's really right about his technical thangs. maybe he loves the OpenGL dicks too much to drop his 3d card



this is ridiculous.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by ambush

...and collin "the guys who really knows is thangs" thinks he's really right about his technical thangs. maybe he loves the OpenGL dicks too much to drop his 3d card

That you SWG?

[ambush]

That me, bij. Stop your bickering, it's ****ing annoying.

[krillbee]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Exactly, not many name brand PC's have better.

HP and Dell offer notebooks within a similar price range and offer some better graphics solutions.
But I will agree, many other brands are not very good about putting in nice graphics. With tower PCs its sometimes different, since they have a slot for expansion.
But with notebooks it isnt so easy to deal with a flaw like that.

The thing is though, I had always thought of Apple as a company that used quality parts, and tried to go above and beyond call of duty, and provide better than average components.

Plus their previous ibooks used discrete graphics, so why cant they now??

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Well, to be fair, GMA 950 truly is crappy, and the previous cheaper iBook had a way better GPU in it, the Radeon 9550...

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Because now you can't get a laptop with a decent GPU without spending $2000+ on a MacBook Pro with a huge screen...

I dunno, this just seems like a lot of 'penis comparing' without even having given the damn things a chance to 'perform' in the wilde.

Oh, and the iBooks always had crappy GPUs built in them (compared to similarily priced Windows based laptops). Maybe this graphics card is simply constructed to work well with the built in CPU…

I'm certainly not gonna knock 'em until I've done some 'testing' myself.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

I dunno, this just seems like a lot of 'penis comparing' without even having given the damn things a chance to 'perform' in the wilde.

The benches are already in... with the Core Duo Mac mini. The GMA 950 is confirmed to be lousy on Macs. The PC benches are also in. GMA 950 is confirmed to be lousy on Windows PCs too. However, some of that lousiness is tempered by the fact that:

1) It fully supports Core Image / Core Video (even though it's very slow at it).
2) The CPU is so much faster. The Core Duo 1.66-2.0 is often several times faster than 1.42 GHz G4, and this will help 3D performance too even if the GPU is lousy, depending on the app.
3) It can access 64 MB memory (or more under Windows), rather than just the 32 MB memory in the iBook. (Yeah, it's only system memory, but having the extra memory helps if the system bandwidth is reasonable - paired memory required.)

Anyways, the lousiness should come as no surprise:

"Microsoft* DirectX* 9 Vertex Shader 3.0 and Transform and Lighting supported in software through highly optimized Processor Specific Geometry Pipeline (PSGP)"

Intel's new G965 (which hasn't shown up yet in shipping computers), although still slow, is a major step forward, because it has hardware transform & lighting. Apparently it's supposed to be in shipping computers in Q3 2006. Thus, I expect a new MacBook will be released with G965 before the end of the year. However, I couldn't wait that long since I currently have no laptop at all.

Oh, and the iBooks always had crappy GPUs built in them

The last iBook had a Radeon 9550 in it. That GPU has full Core Image / Core Video support too, but it is much, much faster than Intel's GMA 950.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

QE always worked fine on the 16 MB Radeon GPU, as long as you didn't have tons of windows open. It was only a problem with the 16 MB Rage systems.

However, QE did NOT slow things down. QE sped them up. ie. If you had a 16 MB Rage your computer didn't slow down. It just didn't speed up like it did for those who had the 16 MB Radeon.
It can most definitely support Q2DX. The question is not whether it has the capability to support it. The question is how fast it is. If it's very slow, Apple may just choose to disable using the GPU for Q2DX on these machines, but that's not the end of the world.

The biggest problem I see now with GMA 950 is if it is truly locked to 64 MB. I would have preferred to see it be able to use 128 MB. This is the way it works on many Windows machines. I can spare the extra memory, since I'll have 2 GB in my MacBook.

BTW, I wonder if the GMA 950 MacBook can use 128 MB (or more) for the GPU on Windows.

Quartz Extreme was build to optimize issues with regards to window draw speed for dragging, resizing, and it did help things display quicker.

I don't think the Q2DX that is in Tiger is what we'll see as Apple's final solution (Leopard?). Q2DX is nice, but it still doesn't match Avalon's capabilities. It doesn't add any new functionality to Quartz that fixes any of the aforementioned problems. It's a re-arrangement of how Quartz displays things, but from an API perspective it's not an evolution. It doesn't really bring any new capabilities to programmers like Avalon does.

The issue is an Avalon system requires a decent amount of VRAM with a decent speed of VRAM. The Macbook has neither. Also, several key "functionalities" needed by an Avalon style system are emulated on the GMA950. This doesn't worry me as much as the VRAM, considering the Macbook's processors are pretty wicked fast. But if you really pushing an Avalon style system on a Macbook, you're going to bury the processor eventually. That's why have a not-integrated GPU is nice. Your GUI runs on a different processor than your general tasks, making your GUI more responsive.

[goMac]

I was talking to the manager of a local Apple Store last night. He said they've been having a hard time selling the Macbooks, and the reason is the GMA950 in the Macbooks. He said he's been sending feedback up the retail management chain that the Macbooks need to have a better GPU. I have no idea how much retail has on corporate, but the GMA950 is hurting sales, and those people aren't simply buying Macbook Pro's instead.

[TETENAL]

Please change your nick to "goWindows", or better yet, unsubscribe!

[goMac]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Please change your nick to "goWindows", or better yet, unsubscribe!

Maybe I need to up my kool aid dose?

I'm buying a Macbook Pro at the end of the year to replace my Powerbook. That doesn't mean I'm going to blindly accept any crap component Apple pushes in my direction.

[Chuckit]

Uh…Finder also isn't the same thing as Avalon. Do you reckon that will be scrapped?

Quartz 2D Extreme isn't an API at all — it's a way of speeding up an existing functions. They might add new API on top of that, but that doesn't mean they'll necessarily scrap Q2DE.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Uh…Finder also isn't the same thing as Avalon. Do you reckon that will be scrapped?

Quartz 2D Extreme isn't an API at all — it's a way of speeding up an existing functions. They might add new API on top of that, but that doesn't mean they'll necessarily scrap Q2DE.

Avalon isn't a gui. Avalon is a Quartz like technology. The difference is Avalon can handle video and animation and 3D. You have to watch the demo video I posted earlier to get an idea of what Avalon is.

Avalon isn't an application. It's not the Windows Vista Interface. It's the window manager and drawing routines.

Quartz 2D Extreme is an acceleration of the Quartz API. That's my point. It doesn't add anything new to the API. That's exactly why I think Apple will still add more to it, to match Avalon which is a strong drawing API.

I think there is a fundamental problem of Mac users not really understanding Vista technologies. They like to act like Avalon is the new Vista interface, and then talk about how lame the interface is. Avalon isn't the new Vista interface. I see a lot of other misconceptions about other Vista stuff. Now I'm being labeled a Windows fanboy for correcting people on what Vista really is.

I just got my Windows using friend to buy a Macbook Pro 2.16 last night. I'm must REALLY hate Apple. :rollseyes: